I was actually surprized when I tried to snap a picture of a flower with my iPhone. The flower had petals of that purple-blueish color, which normally gets displayed wrongly even on a professional level of equipment (like Nikon DXXX level cameras). But because CM was followed through and through, the color of the actual flower and its image were quite close. Calibrated devices, along with a working CM pipeline, is what really allows you to use a screen to its full potential.
There has been and AFAIK always will be an art to capturing the right colour for purple/blue flowers. Back in the days of film, I could do it on Fujiromech but not Ektachrome because of the different colour balance (viz temperature) of the film. Fuji with its emphasis on green got the blues right but over saturated because that was... well, that was Fuji slide film through and through. The Kodak film actually captured things right but not as we have been led/fooled to believe. IMHO and as a Nikon D700/D800/D5/D500 and a few other bodies over the years can testify is that the colour is captured pretty well 100 Accurate but we hate how it looks because we are more used to seeing overstaturated green biased images g sort of like what you see with a Samsung TV. Put is alongsides a Sony Bravia and you will see what I mean. Colour accuracy outside the lab is a subjective thing. You like what you like because you have been fooled by what you have seen over the years. That reminds me of a great song, 'Won't get Fooled Again'. It took me a long time to realise what was going on. My iPhone 7 does what you say it does. In my mind, it is faithfully recording the colours although it looks like shite. You can have a great looking image or an accurate one. Take your pick and if that is the compelling reason to buy Samsung etc then go do it. any other choice will keep you moaning.
Color accuracy is not a subjective thing, 'cause it can be easily measured. Lab or XY color space and spectrometers exist for a reason....
Color balance/ scene color are subjective things and the thing of art...and I wasn't taking about that.
I got those aforementioned color distortions after using grayscale calibration plate, so color balance was not the reason why the colors were distorted.
Yes, professional gear IS MOSTLY accurate in color capturing... The key work here is "mostly". There are certain colors that are way off still
Wide color gamut is not a feature - If the screen is beautiful, the screen is beautiful. Nobody cares about wide color gamut.
Actually, the end result (lack of result, that is) is in the fact that Android doesn't know how to handle color management...without which a "beautiful screen" isn't gonna help, sadly. In the absense of the aforementioned CM, sRGB colors, placed in P3 color space will be oversaturated and incorrect. And, despite what you said, wide gamut along with high contrast and enought color bit depth should bring more realistic colors to PEDs, hence it is not a gimmick.
I was actually surprized when I tried to snap a picture of a flower with my iPhone. The flower had petals of that purple-blueish color, which normally gets displayed wrongly even on a professional level of equipment (like Nikon DXXX level cameras). But because CM was followed through and through, the color of the actual flower and its image were quite close. Calibrated devices, along with a working CM pipeline, is what really allows you to use a screen to its full potential.
I get it. For purists, accurate color is very important. For the majority of phone owners, I would suspect though, are more interested in colors that pop and are vivid. People love the iPhone screens because it looks nice. Never once have I heard people say "wow those colors look really accurate!". Usually it's more along the lines of "that's a GORGEOUS screen." Gorgeous typically means vivid, bright, and poppy. Also, do you really think that in a world in which Instagram users are posting photos that are filtered to oblivion that they would care about real world color accuracy?
this is of course all nonsense. if you've ever tried to shoot certain vibrant colors you'd know they don't capture well in a limited color gamut device. you need a wider gamut to make what you see on screen what you saw. and even the wider gamut isn't where our eyes are.
Google used the Pixel to launch its Daydream VR. It's too bad that Apple does not have a VR SDK and hardware spec for the iPhone because the iPhone 7 Plus would destroy the Pixel with its vastly better performance and wide color support.
99% of customers don't care for having VR on their phone.
Now imagine if a Samsung Note7 or Pixel blows up in your FACE when doing VR.
IMO, a smartphone should not be a 2 inches from your eyes.
How do you think most people make phone calls? Surely your ears are damn close to your eyes.
but you are not directly facing your eyes at the phone. If the phone blows up you won't lose your vision when talking on the phone. Plus its very easy to simply drop the phone when you are talking on it.
Good luck dropping a VR unit quickly that is strapped on your face. Not to mention you won't notice the phone overheating since it wont be in your hand. If the phone is in your hand you will notice the heat.
Phone strapped onto your FACE + overheating phones = exploding phone with very little warning
Eh Google makes VR for both phones. Not really something worth arguing over as the option is there on both.
The issue from what I understand is more that Android requires more power and doesn't have the same unity between hardware and software as iOS. Though anyone who's used both high end Apple and Android phones should be able to tell you that there's no real discernible difference.
I've used both at the high end and there is a discernible difference.
For me, they both have their strong points. The android phones I have had vastly outperform my iphones with less crashes, but the iphones have much better group integration between all devices.
I've had the complete opposite. I don't know what Android phone you're talking about but Android phones are far more prone to crash and far less responsive.
i will say that when it comes to Android phones, I have to say that the screens on the newer Samsung galaxy phones are gorgeous and their cameras do take fantastic photos. But i wouldn't wish an Android phone on anyone unless they were on a really tight budget, ..and even then I would recommed a used iPhone 5s or an SE before having anyone buy and Android device. The 5s would probably outperform any new budget Android device. They would certainly have less headaches.
I've used the Nexus 6 and 5X in comparison with the iphone 6 and 6s.
Google used the Pixel to launch its Daydream VR. It's too bad that Apple does not have a VR SDK and hardware spec for the iPhone because the iPhone 7 Plus would destroy the Pixel with its vastly better performance and wide color support.
99% of customers don't care for having VR on their phone.
Now imagine if a Samsung Note7 or Pixel blows up in your FACE when doing VR.
IMO, a smartphone should not be a 2 inches from your eyes.
How do you think most people make phone calls? Surely your ears are damn close to your eyes.
Do you really believe that when someone puts up their phone to their ear, they look at the screen? Don't know about Android, but on an iPhone the proximity detector will close the screen anyways.
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Wide color gamut is not a feature - If the screen is beautiful, the screen is beautiful. Nobody cares about wide color gamut.
...(omitted)...
I get it. For purists, accurate color is very important. For the majority of phone owners, I would suspect though, are more interested in colors that pop and are vivid. People love the iPhone screens because it looks nice. Never once have I heard people say "wow those colors look really accurate!". Usually it's more along the lines of "that's a GORGEOUS screen." Gorgeous typically means vivid, bright, and poppy. Also, do you really think that in a world in which Instagram users are posting photos that are filtered to oblivion that they would care about real world color accuracy?
If the iPhone was a DSLR your dismissive attitude towards color accuracy would sound ridiculous. Now consider that Apple has put a serious camera system into the iPhone 7 Plus, which in portrait mode can produce astonishing images with smooth DoF. Consider that iOS hosts several pro-quality photo editing apps. Then it starts to make sense.
Your whole argument boils down to saying that people don't want accurate image rendering and will settle for visual perception tricks of higher brightness and color saturation.
When I think Android, I think CHEAP! Android phones at this point are almost a commodity. Very little money is made making these devices. It's been a Race to the bottom. This is why Apple is making over 90% of the Smartphone profits. Do the simple math, that leaves everyone else making Android phones 10% or less and Samsung is making most of that chunk on profits and from their high end phones the S & Note series. Everyone else, it's razer thin profits if they're lucky. The only real winner with Android is Google. it's the Software side, services that is making money. From selling customer Data they collect, to Ad's, to Google's Play store and other services. Google wins pretty much no matter what except in China where Google has virtually no presence.
I get Google. They want to make a similar profit as Apple. No one in their right mind is going to pay that much for a Android phone with the specs it has. Being Android, just wait a few months as the price starts to tank and then buy it if you really want one. I'm not quite sure what Google is thinking with this move. If anything it would piss of the other company's making Android phones as it's a unfair advantage on the software side of things. All their other phones have pretty much tanked, I don't see these phones doing any better. If anything they're going to tank worse and on price alone.
If Google wanted to really get back into making phones, they should have kept Motorola!!!
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their product lines revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Youtube has a paid service as well as an ad based. Similar to Spotify, but with videos too. Boston Dynamics is known as the leaders in their robotics division based in (duh) Boston. The internet mostly knows them for a reindeer they made that got hit. Obviously, Apple isn't a one trick pony. The Macbook is still arguably the best computer on the market, and people still buy ipod touches over other devices. Plenty of other good products by Apple are out there. I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats.
When I think Android, I think CHEAP! Android phones at this point are almost a commodity. Very little money is made making these devices. It's been a Race to the bottom. This is why Apple is making over 90% of the Smartphone profits. Do the simple math, that leaves everyone else making Android phones 10% or less and Samsung is making most of that chunk on profits and from their high end phones the S & Note series. Everyone else, it's razer thin profits if they're lucky. The only real winner with Android is Google. it's the Software side, services that is making money. From selling customer Data they collect, to Ad's, to Google's Play store and other services. Google wins pretty much no matter what except in China where Google has virtually no presence.
I get Google. They want to make a similar profit as Apple. No one in their right mind is going to pay that much for a Android phone with the specs it has. Being Android, just wait a few months as the price starts to tank and then buy it if you really want one. I'm not quite sure what Google is thinking with this move. If anything it would piss of the other company's making Android phones as it's a unfair advantage on the software side of things. All their other phones have pretty much tanked, I don't see these phones doing any better. If anything they're going to tank worse and on price alone.
If Google wanted to really get back into making phones, they should have kept Motorola!!!
Exactly, the phones and tablets market is simply a replay of what we already saw with Microsoft software running on cheaper and cheaper PC hardware decades ago, we've seen this play out already. Race to the bottom (on that side) with Google as the only winner (and their chip makers). There's a reason those machines are known as Wintel machines, nothing else differentiates them, same as it is with the phones now, all of them desperate to create some differentiation, but in the end there is nothing but cheap hardware running the software that spies on you so advertisers can better extract money from your back pocket without your realising it - and people support, defend and pay for that shit.
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
What a load of garbage.
So Apple is NOTHING besides iPhone at this point?
Google had $75 billion in sales in 2015
Guess how much NON-iPhone sales Apple had last year?
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their product lines revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Youtube has a paid service as well as an ad based. Similar to Spotify, but with videos too. Boston Dynamics is known as the leaders in their robotics division based in (duh) Boston. The internet mostly knows them for a reindeer they made that got hit. Obviously, Apple isn't a one trick pony. The Macbook is still arguably the best computer on the market, and people still buy ipod touches over other devices. Plenty of other good products by Apple are out there. I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats.
And what did all those non-ad businesses add up to? BUMPKISS.
Google's non-Ad revenue (other Bets) didn't even reach HALF a billion dollars:
Those other bets you are bragging about lost the company $3.6 BILLION in losses.
Pathetic.
On the other hand Apple's NON-iPhone revenue was $79 BILLION. Over 150x more than Google's non-Ad products.
The Apple Watch alone made more revenue than all of Google's non-Ad revenue streams COMBINED. And the Watch made hundreds of millions in profits while Google's non-Ad divisions LOST $3.6 BILLION
What's your point? You obviously don't buy products based on who owns the market otherwise the market would have never been stolen from Microsoft back when Apple didn't have anything, but computers. Product quality has nothing to do with how much a company makes. Heck the popular vote got us Trump and Hillary so if this was a popularity vote we already know where that gets the US. Crap vs crap.
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their product lines revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Youtube has a paid service as well as an ad based. Similar to Spotify, but with videos too. Boston Dynamics is known as the leaders in their robotics division based in (duh) Boston. The internet mostly knows them for a reindeer they made that got hit. Obviously, Apple isn't a one trick pony. The Macbook is still arguably the best computer on the market, and people still buy ipod touches over other devices. Plenty of other good products by Apple are out there. I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats.
it's much higher as i recall. even their oft criticized ipad business is huge -- $5B last quarter.
This article is so filled with bias and inaccurate information, who ever wrote it should feel ashamed for mailing it in and doing basically no work to research.
You're new around here, aren't you.
The author and his SEO obviously got you to register and respond, which advertisers pay for dearly. As for his bias, yes. That's what he fills his articles with... inaccurate... I would argue maybe incomplete, but less so innaccurate.
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their product lines revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Youtube has a paid service as well as an ad based. Similar to Spotify, but with videos too. Boston Dynamics is known as the leaders in their robotics division based in (duh) Boston. The internet mostly knows them for a reindeer they made that got hit. Obviously, Apple isn't a one trick pony. The Macbook is still arguably the best computer on the market, and people still buy ipod touches over other devices. Plenty of other good products by Apple are out there. I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats.
And what did all those non-ad businesses add up to? BUMPKISS.
Google's non-Ad revenue (other Bets) didn't even reach HALF a billion dollars:
Those other bets you are bragging about lost the company $3.6 BILLION in losses.
Pathetic.
On the other hand Apple's NON-iPhone revenue was $79 BILLION. Over 150x more than Google's non-Ad products.
The Apple Watch alone made more revenue than all of Google's non-Ad revenue streams COMBINED. And the Watch made hundreds of millions in profits while Google's non-Ad divisions LOST $3.6 BILLION
What's your point? You obviously don't buy products based on who owns the market otherwise the market would have never been stolen from Microsoft back when Apple didn't have anything, but computers. Product quality has nothing to do with how much a company makes. Heck the popular vote got us Trump and Hillary so if this was a popularity vote we already know where that gets the US. Crap vs crap.
now don't move the goal posts. sog was answering your specific question/stamement - "I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats". now you do. apple's non iphone business is vastly larger than googles non ads, and larger than many big players.
and this was all in reponse to the guy who said google is playing the long game but all apple has is the iphone. that's the troll trope, and it's bunk. revenue shows they have more than iphone driving their business, and i wouldn't believe they aren't working on "long game" technologies and road maps as well. why wouldn't they?
Wide color gamut is not a feature - If the screen is beautiful, the screen is beautiful. Nobody cares about wide color gamut.
Actually, the end result (lack of result, that is) is in the fact that Android doesn't know how to handle color management...without which a "beautiful screen" isn't gonna help, sadly. In the absense of the aforementioned CM, sRGB colors, placed in P3 color space will be oversaturated and incorrect. And, despite what you said, wide gamut along with high contrast and enought color bit depth should bring more realistic colors to PEDs, hence it is not a gimmick.
I was actually surprized when I tried to snap a picture of a flower with my iPhone. The flower had petals of that purple-blueish color, which normally gets displayed wrongly even on a professional level of equipment (like Nikon DXXX level cameras). But because CM was followed through and through, the color of the actual flower and its image were quite close. Calibrated devices, along with a working CM pipeline, is what really allows you to use a screen to its full potential.
I get it. For purists, accurate color is very important. For the majority of phone owners, I would suspect though, are more interested in colors that pop and are vivid. People love the iPhone screens because it looks nice. Never once have I heard people say "wow those colors look really accurate!". Usually it's more along the lines of "that's a GORGEOUS screen." Gorgeous typically means vivid, bright, and poppy. Also, do you really think that in a world in which Instagram users are posting photos that are filtered to oblivion that they would care about real world color accuracy?
But where it does make a HUGE difference is skin tone. That is where you need GREAT color accuracy... Without perfect color calibration photo's of people will always look a little alien.
BS. My photography and imaging gear is color-corrected and calibrated to the hilt, and recalibrated on a regular monthly basis, but I quite frequently and purposefully alter skin tones in portraits in order to please the person sitting for them. So do millions of Apple smartphone users who modify their own pics to get what they believe is a nicer image than the one their phone took.
I'm not at all downplaying the advantages of calibrated color, makes my job so much easier, but a person's "true-to-life and accurate skin tone" is often what they DON'T want. Pleasing skin-tones really can be rendered by default settings on a good but non-calibrated smartphone camera. With that said kudos to Apple for making color-calibration a priority, tho even there the skin-tones are all over the place being very dependent on reflected/ambient lighting. Just look at the images over at the iMore camera test you viewed yesterday. There's no consistency. http://www.imore.com/best-smartphone-camera
Do you alter skin color for blacks quite frequently and purposefully ? Are they pleased?
The Pixel is a vessel for Google's AI and Machine learning prowess.
And right now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a phone with a better AI and multimedia experience than the Pixel.
This is why the Pixel is better than any phone Apple has created. And will continue to be better than any Phone Apple will create moving forward.
Unless of course, AI and Machine Learning is just a fad.
We shall see.
People vote with their wallets.
You can make up all the high sounding jibberish you want. But ultimately its the consumer who decides which phone is the best for the 'real world'
We shall see how many $650 Pixel phones Google sells vs the iPhone7.
That will be the answer to which is the better phone.
The Pixel is not going to sell better than the iPhone 7. It's a new brand. And Google doesn't have the retail and supply chain expertise that Apple has.
However, if Google continues to be at the forefront of AI and Machine Learning, then within the next couple of years, the Pixel will become a serious and formidable contender to the iPhone.
Google with the Pixel brand is the only company that can topple the dominance of the iPhone. Apple should be very worried, considering that they're behind in AI and Machine Learning.
Google over the years has avoided directly competing with Apple, but now, they've just dropped the gauntlet. People are underestimating the Pixel based on specs. That's misguided.
The Pixel's nuclear bomb is AI. It has better smarts than any smartphone. Period. And those smarts are only going to get deeper and more profound as the months and years pass by.
Google used the Pixel to launch its Daydream VR. It's too bad that Apple does not have a VR SDK and hardware spec for the iPhone because the iPhone 7 Plus would destroy the Pixel with its vastly better performance and wide color support.
99% of customers don't care for having VR on their phone.
Now imagine if a Samsung Note7 or Pixel blows up in your FACE when doing VR.
IMO, a smartphone should not be a 2 inches from your eyes.
How do you think most people make phone calls? Surely your ears are damn close to your eyes.
but you are not directly facing your eyes at the phone. If the phone blows up you won't lose your vision when talking on the phone. Plus its very easy to simply drop the phone when you are talking on it.
Good luck dropping a VR unit quickly that is strapped on your face. Not to mention you won't notice the phone overheating since it wont be in your hand. If the phone is in your hand you will notice the heat.
Phone strapped onto your FACE + overheating phones = exploding phone with very little warning
Eh Google makes VR for both phones. Not really something worth arguing over as the option is there on both.
My point is VR is not important for 99% of smartphone users
Comments
Color balance/ scene color are subjective things and the thing of art...and I wasn't taking about that.
I got those aforementioned color distortions after using grayscale calibration plate, so color balance was not the reason why the colors were distorted.
Yes, professional gear IS MOSTLY accurate in color capturing... The key work here is "mostly". There are certain colors that are way off still
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Your whole argument boils down to saying that people don't want accurate image rendering and will settle for visual perception tricks of higher brightness and color saturation.
Your rational is every other company that remotely compete against Apple should shut up shop because they earn less than them.
The Pixel is a vessel for Google's AI and Machine learning prowess.
And right now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a phone with a better AI and multimedia experience than the Pixel.
This is why the Pixel is better than any phone Apple has created. And will continue to be better than any Phone Apple will create moving forward.
Unless of course, AI and Machine Learning is just a fad.
The author and his SEO obviously got you to register and respond, which advertisers pay for dearly. As for his bias, yes. That's what he fills his articles with... inaccurate... I would argue maybe incomplete, but less so innaccurate.
and this was all in reponse to the guy who said google is playing the long game but all apple has is the iphone. that's the troll trope, and it's bunk. revenue shows they have more than iphone driving their business, and i wouldn't believe they aren't working on "long game" technologies and road maps as well. why wouldn't they?
so you've used the device? you can buy movie tickets exceptionally well?
and why on earth would you believe it impossible for any other firm to do better than google in this relatively new area of mobile computing? hogwash.
However, if Google continues to be at the forefront of AI and Machine Learning, then within the next couple of years, the Pixel will become a serious and formidable contender to the iPhone.
Google with the Pixel brand is the only company that can topple the dominance of the iPhone. Apple should be very worried, considering that they're behind in AI and Machine Learning.
Google over the years has avoided directly competing with Apple, but now, they've just dropped the gauntlet. People are underestimating the Pixel based on specs. That's misguided.
The Pixel's nuclear bomb is AI. It has better smarts than any smartphone. Period. And those smarts are only going to get deeper and more profound as the months and years pass by.