Who cares about The Verge? They have no impact on the average buyer. These tech sites are so overrated. They need Google and Samsung spends millions of dollars advertising on these sites. Back in the day you had the MacWorld magazine. Sometimes an add for lets say a scanner had four pages and in the same magazine that scanner got a real bad review! Those days are gone. Now we have tech sites that suck.
Google and Samsung don’t pay millions they pay BILLIONS. Samsung alone pays up to 14x more than all of Apple’s annual marketing budget. Now take into account the 1,000+ Apple knockoff companies and you have more than 25 Billion easily. This is why you have so many anti-Apple sheep.
DED provides the most unbiased articles you can find online. He isn’t paid by iKnockoff manufacturers which is why it triggers so many iPhone knockoff fans.
With all due respect, this is simply not true.
I won't say he is alone in being off-the-scale biased but he is an extreme example nevertheless.
You will see similar styles on both sides of the fence but none of them are unbiased. Thankfully there is a lot of middle ground that represents a moderate, balanced viewpoint and it is up to us if we want to take it onboard or not.
Bring up every advantage iPhone has and ignore the disadvantages.
Pixels voice assistant is 3-4 years more advanced than useless Siri.
Pixels image quality is superior despite less features. Watch the blind tests on YouTube. You'll pick the pixel every single time.
Pixel will tell you what song is playing without unlocking the screen.
Pixels cloud storage of the photos (free, full quality) is way more convenient and accessible than iCloud which is garbage.
Pixel is Android, and thus, way more customizable. Not everyone wants just a mess of app icon on their home screens. We have widgets on our home screens so we can get info at a glance. And our battery life is just as good.
You also bring up Google copying live photos. Android has had fast charging for years. Oled screens for years. Where do you think apple got those, and other ideas? All smart phone companies copy each other.
Google quoted from BGR.
“Any Google Photos user gets unlimited storage with a twist. Photos and videos are saved at original resolution only until you hit the limit on that free 15GB of cloud storage that comes with every Google account. Moving forward, all images and videos are shrunk down to “high quality,” which means 16-megapixel photos and Full HD videos are the limits.
Over on the Pixel 2 side, you get a better deal. The unlimited offer lets you upload originals to Google’s cloud, so you don’t have to worry about losing quality. However, that deal is valid until 2020. So the faster you buy a Pixel 2 phone, the more pictures and videos you’ll be able to save at full resolution.
After 2020, your Pixel 2 photo cloud storage will revert to what’s happening on non-Pixel phones:
“Free, unlimited original-quality storage for photos and videos taken with Pixel through the end of 2020, and free, unlimited high-quality storage for photos taken with Pixel afterwards.”
Google told CNET that after 2020, you won’t be able to upload originals any longer, and you’ll save high-quality versions of photos and clips instead. But Google won’t downgrade the quality of the images you save until 2020, meaning that whatever you’ve got in the cloud stays there unless you remove it.
The fact that Google’s unlimited deal has a fine print that mentions limits isn’t surprising. There’s nothing really free on this earth, and all unlimited deals have limits. But that doesn’t make Google’s Pixel 2 camera offer any less impressive.”
Bring up every advantage iPhone has and ignore the disadvantages.
Pixels voice assistant is 3-4 years more advanced than useless Siri.
Pixels image quality is superior despite less features. Watch the blind tests on YouTube. You'll pick the pixel every single time.
Pixel will tell you what song is playing without unlocking the screen.
Pixels cloud storage of the photos (free, full quality) is way more convenient and accessible than iCloud which is garbage.
Pixel is Android, and thus, way more customizable. Not everyone wants just a mess of app icon on their home screens. We have widgets on our home screens so we can get info at a glance. And our battery life is just as good.
You also bring up Google copying live photos. Android has had fast charging for years. Oled screens for years. Where do you think apple got those, and other ideas? All smart phone companies copy each other.
I knew an unbiased DED article would bring out the one post morons.
1. It’s an iPhone. Of course it will be better than a cheap knockoff. Common sense.
2. Siri and the Siri knockoff BOTH have problems there is no “years better”. It’s 2017 and we have a long way to go. One things for sure, Siri has a nicer voice than the robotic wannabe and it won’t send your info to an advertising company.
3. Pixels photo quality is superior? Typical sheep. Did you not read the article? iPhone does real bokeh. It’s an iPhone.
4. Pixel tells you what song is playing without asking? Must be that spying microphone goog uses to sell your personal data. Nothing goog offers is without security compromise, that’s how they make money. I hope a hacker gets a hold of your data.
5. Free cloud storage? Yeah google is also snooping through your personal data and selling it to 3rd parties. iCloud isn’t garbage and it’s a lot more secure than the spyware offering.
6. Pixel is android meaning it’s an iPhone knockoff that sells your private info to 3rd parties and is wide open meaning it has 99% of all mobile malware.
7. Google’s Android is a copy of iPhone and iOS. The whole market is a copy.
Maybe I shouldn’t have replied to a thick-headed iPhone knockoff fan but stupidity is a pet peeve of mine and the spread of mis-information is something we shall never allow.
There is no such thing as an unbiased DED article. It is written from his perspective which is fine for me but don't call it unbiased. If he's saying that the Pixel is more expensive, he just forgot to take the cost of the overpriced and crappy iCloud storage into account, which is a key item when comparing photo solutions.
Each reviewer brings their own preferences into their reviews along with (hopefully) good, professional opinion but DED hasn't really touched a Pixel 2 or Pixel 2 XL. His articles are reviews of reviews and selective comparison of stats to his liking . I used to write book reports like this in elementary school using the World Book encyclopedia. Its almost like he is afraid of touching an android phone because he may like it. That said I would really love to see a review of the Pixel 2/2XL by one of the AI writers. I think that a lot of the Android reviewers minimize problems with Android phones. I was really happy that Vlad Savov at theVerge wrote his article disagreeing with Dieter Bohn's article. Nilay Patel on the VergeCast also noted that Apple individual calibrates their phones so that they have probably the best screens out of the box of any phone.
That said I think that the heat is on Apple. To me the Apple 8 seems "comparable" to the iPhone 7 so I'm not upgrading my 7 Plus. Google is still in Apple's review mirror but gaining fast. Hopefully Apple increases their sensor size next year and improves their image quality more. That said I think the big sellers 2H2017 will be the Samsung S8, followed by iPhone 8/8Plus, iPhone X, iPhone 7 and Note over the Pixel 2.
It’s a bit of a wasted effort, this article. Instead of a “why I will defend iPhone at whatever cost” approach, I would have appreciated an honest review where both phones got applauded and criticized equally. Why convince Apple authusiasts of how great the iPhone is? They already know.
The Verge... literally gave the Apple Watch 3 a rating of 5 out of 10 while In the same week, they gave the Fitbit Iconic a rating of 7. WTF?
The Verge tested the Apple Watch LTE... and the LTE part didn't work very well.
That's... like... the most important part of the Apple Watch LTE.
Apple admitted the problem and has provided a fix... but it appears that The Verge doesn't ever update scores after an initial review.
Joanna Stern at the Wall Street Journal came across the problem and users should be happy that they came across it. Otherwise Apple might have dragged their foot in recognizing and acknowledging the problem and getting a software fix out (like last year with the MBP batteries). This is why its smart to wait for the iPhone XI or iPhone Xs. The "S" models were always better specs with fewer bugs.
but I do find some android phones tempting because SIRI just doesn't measure up.
I guess you have a choice. - Join the Google Data Collection Empire when you get an Android that responds to 'Ok Google' - Or keep with Siri (or like me don't use it)
Personally, things like Alexa, Siri, Bixby etc are not in the top 100 items I look for with a phone. But that's just me. YMMV
It’s a bit of a wasted effort, this article. Instead of a “why I will defend iPhone at whatever cost” approach, I would have appreciated an honest review where both phones got applauded and criticized equally. Why convince Apple authusiasts of how great the iPhone is? They already know.
Mike often writes articles like that. DED never.
Often the first couple paragraphs are okay and then he ends up in diarrhea mode cutting and pasting from prior articles and going off on bizzaro rants.
It’s like he’s being paid by the word and rent is due.
It’s a bit of a wasted effort, this article. Instead of a “why I will defend iPhone at whatever cost” approach, I would have appreciated an honest review where both phones got applauded and criticized equally. Why convince Apple authusiasts of how great the iPhone is? They already know.
Mike often writes articles like that. DED never.
Often the first couple paragraphs are okay and then he ends up in diarrhea mode cutting and pasting from prior articles and going off on bizzaro rants.
It’s like he’s being paid by the word and rent is due.
LOL. I couldn't control my laugh for about 5 minutes, that too in office.
Comparing cameras performance is a tricky thing to do. Comparing portrait shots (of the same subject and same lighting) from two different cameras is a bit easier if it’s done correctly. None of the comparisons I’ve seen can be considered as such.
Comparing photos taken with with flash from places with bad lighting is even trickier considering most people don’t know what to look for and what aspect of phone camera (or any camera for that matter) capabilities should be tested. Most pro I know of not only look for how bright a flash can light up the subject but also looks for distribution of the light that the flash generates, quality of the light from flash, accuracy of colors, noise level, details loss, and more.
All camera, including DSLRs shooting RAW, show a JPGs photos on the screen when reviewing a photo that’s just taken. So all cameras does JPG processing—different camera makers process their captured image differently and prioritizing some aspect of photos more than others.
So when looking at photos from smartphones, specially on YouTube, it will be very difficult to say which is taken with what camera.
Having said all that, I prefer iPhone camera to take photos with than Android (that’s probably bias) but that’s not to say that I can’t take good photos some high end Android phones.
Sometimes I do wish I have more access to Android phones to compare photos side by side with iPhones.
Ever since iPhone 4, I’ve been very impressed how good phone cameras has become. And every time I go hiking, I never use my DSLR anymore. My DSLR is for special events like shooting actions or just about anything I can’t do with camera phone.
Marques Brownlee has a rather decent video on Youtube explaining DxOMark ratings. An interesting take on those number ratings for cameras:
DxOMark are for measurebaters. That’s not to say it’s useless or has no merit but cameras, in my experience, simply don’t perform better in the real world because it has a DxOMark score.
Just like digital stabilization is worse than optical. The artificial blur will never be as good as real optical focus.
Optical and digital stabilization has their own advantages over the other. I wouldn’t say that one is better than the other.
Here are are some advantages of digital stabilization: 1. I can use decades old manual lenses 2. In DSLR cases, I only have to pay for stabilization once—in the camera—not in every lens I buy 3. Makes my overall gear lighter 4. Six axis stabilization while optical has three
I don’t need to point out the advantages of optical since you already know that. Cheers! 😊
Just like digital stabilization is worse than optical. The artificial blur will never be as good as real optical focus.
while you are correct, the difference gets narrower all the time. Have you ever used Lens Blur in Photoshop with a Depth Channel? If you make a good Depth Channel, the results are remarkable. You can customize the aperture shape, number of blades, finely control specular bokeh effects, grain, etc. it’s Slowwwww. But the software is there to produce excellent lens blur now. As the hardware speeds up and is optimized for these applications, computational photography will produce excellent results.
I use Lens Blur often when composing images together where depth of field is a consideration. It is almost imperceptible when done skillfully.
And, to be clear, I love true optical effects wherever possible. I own a pro 70mm-200mm f2.8 lens that produces amazing optical depth of field effect and has sophisticated OIS.
But I am pleased at how smartphones are working the computational angle to offer similar effects. They aren’t there yet, but going in the right direction.
Just like digital stabilization is worse than optical. The artificial blur will never be as good as real optical focus.
Optical and digital stabilization has their own advantages over the other. I wouldn’t say that one is better than the other.
Here are are some advantages of digital stabilization: 1. I can use decades old manual lenses 2. In DSLR cases, I only have to pay for stabilization once—in the camera—not in every lens I buy 3. Makes my overall gear lighter 4. Six axis stabilization while optical has three
I don’t need to point out the advantages of optical since you already know that. Cheers! 😊
I think you’re mistaking digital with in-body sensor stabilization. On some digital cameras, the sensor is gimballed to provide stabilization with any old lens. This is different than digital stabilization, which takes a fixed sensor and lens and just crops and stretches the resulting image in such a way to stabilize the subject. The cropping and stretching causes a drop in resolution and sometimes odd distortions in the background.
Who cares about The Verge? They have no impact on the average buyer. These tech sites are so overrated. They need Google and Samsung spends millions of dollars advertising on these sites. Back in the day you had the MacWorld magazine. Sometimes an add for lets say a scanner had four pages and in the same magazine that scanner got a real bad review! Those days are gone. Now we have tech sites that suck.
While I’ve generally lost faith in the Verge, I think they have an audience of millions. They definitely have a lot of influence and advertising dollars are being spent on editorial influence for a reason. I still frequent their site and listen to the podcast even though I see so many logical inconsistencies in their writing.
Comments
I won't say he is alone in being off-the-scale biased but he is an extreme example nevertheless.
You will see similar styles on both sides of the fence but none of them are unbiased. Thankfully there is a lot of middle ground that represents a moderate, balanced viewpoint and it is up to us if we want to take it onboard or not.
That said I think that the heat is on Apple. To me the Apple 8 seems "comparable" to the iPhone 7 so I'm not upgrading my 7 Plus. Google is still in Apple's review mirror but gaining fast. Hopefully Apple increases their sensor size next year and improves their image quality more.
That said I think the big sellers 2H2017 will be the Samsung S8, followed by iPhone 8/8Plus, iPhone X, iPhone 7 and Note over the Pixel 2.
Why convince Apple authusiasts of how great the iPhone is? They already know.
Joanna Stern at the Wall Street Journal came across the problem and users should be happy that they came across it. Otherwise Apple might have dragged their foot in recognizing and acknowledging the problem and getting a software fix out (like last year with the MBP batteries). This is why its smart to wait for the iPhone XI or iPhone Xs. The "S" models were always better specs with fewer bugs.
- Join the Google Data Collection Empire when you get an Android that responds to 'Ok Google'
- Or keep with Siri (or like me don't use it)
Personally, things like Alexa, Siri, Bixby etc are not in the top 100 items I look for with a phone. But that's just me. YMMV
Often the first couple paragraphs are okay and then he ends up in diarrhea mode cutting and pasting from prior articles and going off on bizzaro rants.
It’s like he’s being paid by the word and rent is due.
LOL. I couldn't control my laugh for about 5 minutes, that too in office.
Comparing photos taken with with flash from places with bad lighting is even trickier considering most people don’t know what to look for and what aspect of phone camera (or any camera for that matter) capabilities should be tested. Most pro I know of not only look for how bright a flash can light up the subject but also looks for distribution of the light that the flash generates, quality of the light from flash, accuracy of colors, noise level, details loss, and more.
All camera, including DSLRs shooting RAW, show a JPGs photos on the screen when reviewing a photo that’s just taken. So all cameras does JPG processing—different camera makers process their captured image differently and prioritizing some aspect of photos more than others.
So when looking at photos from smartphones, specially on YouTube, it will be very difficult to say which is taken with what camera.
Having said all that, I prefer iPhone camera to take photos with than Android (that’s probably bias) but that’s not to say that I can’t take good photos some high end Android phones.
Sometimes I do wish I have more access to Android phones to compare photos side by side with iPhones.
Ever since iPhone 4, I’ve been very impressed how good phone cameras has become. And every time I go hiking, I never use my DSLR anymore. My DSLR is for special events like shooting actions or just about anything I can’t do with camera phone.
Here are are some advantages of digital stabilization:
1. I can use decades old manual lenses
2. In DSLR cases, I only have to pay for stabilization once—in the camera—not in every lens I buy
3. Makes my overall gear lighter
4. Six axis stabilization while optical has three
I don’t need to point out the advantages of optical since you already know that. Cheers! 😊
I use Lens Blur often when composing images together where depth of field is a consideration. It is almost imperceptible when done skillfully.
And, to be clear, I love true optical effects wherever possible. I own a pro 70mm-200mm f2.8 lens that produces amazing optical depth of field effect and has sophisticated OIS.
But I am pleased at how smartphones are working the computational angle to offer similar effects. They aren’t there yet, but going in the right direction.