LG wants you to ThinQ about its latest G7 smartphone

Flagship Android smartphones tend to follow a pattern, and LG's G7 ThinQ is no exception. The phone sticks closely to the 2018 template of a Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SoC, dual rear cameras, and a stretched-out screen with small bezels. The company hopes that the AI-assisted camera, bright screen, audio features, and tight integration with Google's Assistant and Lens software will help make the ThinQ stand out from certain competitors.

The G7 ThinQ has the same Snapdragon 845 found in Asus' ZenFone 5, Samsung's Galaxy S9 twins, and Sony's latest Xperia XZ2 handsets. LG pairs the chip with 4 GB of LPDDR4x memory and 64 GB of internal storage space. That memory capacity matches the entry-level configurations of those other 845-powered phones, but all most of them offer variants with 6 or 8 GB of RAM. Users can augment the 64 GB of storage space with microSD cards as capacious as 2 TB. Engadget says some markets will get a G7+ ThinQ version with 6 GB of memory and 128 GB of storage.

The ThinQ's display is a 6.1″ LCD with a resolution of 3120×1440 (which works out to a pixel density of 564 PPI) and a 19.5:9 aspect ratio. That unusual aspect ratio is a side effect of LG's efforts to reduce the size of the phone's front bezel area. The screen and the back of the G7 ThinQ are covered with a layer of Corning's Gorilla Glass 5. The big screen has a notch, which LG is calling a “New Second Screen,” similar to the notification screen it used to use in its V-series phones. In this case, users can choose to flaunt the notch or hide it with a solid black bar or a gradient background.

The company says the screen offers 100% coverage of the rather large DCI-P3 color space and 135% of the more common sRGB. LG also notes that the screen should provide an excellent experience even under direct sunlight thanks to its 1000 cd/m² brightness rating, though the phone will only deliver that much light for three minutes at a time. Engadget says the screen has a unique RGBW pixel arrangement that lets it consume 30% less power than competing screens, even when illuminating at 500 cd/m².

LG's engineers took care with sound both going into and coming out of the ThinQ. On the input side, the phone sports a “Super Far Field Voice Recognition” microphone that the company says lets the phone understand voice commands from up to 16' away (5 m). The manufacturer says this capability works even if the TV is on or the vacuum cleaner is running, two scenarios that consistently throw my Amazon Echo Dot units for a loop. On the output end, LG outfitted the G7 ThinQ with what it calls a “Boombox Speaker” that uses the space inside the phone as a resonance chamber for improved bass response. The company says the bass enhancement effect is strengthened when the user places the phone on a flat solid surface.

Those that demand better sound than a smartphone speaker can deliver should delight in the inclusion of a headphone jack. Headphone listeners can use the ThinQ's Dolby DTS:X virtual 7.1-channel capabilities. LG says the ThinQ is the first smartphone with DTS:X baked in.

The G7 ThinQ's camera setup follows the current trend toward dual-sensor setups with a pair of Sony IMX351 16-megapixel snappers on the back. One of them has a “standard” angle setup with an f/1.6 aperture and a 71° field-of-view (FOV). The second “super wide angle” lens has an f/1.9 aperture and a 107° FOV. The user-facing camera is an 8-MP unit with an f/1.9 aperture and an in-between 80° FOV. LG is proud of the “AI” features it baked into the camera, including 19 different shooting modes. The company says the rear camera setup has a super-bright mode that can capture images four times brighter than was possible on its previous G6 flagship model. LG claims pixel binning and software processing allows these bright images in low-light conditions without the typical grainy appearance such shots usually have.

A live picture mode captures one second of footage before and after each press of the shutter button and a portrait mode makes bokeh effects easy. LG mentioned a pet mode on the camera, but didn't explain what it does or how it works. If this special mode can somehow manage to eliminate the greenish appearance of dog and cat eyes when using the camera's flash, that alone might be enough to get me to choose LG to replace my aging Samsung Galaxy Note 4.

The manufacturer says the G7 ThinQ is one of the first phones to hit the market packing the full package of Google Lens AI and computer vision features. The software can do things like identify landmarks, plants, and animals. The company says additional capabilities like automatically adding new contacts from a business and new events to a calendar from a photo will be unveiled at Google's upcoming I/O Conference.

On the software side, the phone ships with Android 8.0 Oreo. A button below the volume rocker brings up the Google Assistant with one press or Google Lens with two presses. The button can be disabled, but unfortunately cannot be remapped.

In keeping with the name, the G7 ThinQ is pretty skinny at 0.3″ (7.9 mm) thick. The phone weighs in at 5.7 oz (162 g). The biggest casualty of that relatively light weight and thin packaging is the battery, which is rated for an uninspiring 3000 mAh. Users can at least top it off quickly if they have a Qualcomm QuickCharge 3.0-compliant charger around. LG says the phone meets the IP68 standards for dust and water intrusion prevention. The charge and data connector has a USB Type-C physical connector, but only works at USB 2.0 speeds.

LG says it will offer the phone with gray, black, red, and blue finishes. The company didn't talk about pricing, but said that the G7 ThinQ would roll out in the home market in South Korea in the coming days, and that releases in the North and South America, Europe, and Asia will happen later.

Comments closed
    • Takeshi7
    • 1 year ago

    LG needs to bring back the removable battery.

      • DancinJack
      • 1 year ago

      They really don’t. They just need to stop making things thinner. I quite literally never worry about battery life anymore, but I also have a 3520mAh battery in my phone.

        • TheEmrys
        • 1 year ago

        Battery life is really all I ever worry about….

          • moose17145
          • 1 year ago

          Not me.

          But thanks to the marvel that is removable battery technology, I have a 8,500 mAh battery strapped to my Galaxy S5!

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            lol 8,500 mAh.

            Like I said, if that works for you then that’s simply wonderful. I for one am not carrying that brick in my pocket when all I have to do is plug my phone in when when I go to sleep every night, or every other night depending on the day.

          • Takeshi7
          • 1 year ago

          The beauty of a removable battery is that I can take about a minute to replace the battery, and then put the dead battery on a charger, and continue about my day. My phone never needs to be tethered to anything.

          Also I can be sure the NSA isn’t listening in when I remove the battery.

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            Soooo, I assume you dislike headphone jacks/wired headphones?

          • DancinJack
          • 1 year ago

          I think you need to get a new phone.

          This is one thing I don’t understand about people that generally want removable batteries. What you really want is better battery life, because once it reaches the point that you don’t have to worry about, then who cares right? So, getting a new phone with better hardware (read: more efficient SoCs, bigger/better batteries and chemistry, etc etc) should be a no brainer at times. I have conversely found that the people that want those removable batteries tend to be the ones that hang onto phones longer. It’s an odd conundrum I admit, as you don’t always need a new phone just for a better battery situation, but it’s definitely not a downside IMO.

          Anyway, buy what works for you. I don’t need longer battery life than what is mostly “standard” at this point. Some people do. That’s fine.

            • moose17145
            • 1 year ago

            Better hardware does not mean it is more efficient, or especially that it gets better battery life. Case in point… that whole ordeal with Apple having to throttle their phones when the battery starts aging (like a year of less of age) because the hardware is pulling so much power that the battery cannot handle it even for a brief instant.

            Or an even better example, If newer hardware really is so much more Efficient, then how come the Nokia 3310 could get like a week of battery life on a single charge with rather heavy usage despite the ancient inefficient hardware?

            But, lets just pretend you are right in that newer hardware really is more efficient no matter what. Lets also never mind the fact that when they do make something legitimately more efficient, they usually use it as an excuse to make the battery even tinier, thus completely negating the gained efficiency.

            Why do people who hold onto phones longer tend to want removable batteries? Because for 60 bucks I can slap a 8500mAh battery in my S5 and get over 3 days on a single charge with moderate usage. Light usage goes even further obviously. Also… again… what if I do not need a faster phone? My S5 is fast enough for most stuff I do. And what if even the stock battery when new also provided enough battery for my needs?

            Why should I spend several hundred dollars to replace something that can be made “as good as new” with a 20 dollar battery?

            Im really trying to understand your line of thought on this… but I just am not seeing it.

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            Whoa moose. I honestly can’t believe you wrote what you just did. I assume, as a TR regular, you know what you said above isn’t on point.

            Here are a couple links to the Apple battery info because your view is far too simplified. Could a lot of the PR issues they experienced have been avoided with removable batteries? Maybe and probably. That doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for everyone. [url<]https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/[/url<] [url<]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387[/url<] And yes, most new hardware is more efficient. You're at least somewhat right though, as I concede there is likely some piece of hardware somewhere that was put in a newer model phone that wasn't as efficient as the previous version. [quote<]Or an even better example, If newer hardware really is so much more Efficient, then how come the Nokia 3310 could get like a week of battery life on a single charge with rather heavy usage despite the ancient inefficient hardware?[/quote<] Seriously? C'mon. You're not even in the same realm here. "As good as new" with a 20 dollar battery? To you maybe, which is what I have been saying all along. That's not "as good as new" to me and I'm totally fine with buying a new phone/battery/repair/whatever. You're not, and that's OK! It's as if you didn't read any of my other comments. I said if that works for you, then that's great!

            • MOSFET
            • 1 year ago

            Not personally at anyone, but maybe it’s time for the “tech crowd” to learn something about Lithium Ion batteries and how to care for them. If you take care of your battery like it’s a key component of your device (similar to how the screen is an important part of the device) I don’t see why any of this removable-battery nonsense would be necessary. I can go out of town for a few days and not even bother to take a charger or Lightning cable. I use about 10%/day of a two-year old iPhone 6S+ battery.

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            While I wholeheartedly agree that some education (including myself) could help on the battery front, I think you’re at least partially conflating two things. Battery chemistry is one thing, and usage is another. I know literally no one personally that only uses 10 percent of their battery per day.

            Heck, I am what I would consider a low-usage phone person too. I don’t play heavy games on my phone, I’m not always on it texting, I don’t have FB/Snapchat/whatever, but I sure as heck use more than 10 percent battery on a given day just from answering phone calls, emails, or whatever else happens throughout the day.

            • Chrispy_
            • 1 year ago

            My experience with the argument that newer phones on newer processors is that it’s a total lie.

            Sure, at idle, and at standby, newer silicon can eke more hours out of the same battery capacity.

            Sadly, what uses up the battery in my history of flagship phones is the goddamn screen and 4G data usage. Newer phones have sillier screens (who the hell needs 4K resolution at 6.5 inches?!!) and regardless of how efficient the modem is, it still has to broadcast at a certain strength which takes power that these batteries don’t have (because the screen drained it earlier).

            I’ve been using Moto G phones since the first generation as a basic office android phone and despite never owning one myself, staff often comment on how much longer they last than their personal iPhones and Galaxy S variants. The bleeding edge of phone tech is not a good place to be right now – it’s anorexic, with wastefully-high ppi and ludicrious price tags that don’t really add anything important over a mid-range phone.

            • The Wanderer
            • 1 year ago

            [quote<]This is one thing I don't understand about people that generally want removable batteries. What you really want is better battery life, because once it reaches the point that you don't have to worry about, then who cares right?[/quote<] Actually, no. That's one desirable factor (and the ability to carry around multiple fully-charged spare batteries is really helpful in certain situations), but it's not the only one, or even the primary reason why I want removable batteries. What I want is the ability to hard-power-off the device, in scenarios where the system has hung hard enough that the built-in power button (which normally triggers a "shut off, reboot, cancel?" type of dialog) has no visible effect. As far as I can see, the [i<]only[/i<] possible way to do that with a smartphone is to disconnect the battery. With my Galaxy S5, I can do that on the spot and be booting back up in under a minute; with almost any phone more recent than that, I'd probably need a suitable tool-kit and a considerably longer time, if I could even do it at all. Most people are probably not as likely to encounter that problem as I am, because I run LineageOS (formerly CyanogenMod) from a development-tree build, and there is probably more risk of hang-producing OS bugs in that situation than when running an officially-authorized-for-the-phone build of Android. That doesn't make it any less of a legitimate concern, however.

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            For phone manufacturers it does though. There aren’t enough of “you” to justify making a model that has a removable battery in addition to anything else.

            Look, I get it. But this is the way it is now. We all have to live with compromises. I think everyone removing headphone jacks is insanely stupid. Apple is somewhat responsible but Android makers are even stupider considering the state of the Android audio ecosystem. This is just how the world is though.

            As for me, battery life in most phones is “good enough” these days I need not worry about it. Like I have said in other comments, if that isn’t the case for you, then buy what works for you. End of story.

            • DPete27
            • 1 year ago

            On my Galaxy S7, you force a restart/simulated battery disconnect with a press+hold of the volume down and power key at the same time for about 10 seconds. That’s fairly common, but you’d have to look up your specific manufacturer.

            Also, yes, not having a removable battery sucks when the battery exceeds its useful charge/discharge limit. But with non-removable batteries get you IP68 water resistance, which is hella nice. In fact, I’d bet that water ingress causes more phone replacements than dead batteries.

        • moose17145
        • 1 year ago

        And what are you to do when that tiny 3520mAh battery stops taking a charge, or stops holding a charge? Throw the entire phone away and get a new one?

        What if the battery starts to fail prematurely? Lets say the phone has a 1 year warranty and the battery really starts to fail around month 13 (or maybe you only really noticed it started to fail around month 13. either way it is out of warranty now).

        Clearly the answer is to buy an entirely new phone for several hundred dollars rather than spending tens of dollars on what could be a simple battery swap.

        What if three years goes by, and you just do not have a need for faster smartphone, but again, the battery is starting to die? If you have a removable battery, you can just spend tens of dollars and get a replacement battery. Oh but then the manufacturer would not be able to separate you from several hundred, or even a thousand of your hard earned dollars!

        Needless to say, I am in agreement with Takeshi that they need to bring back the removable battery. Not having removable batteries is just another way of screwing over the consumer into having to buy an entirely new cell phone every two years.

          • DancinJack
          • 1 year ago

          You can like what you like moose. If I need to I’ll get a new phone, have the battery replaced, or get it repaired. It’s not the end of the world for me as it seems it is a much larger issue for you.

      • Neutronbeam
      • 1 year ago

      Everybody needs to bring easily user replaceable batteries back.

      • albundy
      • 1 year ago

      and the IR sensor. until then, i’ll stick with my V20 and Anymote.

      • Blytz
      • 1 year ago

      Or just stick with 1080p, improve the tech and keep it waterproof.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 1 year ago

    No thanQ

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    Of all the stupid Apple things other brands are copying, I thought dropping the 3.5mm jack was the lowest they could go.

    Now it’s the notch and curved screen.

    PLEASE, content is 16:9 in an overwhelming majority of cases. If you’re going to make your phone a weird shape/size at least leave the screen a sensible shape/size.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      The ThinQ screen is flat, right?
      Technically yes, that’s a copy of Apple and not Samsung.

      Nevermind.

    • uni-mitation
    • 1 year ago

    [quote=”article above”<]The ThinQ's display is a 6.1" LCD with a resolution of 3120x1440 (which works out to a pixel density of 564 PPI) and a 19.5:9 aspect ratio. That unusual aspect ratio is a side effect of LG's efforts to reduce the size of the phone's front bezel area. The screen and the back of the G7 ThinQ are covered with a layer of Corning's Gorilla Glass 5. [/quote<] That makes for a great porno viewing experience. 😀 uni-mitation

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      Are you ok? I’ve been worried about you the last few days.

        • uni-mitation
        • 1 year ago

        Fret not for me,[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs<] 'tis but a scratch [/url<]! uni-mitation

    • davidbowser
    • 1 year ago

    I thought I understood color space/palettes/gamut until I read

    [quote<]135% of the more common sRGB[/quote<] How does one have more than 100% of a particular palette? I understand that it covers more than sRGB, but this seems more like "marketing logic" to express when the coverage is bigger than the reference.

      • uni-mitation
      • 1 year ago

      It is indeed marketing logic, but there is a logical explanation. Colors in real life are expressed on your monitor by a combination of three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue. Any combination of these three can recreate a well enough representation of a yellow banana. If we were to zoom in though, you would still be able to see with special tools those three tiny dots fooling our brain’s visual processing center into seeing the image as yellow.

      Now we come to the percentage out of the color gamut. 135% denotes an even greater representation of the color gamut that the human’s eye is able to tell apart. At a certain point, due to our species’ evolutionary adaptions, we have only developed the ability to distinguish between two different hues to a certain point. In theory, there are a bunch of different hues between any two hues that we are unable to distinguish.

      But yeah, it is simply marking jargon to move product.

      uni-mitation

        • DancinJack
        • 1 year ago

        I don’t really disagree with much of what you said, but there are definitely cases where people CAN use the extra coverage, in which case calling it “simply marketing jargon” is pretty off-base. For a phone? Sure. For real photogs? No.

        edit: FWIW, obviously they should be using what percentage of the larger color spaces, or intended use-case color space that someone would actually be using instead of xx% of something lower, but that’s another story.

          • davidbowser
          • 1 year ago

          Exactly – now this was my point!

          I don’t argue about the space, but rather the terminology they use to describe it.

      • moose17145
      • 1 year ago

      You can have greater than 100% quite easily. But I will need a picture to help explain it.

      [url<]http://www.dslrbodies.com/_Media/dci-p3-color-space_med.jpeg[/url<] There we go! If we look at the picture above, we will see that we have three triangles of three different colors arranged on an odd shaped color pallet. The Color Pallet represents the color ranges that the human eye is capable of seeing. The triangles each represent a particular color space. In this instance the Yellow triangle represents the DCI-P3 color space. The Red represents the Adobe RGB color space, and the Black triangle the sRGB color space. Now if we take the total area of the black triangle to be 100%, and then measure the total area of the larger yellow triangle, we will find that the yellow triangle has 135% of the surface area of the black triangle. Since all of the black triangle falls inside of the yellow triangle, and since the surface area is actually a representation of the colors contained inside of a particular color space, it is not mathematically wrong to say that the DCI-P3 color space is 135% of the sRGB color space. And since this phone's display is capable of reproducing 100% of the DCI-P3 color space, it is not inaccurate to say that is can reproduce 135% of the sRGB color space, as the phones screen is capable of reproducing colors which do not even exist in the sRGB color space. I hope that clears it up some.

        • davidbowser
        • 1 year ago

        All of what you say is true and I totally get it, but my logic still holds: if it is bigger than the reference (Adobe RGB, sRGB, etc.) then it covers 100% of it. If you have newer, larger triangles, then it covers a percentage of those too, but using the term “135%” of the more common sRGB” makes no sense.

        To put a fine point on it, 135% with a triangle that extends into the blues is completely different than 135% of a triangle that extends to the greens. Therefore, the use of 135% is useless other than point out that it is bigger than sRGB.

        And yes, I realize I am in a semantic foxhole. I am comfortable with my obstinance. 🙂

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 1 year ago

          I agree with you.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Good grief now everyone has a notched display. I wonder what fad will come next…

    Btw, wasn’t LG just recently asking if people liked notched displays?

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    The headline says ‘LQ’. Is that a typo?

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      I wouldn’t say “typo”.
      I’d say Freudian slip for [b<]L[/b<]ow [b<]Q[/b<]uality.

      • morphine
      • 1 year ago

      No it doesn’t. Where’d you see that? 😉

    • hungarianhc
    • 1 year ago

    I thinq they went too cheap on the RAM.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      No such thing as going cheap on RAM. At least not this time.

        • jensend
        • 1 year ago

        Strongly disagree. Putting more than 4GB on a phone today is just a marketing ploy. It gives you no performance gains unless your use patterns are pathological, and keeping that much RAM powered is a big battery life drain.

        edit: meant to reply to hungarianhc, sry ronch

          • ronch
          • 1 year ago

          Apology not accepted. I shall smite thee!!

    • tsk
    • 1 year ago

    Yeah I don’t thinQ so.

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      Good one. You just made Descartes disappear!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This