Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Pixel Fold

store.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 580 posts

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#401

Post by kybernetikos »

rtpg wrote: post #266
j45 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only charge up to 80% battery unless you need the full charge and the battery generally lasts much longer

Is there a place that has empirical data on this stuff? Like what battery factoids are still true with the latest devices or not? I would honestly love for phone manufacturers to outright build in some software to build in best practices if they actually exist. Don't let me charge to 100% at first or something!

I've seen the longevity graphs for lithium ion (don't know about other chemistries, but there's still a lot of lithium ion around). Ability to retain charge drops off faster if the battery is kept fully charged, especially in warm temperatures.

My electric car by default only charges to 80% unless you tell it you're planning a long drive in order to conserve battery life.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#402

Post by rjh29 »

jasmer wrote: post #181

I don't trust google to 'complete' the entire product experience. Samsung is among the worst, Apple is the best and they are not perfect. A 'foldable screen' implies a lot of changes in usability and behaviour, most of these companies don't bother with the detail and therefore less than desired experiences. At least up to Pixel 4 even the alarm clock, merging calls, a bunch of small things felt very off. Apps were no…

I'm just happy we have an alternative to Samsung in the folding space, because I cannot stand Samsung's OS or software.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#403

Post by expertentipp »

Ladies and gentlemen, phones with foldable screens are the new "3D TVs". Good news is within 5 years it will be over. To compensate enormous electronic waste we will pay more for air travel.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#404

Post by alanhaha »

princevegeta89 wrote: post #392
grumbel wrote: post #369

I'll never understand why "thin" is still a standout feature of a phone when they add a fat ugly camera bump on it anyway. Why not make a thicker phone and the camera flush with the casing?

Camera bump is hardly a problem actually. Even fatness wasn't much of a problem for me when I tried the Z Fold 4. The problem was the lack of protective cases. These foldable phones are quite heavy and one drop means a lot of damage - only a well-fitting strong case can save them from breaking into a mess. There were no suitable cases for the Z Fold 4 and other foldable phones (other than the one ugly Spigen case tha…

I use the official case for Z Fold 4 only because of the camera bump. The shape of the camera bump make it almost impossible to stay still on the table.

But I think Pixel Fold doesn't have the issue if I choose it. The shape can stay still on the table I think.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#405

Post by shp0ngle »

theodric wrote: post #348
shp0ngle wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to read comics and I’m too lazy to bring tablet with me. I am thinking about buying foldable. That said, not at this price point and with Pixels not known for their hardware quality. Maybe I’ll wait for when Apple inevitably does their foldable.

The inevitable Apple foldable will come with the inevitable Apple price. I'd say $2000.

Good point.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#406

Post by expertentipp »

IanCal wrote: post #389
maytc wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, I found the flush makes the phone much easier to pick up from a flat surface like a table.

Also I think stops the camera scratching as much. Flush means the whole thing lies flat on the table, a lump means an edge of it is on the table but the bit on the lens isn't. Recessed would fix that but adds even more size.

> camera scratching

Camera glass in Samsung and Chinese phones simply crack from laying them repeatedly on a flat surface. With iPhones one at least has to be unlucky and hit the camera with some rock.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#407

Post by bjackman »

Hot take: Samsung is the only firm that can produce these displays. They know most smartphone manufacturers just copy what they bring out. They know that folding displays are a pointless fad that offer consumers nothing. But it doesn't matter: if they bring out a foldable smartphone, all the other firms will do the same and throw Samsung a huge display production contract.

Samsung wins either way.

(To be clear I'm joking here, no idea if Samsung are even the ones making the displays)

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#408

Post by tasuki »

pavlov wrote: post #356

These foldables are a great demonstration of why the screen diagonal is an unintuitive metric. This device has a 5.8” screen when folded, and a 7.6” screen when open. Looking at those numbers, it doesn’t sound like a very big difference. Yet anyone can see that the 7.6” screen is twice as big as the 5.8” one! The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). It shouldn’t…

Agreed, phone screen size should be specified in square centimeters!

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#409

Post by emptysongglass »

screye wrote: post #146
manningthegoose wrote: post #9

I just don't understand who wants these foldable phones, especially at the $1799 price point. I guess a use case is wealthy frequent travelers who don't want a separate device with a larger screen to watch movies/videos on the go? Someone help me out here.

I've a Galaxy Fold 3 and now 4 for about 2 years now. It is my biggest cellphone QOL improvement since the Pixel mainstreamed AI photography in the first pixel. Best extra $400 spent per year or so.

Can you go into detail on what specific improvements drive this value for you?

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#410

Post by Dylan16807 »

epolanski wrote: post #141
anonporridge wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be dumb not to take 0% financing. Put the money you would have spent buying outright in a savings account yielding 4%.

Some people are debt adverse. I would not even be bothered to go through the financing hassle for the few tens of $ of interest that would yield.

If you have the money upfront and invest it in something safe, then it's not "debt" in any way that matters.

As far as effort, if it's a high-yield savings account you should be getting one of those anyway, and then the phone-specific effort is a single transfer or doing nothing at all. And the financing itself is probably negligible.

Post reply on HN