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

Pixel 10 Phones

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 982 posts

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#581

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #184
mg wrote: post #94

The people at Google seem to think much more like me than the people at Apple. There are 3 primary decisions Google made that click with me, while Apple's choices are a mystery to me: 1: When I put a Pixel on a table, it sits there stable. Because the backside is symmetrical. When I put an iPhone on a table, it wobbles. 2: When I sort my photos on a Pixel, I sort them in folders. The "camera" folder is where the unso…

> This makes web apps first class productivity applications I can use to work on my local files. Impossible on iPhones. The thing is that web apps are always a worse experience if you have native apps. Linux and Android (and now also Windows) depend on web apps because they don't have good quality native apps. For Apple devices you can always find a top quality native app to use, so web apps aren't any concern. The o…

> Linux and Android (and now also Windows) depend on web apps because they don't have good quality native apps.

I fail to see any iOS without an equivalent native application on Android when the Android application is not actually significantly better.

iOS really is a minority os here and it shows.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#582

Post by JamesSwift »

pier25 wrote: post #494
jpalawaga wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The keyboard is completely nonsensical. I really don't understand how iPhone keyboard is so bad. Even if you install the Google Keyboard, iPhone keyboard is still bad. I can't fathom what is going on here, but I really dislike typing on an iPhone. It drives me bananas. Completely obvious suggestions are never made. Android--you can just faceroll on the keyboard a bit and it'll have everything perfect. I thought I was…

On Android I rarely had typos (and never used autocorrect) but on iOS I make constant mistakes. And I mean constant. It's rare when I type a word without a typo.

I had the exact same experience when switching to iphone. Hasnt gotten better after... 4 years now? It actually seems to be getting worse, if anything.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#583

Post by azza2110 »

1oooqooq wrote: post #508
vader1 wrote: post #271

The lack of a physical SIM tray is just one more way to lock users in Google's walled garden. eSIM support is not implemented in Android itself (AOSP), but part of the proprietary GMS package. This means Google-free Android forks like LineageOS will be unusable on the Pixel 10 series :-(

better than what they did with pixel[6-9] where they shipped a dual injection crap to save 0.00001c on production and if you traveled 5x and swapped local SIMs, the tray just crumbled and you had to buy another for $20 on ebay because they don't stock it or replace under warranty.

Similar experience with my Pixel 5 but different outcome. My SIM tray crumbled and they sent me a new phone under warranty.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#584

Post by selcuka »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #577
observationist wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple imposes "Artificial Incompetence" on their users. It treats them like children, gives them no agency, and limits their freedom, all while praising them for their taste and superior sense of... something. This current iteration of Apple lacks the geniuses and visionaries that might have possibly justified their behavior at some point in the past, so you have a soulless corporate churn reinforcing the biggest wal…

If you cannot understand what made Apple successful then or today what makes you think you're not failing to grasp something? You head right on to making an argument when nakedly revealing that you can't comprehend the other side. Not surprising, this site is made for the Woz's of the world (and that's fine!).

> Not surprising, this site is made for the Woz's of the world (and that's fine!).

I'm pretty sure Woz perfectly understands why iPhone has a larger market share.

I use a Pixel too, but I can see that an iPhone is more appealing to 80%+ of world's population.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#585

Post by dtf »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #172
dtf wrote: post #87

I wonder if these new devices will finally have support for the elusive APV codec. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Professional_Video

The link you posted says Android 16 support. Why wouldn't Pixel run it?

This codec needs hardware support to be practical (ie recording live video rather than just transcoding). So far, I think that's only available on certain Samsung models.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#586

Post by toast0 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #509
avidiax wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller phones tend to have a lower price point. If they don't offer a smaller phone, you'll eventually buy a bigger phone. Once you are in camp big phone, you'll probably be back on the 2-5 year device treadmill. And you'll be spending more on the big phones. Apple is in a continuous state of not giving their customers what they want. A convertible Macbook with a touch screen and dual MacOS/IOS personalities would s…

> A high quality TV with Apple TV built in at a premium but reasonable price would sell like hotcakes. It would compete with Apple Cinema displays, however. With HDMI CEC controls, there is no benefit to anyone by combining Apple TV with a display. Plus almost all displays support Airplay these days. > A basic "good enough" 5 inch phone for $499 would also sell fast. This was the iPhone SE sold for many years until F…

> With HDMI CEC controls, there is no benefit to anyone by combining Apple TV with a display. Plus almost all displays support Airplay these days.

If you were a person that likes Apple TV, I imagine it would be nice to have a TV that was just that rather than a TV with whatever smartness the maker insisted on, plus a standalone Apple TV. (Even nicer would be a TV without smarts, but those seem to be extinct)

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#587

Post by thewebguyd »

ajross wrote: post #568
v5v3 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. As an example I think Androids have a single device ID which is given to all apps. But iOS has a per app device ID.

There is no device ID, only ones tied to a user login on a phone, and the app must request a permission to get it. You can, for example, know that the user ID (which you obviously also need to have a permission to retrieve), is being used on the same device as was used to access your service in the past. Or you can know that this particular otherwise-anonymous user/device combination is being used again. I'm pretty s…

Not familiar with how Android does it anymore, but sounds fairly similar to iOS.

The main difference is it's opt in on iOS, but opt out on Android I believe.

On iOS, when the app pops up and asks to track, if the user says no, the app can't access the system advertising ID at all, and also is not permitted to track activity via other means like email address, user ID, etc (but the only thing that's technologically enforced is the system advertising ID, it's only forbidden by policy to not use other tracking methods).

Given the huge fit Meta threw after Apple implemented this, while they were silent about Android, I'm inclined to believe Apple's method has more of a privacy impact.

Also worth noting Google is hoping to move away from device-level advertising IDs with their "privacy sandbox" thing.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#588

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

therein wrote: post #546
brookst wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optics say you’re not getting thinner cameras. Otherwise they’d do that, and all those foot-long lenses you see at sports events would just be phones. Given thickness constraints at the lens,‘I don’t see any reason to make the rest of the phone that thick. Why? Extra battery and nearly double the weight of the phone? Empty space? Cord storage?

Sell a version of the phone that's 3 generations behind on camera tech, make it a little cheaper or make it the same price. I promise you I would buy it over your flagship if it means no camera tumor. I am okay capturing daily moments I use my phone camera for at a lower fidelity than the bleeding edge optics and sensors offer. I have mirrorless cameras and DSLRs for photos I care to take at a good quality anyway. No…

> Sell a version of the phone that's 3 generations behind on camera tech, make it a little cheaper or make it the same price. I promise you I would buy it over your flagship if it means no camera tumor.

Two things:

1. Your desire is in a minority that would not be profitable to cater to.

2. Even if they tried, half the people sharing your opinion still wouldn't buy it. So many people claim they want something, but then don't buy it even when it's offered. I remember in 2011 being sad that physical slide-out QWERTY keyboards were disappearing and seeing some poll that showed that like 60% of smartphone users wish they had a physical keyboard, yet nobody was buying the Motorola Droid series which had them, opting instead for the sleek-looking iPhone. People complained about phones losing the headphone jack or getting a notch or hole punch in the screen for the front-facing camera, and yet they bought the phones anyways.

Re: Pixel 10 Phones

#590

Post by hatthew »

cameronh90 wrote: post #483
ge96 wrote: post #145

That fake zoom with AI is gross ugh If I'm taking a picture of something I want it to be real light-to-pixel action not some made up wambo-jambo

Digital has never been light-to-pixel. At a minimum, you have demosaicing, dark frame subtraction, and some form of tone mapping just to produce anything you'd recognise as an photo. Then to produce a half-way acceptable image will involve denoising, sharpening, dewarping, chromatic aberration correction - and that just gets us up to what was normal at the turn of the millennium. Nowadays without automatic bracketing…

By my understanding, demosaicing almost always just "blurs" the photo slightly, reducing high-frequency information. Tone mapping is unavoidable, invisible to most people, and usually doesn't change the semantic information within an image (the famous counterexample is of course The Dress). Phone cameras in recent years do additional processing to saturate, sharpen, HDR, etc., and I find those distasteful and will happily argue against them. But AI upscaling/enhancement is a step further, and to me feels like a very big step further. It's the first time that an automatic processing step has a very high risk of introducing new (and often incorrect) semantic information that is not available in the original image, the classic example being the samsung moon.
Post reply on HN