TR Forums

derFunkenstein wrote:

That includes around 45-50 minutes of Pokemon Go and music in the background (don't judge me; it gets me out of the house and some exercise daily )

There are dozens of us.

check out the nokia 6.1 or nokia 8
i'm very happy with my 6.1 coming from the lumia line

just brew it! wrote:

I have a long commute (over an hour each way) on public transit. If I surf on the phone the whole way, it is typically down to around half by the time I get to the office. Unless I charge it at work, it is marginal whether it will make it through the day. I just leave it in a wireless charging cradle whenever I'm at my desk, and that takes care of it
...

The only real beef I have with the G4 (other than the battery life) is the Bluetooth glitches (stuttering). And I'm not sure if that's a performance issue, or just something stupid in their Bluetooth hardware/firmware implementation.

Yeah, umm, an hour of web browsing should not deplete half of your battery in 2018. But partially due to the old(er) battery and old chipset you're really at a disadvantage. I get 4-6 hours screen on time with my Pixel 2 XL depending on the task(s) performed before I'm worrying about the phone dying. I don't really play games though, so that helps.

Bluetooth just kinda sucks on Android. It's gotten a little bit better, and should continue to when BT5 is more widespread, but those glitches and drops are just part of the deal, especially with older stuff. It's not near as bad anymore, but it's not great.

I think you'll be surprised at the battery life of a new phone once you decide to get one.

meerkt wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

but it basically always lasts me all day.

Why aspire only to "all day"?

And with non-removable batteries there's also battery charge cycles to worry about.

I personally don't keep phones long enough that it matters too much, but I understand this line of thinking. Even when I had a flip phone that would probably last a week on a charge, I still charged it every night. Never know when you're going to need it, was what I thought.

I was going to recommend maybe looking at the G6 Play with a 4000 mAh battery (which should push on towards 2 days), but Motorola put a Snapdragon 400-series with just a quad A53 in it. That's probably "fast enough" but it would feel noticeably slower than the G4 he has.

just brew it! wrote:

I have a long commute (over an hour each way) on public transit. If I surf on the phone the whole way, it is typically down to around half by the time I get to the office. Unless I charge it at work, it is marginal whether it will make it through the day. I just leave it in a wireless charging cradle whenever I'm at my desk, and that takes care of it

Oh, yeah, that 40% extra is probably not going to cut it. You might be down to 65% but you'd probably still need to charge it to use it comfortably on the way home. Sooo...nevermind I guess.

derFunkenstein wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

I have a long commute (over an hour each way) on public transit. If I surf on the phone the whole way, it is typically down to around half by the time I get to the office. Unless I charge it at work, it is marginal whether it will make it through the day. I just leave it in a wireless charging cradle whenever I'm at my desk, and that takes care of it

Oh, yeah, that 40% extra is probably not going to cut it. You might be down to 65% but you'd probably still need to charge it to use it comfortably on the way home. Sooo...nevermind I guess.

THIS is a job for...
https://www.target.com/p/anker-powercor ... lsrc=aw.ds

DancinJack wrote:

Yeah, umm, an hour of web browsing should not deplete half of your battery in 2018. But partially due to the old(er) battery and old chipset you're really at a disadvantage.

The large, power-hungry screen on the G4, and the fact that I like to sit on the upper level of the commuter car (where every seat is a window seat) doesn't help either. That big screen is running near 100% brightness most of the time.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I personally don't keep phones long enough that it matters too much, but I understand this line of thinking. Even when I had a flip phone that would probably last a week on a charge, I still charged it every night. Never know when you're going to need it, was what I thought.

I don't think that's going to be much (if at all) worse for the battery, as it's not just the number of charge/discharge cycles but the depth of the cycles as well. IOW, discharging it down to 20% and charging it 1 time is probably just as bad (if not worse) for the battery as cycling it down to 80% and back 4 times.

FWIW I had my old flip phone for something like 6 years, and it was still on its original battery.

derFunkenstein wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

I have a long commute (over an hour each way) on public transit. If I surf on the phone the whole way, it is typically down to around half by the time I get to the office. Unless I charge it at work, it is marginal whether it will make it through the day. I just leave it in a wireless charging cradle whenever I'm at my desk, and that takes care of it

Oh, yeah, that 40% extra is probably not going to cut it. You might be down to 65% but you'd probably still need to charge it to use it comfortably on the way home. Sooo...nevermind I guess.

With the wireless charging stand it's not that big of a big deal. If I had to constantly plug and unplug it every time I stepped away from my desk I'd start to worry about wearing out the charging jack, but the only time I use wired charging is in the car when I'm using the GPS (navigation really seems to suck down a lot of juice), or on those rare occasions where I need to use a portable power bank.

ludi wrote:

THIS is a job for...
https://www.target.com/p/anker-powercor ... lsrc=aw.ds

I have one similar to that (same brand, but smaller with about half the capacity). I prefer not to carry it around unless I think I might need it though. Probably gets used only a couple of times per month.

This is probably the single best deal in phones right now. $350 for a brand, spankin' new 128GB OG Pixel.

https://electronics.woot.com/offers/goo ... _294203750

I don't consider my Pixel 2 to be worth the premium unless you really, really want the camera. It's small, compromised (large bezels, no 3.5mm, no SD Card, fragile, etc.), and doesn't feel like a camera with premium design. Sure it's nice to have three years of software support, but buying two comparable $250-300 phones will give you longer coverage with cash left over in your pocket.

Kretschmer wrote:

I don't consider my Pixel 2 to be worth the premium unless you really, really want the camera. It's small, compromised (large bezels, no 3.5mm, no SD Card, fragile, etc.), and doesn't feel like a camera with premium design. Sure it's nice to have three years of software support, but buying two comparable $250-300 phones will give you longer coverage with cash left over in your pocket.

I'll preface this by saying I also think the Pixel phones are too expensive, sure, but there simply is no other phone that gets you the same combination of stuff a Pixel does. Legit software updates for a minimum of two years, stock Android, class-leading camera, top of the line (at least as far as SoC goes) specs, Google (first party) support, generally good build quality (if not the most attractive devices out there), and IMO that stuff is worth it to me if you're buying an Android phone. I'd much, much rather spend 700-900 bucks on a Pixel than two 250-300 dollar phones from whomever.

Anyway, I hope someone sees my link above. 350 bucks for a brand new OG Pixel is a really good deal.

Kretschmer wrote:

I don't consider my Pixel 2 to be worth the premium unless you really, really want the camera. It's small, compromised (large bezels, no 3.5mm, no SD Card, fragile, etc.), and doesn't feel like a camera with premium design. Sure it's nice to have three years of software support, but buying two comparable $250-300 phones will give you longer coverage with cash left over in your pocket.

Given that Android is increasingly attractive to malware and garbageware developers, I would be hesitant to buy any Android phone other than a Pixel. The 2-3 years of OS and security updates are worth at least the cost of the 2-3 cheaper, abandonware phones you'll otherwise buy in the same timeframe. Or you can go with a Samsung flagship and get a decent level of support, but much of the Samsung reskin borders on garbageware. Beyond that you're pretty much buying throwaways, especially if the hardware was made by LG.

And unless you don't use your camera, that's a pretty compelling feature. Besides taking good pictures in general, my Gen1 Pixel has low light performance that exceeds the iPhone6 and subsequent 6S that my wife has owned (although both are pretty close to the Pixel).

ludi wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

I don't consider my Pixel 2 to be worth the premium unless you really, really want the camera. It's small, compromised (large bezels, no 3.5mm, no SD Card, fragile, etc.), and doesn't feel like a camera with premium design. Sure it's nice to have three years of software support, but buying two comparable $250-300 phones will give you longer coverage with cash left over in your pocket.

Given that Android is increasingly attractive to malware and garbageware developers, I would be hesitant to buy any Android phone other than a Pixel. The 2-3 years of OS and security updates are worth at least the cost of the 2-3 cheaper, abandonware phones you'll otherwise buy in the same timeframe. Or you can go with a Samsung flagship and get a decent level of support, but much of the Samsung reskin borders on garbageware. Beyond that you're pretty much buying throwaways, especially if the hardware was made by LG.

And unless you don't use your camera, that's a pretty compelling feature. Besides taking good pictures in general, my Gen1 Pixel has low light performance that exceeds the iPhone6 and subsequent 6S that my wife has owned (although both are pretty close to the Pixel).

Is Nokia Abandonware? Lower-end Samsungs? At this stage of the game it's sort of silly to act as though any phone below $600 is trash. This is not 2009.

2-3 years of support sound impressive, until you realize that you could buy 2+ phones from a non-Google provider (at parity for most tasks) for 3-5 years of support. EDIT: Nokia promises 2 years of support for its stock Android phones. This is what Google offers, except when they offer an extra year for screwing up really badly like with the Pixel 2 XL launch.

I agree that cameras are important (low-light performance was what pushed me into getting a S8 and then Pixel 2 in the first place), but you can pick up a pocketable Canon G9XII ($400) and a Nokia 6.1 ($270) for cheaper than a flagship phone giving you a much, much bigger sensor and other camera features. I wish I had gone the "cheap phone + good camera" route instead of my Pixel 2, as the Pixel 2 isn't really good enough for the travel shots I want to take, anyways. I also bought a Sony RX1003 and the sensor performance isn't in the same ballpark.

Honestly, if I could have done it again I would have gutted it out with my old Motorola and upgraded to the Nokia 6.1 and a pocketable point-and-shoot camera with a 1" sensor. Given the 6.1's 3.5mm jack and sturdy design philosophy, it really seems like a better phone for my needs. While the Pixel 2 is a better overall experience than the Galaxy S8 (Samsung is BAD at software), but it has never felt like a flagship in my hands.

DancinJack wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

I don't consider my Pixel 2 to be worth the premium unless you really, really want the camera. It's small, compromised (large bezels, no 3.5mm, no SD Card, fragile, etc.), and doesn't feel like a camera with premium design. Sure it's nice to have three years of software support, but buying two comparable $250-300 phones will give you longer coverage with cash left over in your pocket.

I'll preface this by saying I also think the Pixel phones are too expensive, sure, but there simply is no other phone that gets you the same combination of stuff a Pixel does. Legit software updates for a minimum of two years, stock Android, class-leading camera, top of the line (at least as far as SoC goes) specs, Google (first party) support, generally good build quality (if not the most attractive devices out there), and IMO that stuff is worth it to me if you're buying an Android phone. I'd much, much rather spend 700-900 bucks on a Pixel than two 250-300 dollar phones from whomever.

Anyway, I hope someone sees my link above. 350 bucks for a brand new OG Pixel is a really good deal.

I don't shrink from paying $700 for a flagship, but the Pixel 2 is mediocre design with a good camera and Google support. If it was sold by LG or Motorola you wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole at this price. Is it $400 better than a Nokia 6.1?

Well, the camera and software support are worth it for me. I had wanted a Pixel 2 XL but the early reviews put me off the display and seeing people complain of permanent burn-in later on confirmed it. LG's POLED mobile displays are apparently trash.

I wish some of those other compromises weren't there. It'd be nice if the display had been bumped up to 5.2" or 5.3" so that the bezels were smaller, and it'd be great if it had an SD slot, but for my uses those aren't deal breakers. A garbage camera, OTOH, is. The best camera is the one you have with you, and as far as cell phone cameras go, the Pixel 2's is nice.

As for my mother in law, who is on my Verizon plan, I just picked up a Moto G6 on Amazon for $235. Her OG Droid Turbo is on its last legs, and it never got updated beyond Marshmallow anyway. This should be quite an improvement for her needs.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Well, the camera and software support are worth it for me. I had wanted a Pixel 2 XL but the early reviews put me off the display and seeing people complain of permanent burn-in later on confirmed it. LG's POLED mobile displays are apparently trash.

I wish some of those other compromises weren't there. It'd be nice if the display had been bumped up to 5.2" or 5.3" so that the bezels were smaller, and it'd be great if it had an SD slot, but for my uses those aren't deal breakers. A garbage camera, OTOH, is. The best camera is the one you have with you, and as far as cell phone cameras go, the Pixel 2's is nice.

As for my mother in law, who is on my Verizon plan, I just picked up a Moto G6 on Amazon for $235. Her OG Droid Turbo is on its last legs, and it never got updated beyond Marshmallow anyway. This should be quite an improvement for her needs.

This is a completely reasonable post. I guess I'm bitter about how mundane the Pixel 2 experience is coming from a OnePlusOne and a Moto G4+ The camera is great, but everything else feels like a sidegrade (performance for my limited use cases) or downgrade (fragile build quality, smaller screen, no 3.5mm jack).

If you have a pocket to spare, something like a Canon G9X MkII would be a nice camera upgrade for your trips. https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot- ... B01N9MCH0E

Pville_Piper wrote:

My biggest hang up about Android is that security is an absolute mess.

You need to get a device with stock Android or a vendor with a reputation for consistent, reliable updates.

In addition to Google's Pixel line, Nokia ships stock Android phones. They have promised 2 years of OS updates and 3 years of security updates, which matches Google's support.

OnePlus has also jumped on the 2-year update / 3-year patching bandwagon. They don't ship stock Android, but the few changes they've made are generally subtle improvements.

I picked up the OnePlus 6 shortly after release, and it's a great phone. I bought my fiancee a Nokia when her old phone died, and it's a solid device.

And last, since you mentioned the GPS fiasco, just use the native Google Maps app or Waze. Both of them will reroute you around traffic if possible, but they still respect the no-toll option.

Kretschmer wrote:

This is a completely reasonable post. I guess I'm bitter about how mundane the Pixel 2 experience is coming from a OnePlusOne and a Moto G4+ The camera is great, but everything else feels like a sidegrade (performance for my limited use cases) or downgrade (fragile build quality, smaller screen, no 3.5mm jack).

If you have a pocket to spare, something like a Canon G9X MkII would be a nice camera upgrade for your trips. https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot- ... B01N9MCH0E

Well, when I want to carry something extra with me, I have a Nikon D3300, a couple batteries, its kit lens, and a 55-200mm lens in a small shoulder bag. That bag goes everywhere with me when I'm on a trip. But when I'm out and about and I want to grab a picture, I only ever have my phone. Since I don't use my back pants pockets (sitting on your wallet is for suckers) I rarely have a spare pocket.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

This is a completely reasonable post. I guess I'm bitter about how mundane the Pixel 2 experience is coming from a OnePlusOne and a Moto G4+ The camera is great, but everything else feels like a sidegrade (performance for my limited use cases) or downgrade (fragile build quality, smaller screen, no 3.5mm jack).

If you have a pocket to spare, something like a Canon G9X MkII would be a nice camera upgrade for your trips. https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot- ... B01N9MCH0E

Well, when I want to carry something extra with me, I have a Nikon D3300, a couple batteries, its kit lens, and a 55-200mm lens in a small shoulder bag. That bag goes everywhere with me when I'm on a trip. But when I'm out and about and I want to grab a picture, I only ever have my phone. Since I don't use my back pants pockets (sitting on your wallet is for suckers) I rarely have a spare pocket.

I'm embracing the "bachelor dad" look with a hip-holster for my RX100M3, or I sit on my keys and cram wallet and phone in the same pocket. The price drop on the D5600 has me tempted to nab one of those for my first ILC, but mirrorless/EVF is where I'll probably end up.

I'm confused how Funks post was "completely reasonable" while mine was derided. I guess thems the breaks!

DancinJack wrote:

I'm confused how Funks post was "completely reasonable" while mine was derided. I guess thems the breaks!

Cos I'm cool. And you're right $350 for a 1st gen Pixel is a great deal, even if it only ever gets 1 more year of updates from Google. LineageOS will keep it current for a long time.

derFunkenstein wrote:

DancinJack wrote:

I'm confused how Funks post was "completely reasonable" while mine was derided. I guess thems the breaks!

Cos I'm cool. And you're right $350 for a 1st gen Pixel is a great deal, even if it only ever gets 1 more year of updates from Google. LineageOS will keep it current for a long time.

This is the only explanation. Not cool enough.

Kretschmer wrote:

Is Nokia Abandonware? Lower-end Samsungs?

*shrug* I still stand by my previous posts. Nokia's new Android focus looks promising but their first flagship under the reorganized company has been out a bit less than a year. The OP already rejected Apple, has experience with the Samsung interface and didn't like it, expressed interest in a good camera, and has concerns about security. That doesn't leave a lot of options, and your main lines of criticism seem to be targeted at contributors who actually read, and are responding to, the OP's interests and requirements. Bizarre.

Someone else mentioned OnePlus but their niche design and marketing approach makes it impractical for them to support the largest wireless provider in North America, so they don't.

/me shakes his head at the Android fragmentation still in existence; Worrying about length of security upgrades is so 2010's.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

/me shakes his head at the Android fragmentation still in existence; Worrying about length of security upgrades is so 2010's.

You're not wrong, but iOS and Android, more precisely their underpinnings, construction, and purpose, could not be more different. When one company controls all the hardware and all the OS code, of course updates are going to be simpler. Of course! It's just not why Android exists and what its meant to do. It's a ridiculous situation that OEMs can't update phones on a regular basis, but shaking your head at it at this point seems a little odd. We all know what is going on.

DancinJack wrote:

You're not wrong, but iOS and Android, more precisely their underpinnings, construction, and purpose, could not be more different. When one company controls all the hardware and all the OS code, of course updates are going to be simpler. Of course! It's just not why Android exists and what its meant to do. It's a ridiculous situation that OEMs can't update phones on a regular basis, but shaking your head at it at this point seems a little odd. We all know what is going on.

To me it is similar to the windows conundrum. Microsoft can handle security updates for a large number of different devices over a fairly long period, even over multiple service pack levels and OS versions. Why can't Android do something similar? For things like the pixel, there is no "OEM" that has to update anything, it is the OS itself. Why is it still broken if that has been the largest issue for at least the last 6 years?

I'm just saying, Joe the consumer shouldn't have to think about such things.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

To me it is similar to the windows conundrum. Microsoft can handle security updates for a large number of different devices over a fairly long period, even over multiple service pack levels and OS versions. Why can't Android do something similar? For things like the pixel, there is no "OEM" that has to update anything, it is the OS itself. Why is it still broken if that has been the largest issue for at least the last 6 years?

I'm just saying, Joe the consumer shouldn't have to think about such things.

You're right, they shouldn't have to worry about it. Android One devices are similar to the Microsoft analogy, but most of Android is weirder than that. Google only distributes source, which is then customized by the device makers and tailored for the specific device. So every device model has a different build of the OS. Imagine if that was the case for Windows.

derFunkenstein wrote:

You're right, they shouldn't have to worry about it. Android One devices are similar to the Microsoft analogy, but most of Android is weirder than that. Google only distributes source, which is then customized by the device makers and tailored for the specific device. So every device model has a different build of the OS. Imagine if that was the case for Windows.

IOW Google's control over Android isn't like Microsoft's control over Windows because Google wants to operate on the Linux model, not the Windows model. And that's why it matters which company is supplying your Android phone, not which company is supplying the Android base code.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

... For things like the pixel, there is no "OEM" that has to update anything, it is the OS itself.
...
I'm just saying, Joe the consumer shouldn't have to think about such things.

That's not true. The OEM for Pixel builds is just Google. That doesn't mean AOSP = Pixel builds. They're quite different (I have downloaded the source for both in the past as I have compiled AOSP and owned Pixel devices). I very, very much agree with your second point in there though. It shouldn't be this bad, but Google wants to let people build what they think works best and adds value. I wish the model were closer to Apple's, though not entirely because some of the lack of customization on iOS is annoying, but that's just not how it works in Android world.

ludi wrote:

IOW Google's control over Android isn't like Microsoft's control over Windows because Google wants to operate on the Linux model, not the Windows model. And that's why it matters which company is supplying your Android phone, not which company is supplying the Android base code.

This.

Thanks for the clarification. I was missing that extra layer. So in the case of the Pixel, Google is providing both layers, but for the S9, Google is providing the lowest layer and Samsung provides the next layer?

I guess the follow-up question is can security updates be made to the lowest layer independent of the higher layer? Sounds like not.

I don't think so, because each OEM has to release their own security patches.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. I was missing that extra layer. So in the case of the Pixel, Google is providing both layers, but for the S9, Google is providing the lowest layer and Samsung provides the next layer?

I guess the follow-up question is can security updates be made to the lowest layer independent of the higher layer? Sounds like not.

Phones are trickier than computers, as security updates also require input from manufacturers and carriers.

So let's say Google releases a shiny new OS patch for Android and your Samsung Galaxy 99 is within its support window.

Samsung has to incorporate that code into its bastardized version of Android that it includes on its phones. It has to test the patch with its reskinned UI, its bolted-on features, and its me-too apps (can you tell that I dislike the Samsung phone experience?). If your phone is brand new, Samsung might get to you within six months. Or not. The S8 received Android 8.0 around March 19th, seven whole months after the update was released by Google. If your phone is older, it could be waiting quite a bit longer (about a year).

Now your carrier may require additional testing before releasing said update to any phones that it controls. This adds a period of time that is generally inversely proportional to the newness and install base of your phone.

The best analogy would be HP and your ISP having to do a bunch of work before you receive each Windows update. This is why users tend to gravitate towards stock and unlocked android phones, as the manufacturer has to spend less time beating Android into whatever Frankenstein UI that they include with their phones (also allowing you to avoid the questionable design decisions of UI design titans like LG or HTC). This is also how Google consistently gets away with selling subpar hardware; users are desperate for quick updates and a long support cycle.