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.
Maybe they should take into account a company‘s reputation when doing product reviews. Apple has a reputation for providing ongoing service to their products for many years, including regular software updates that fix bugs and even add new features. My original AppleWatch just received a new OS after being sold to me years ago... does Fitbit do the same?
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.
The bug only affected a limited use case tho, and was fixed once discovered. To not update the score is dishonesty since we live in an online world of patchable devices and patchable articles.
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.
Someone only does it if they’re trying too hard to convince themselves. If AI and most of its posters think Apple really is so much better than the competition why do writers here spend so much time writing about it? Why even give the Pixel the column inches? The average consumer doesn’t read tech sites like The Verge. Heck the average consumer probably doesn’t even know the Pixel exists.
Without even reading I can guess what this article is about: why iPhone is better than Pixel.
You lost bro?
Nope. Just not that insecure about the Apple products I own that I need to write long, rambling articles trashing competing products. If the Pixel isn’t all that and why are AI writers so obsessed with writing about it? Like I said I doubt the average consumer even knows the phone exists.
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.
They lied about the extent of the Problem. The verge lie about everything. It’s to create a click bait reactionary reaction n the internet. They don’t care if they are biased
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.
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.
Most ridiculous thing I’ve read. The best sellers will be iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X with the S8 a very distant 4th.
At their peak, Samsung could barely get close to selling half as many phones as Apple. And that was years ago before their sakes tanked and Apple continued to set records.
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.
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.
Someone only does it if they’re trying too hard to convince themselves.
Nope. Someone will also do it if it’s their job to write opinion pieces. DED does it here, and other writers do on other sites. That it personally irritates you that this is his beat is most peculiar.
Without even reading I can guess what this article is about: why iPhone is better than Pixel.
You lost bro?
Nope. Just not that insecure about the Apple products I own that I need to write long, rambling articles trashing competing products. If the Pixel isn’t all that and why are AI writers so obsessed with writing about it? Like I said I doubt the average consumer even knows the phone exists.
Is it really so difficult for you to understand why publications write articles and editorials? Perhaps you’ve never read a newspaper or visited a sports website, but I assure you it’s very normal for writer to write articles, including opinion pieces. That youre butthurt about them doing so indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how publications operate.
So far every review I have read about the Pixel's portrait mode has said two things: That the single lens camera really can replace the dual lens cameras and that the effect is equal to or better than portrait mode offered by dual lens arrangements from other vendors including Apple.
Yet, in the same review each have shown photos of Pixel's portrait mode with large blurring errors such as far away details being sharp while closer less textural objects being blurred heavily. Leading to inconsistent and counter-intuitive images that frankly look like bad photoshop jobs. These are definitely not 'better', rather they look unusable, entirely broken.
More concerning is that many of these reviewers have taken to cropping out the broken sections to reinforce their point or when conducting polls.
To be more specific, let's highlight the verge. Their review demonstrates very clearly who is paying to keep their doors open, publishing a gushing review despite these obvious flaws. Flaws that are present in their own demo images. In which case one must ask - how much are they lying in the rest of the review? There is so much that we take on the basis of trust in a review, yet here we see glaringly obvious lies. (And what about the images that the reviewer chose not to publish.)
Does this industry really have that little credibility? Plainly stating a glaringly obvious falsehood is the realm of 'fake news'.
So far every review I have read about the Pixel's portrait mode has said two things: That the single lens camera really can replace the dual lens cameras and that the effect is equal to or better than portrait mode offered by dual lens arrangements from other vendors including Apple.
Yet, in the same review each have shown photos of Pixel's portrait mode with large blurring errors such as far away details being sharp while closer less textural objects being blurred heavily. Leading to inconsistent and counter-intuitive images that frankly look like bad photoshop jobs. These are definitely not 'better', rather they look unusable, entirely broken.
More concerning is that many of these reviewers have taken to cropping out the broken sections to reinforce their point or when conducting polls.
To be more specific, let's highlight the verge. Their review demonstrates very clearly who is paying to keep their doors open, publishing a gushing review despite these obvious flaws. Flaws that are present in their own demo images. In which case one must ask - how much are they lying in the rest of the review? There is so much that we take on the basis of trust in a review, yet here we see glaringly obvious lies. (And what about the images that the reviewer chose not to publish.)
Does this industry really have that little credibility? Plainly stating a glaringly obvious falsehood is the realm of 'fake news'.
Did you notice the same issues in the Dx0 samples? Does Apple's Portrait mode also sometimes get things wrong?
If the camera is of very high importance to the user - and that particular feature too -, the Verge isn't where they will look for reviews. They will look to more specialist sites or generalist sites who ask a photographer to do the review.
That said, any site that resorts to what you commented on (possibly cropping out defects with the aim of hiding them) needs to be called out.
Despite the Pixel being a good phone, it is overpriced for what you get.
And the bokeh effect on Dieter’s post is awful. Really awful. The same level that some low end Huawei phones do it. Parts of the background are in focus and it is all inconsistent. If you do any bit of photography with a real camera or even the iPhone, you know that is bad bokeh. Or should I say shallow depth of field.
I've played around with the new pixel 2s at Verizon..I think all the screen talk is exaggerated, I would use it no problem..Not class leading but fine and crisper than iPhone screens. The camera is also awesome, especially for one lense. The Camera situation isn't even done on pixel 2 phones yet. There is a Google designed soc just for image processing inside with pixel 2 phones that isn't being used yet. It will be activated with Android 8.1 and who knows how that will further improve it's already great camera. Yes Google has never offered 3yrs of updates on there phones before but.. Historically Google's latest version of Android runs better on their phones than latest version of ios on old iPhones. We know that iOS doesn't run great on 3yrd old iPhones.
So far every review I have read about the Pixel's portrait mode has said two things: That the single lens camera really can replace the dual lens cameras and that the effect is equal to or better than portrait mode offered by dual lens arrangements from other vendors including Apple.
Yet, in the same review each have shown photos of Pixel's portrait mode with large blurring errors such as far away details being sharp while closer less textural objects being blurred heavily. Leading to inconsistent and counter-intuitive images that frankly look like bad photoshop jobs. These are definitely not 'better', rather they look unusable, entirely broken.
More concerning is that many of these reviewers have taken to cropping out the broken sections to reinforce their point or when conducting polls.
To be more specific, let's highlight the verge. Their review demonstrates very clearly who is paying to keep their doors open, publishing a gushing review despite these obvious flaws. Flaws that are present in their own demo images. In which case one must ask - how much are they lying in the rest of the review? There is so much that we take on the basis of trust in a review, yet here we see glaringly obvious lies. (And what about the images that the reviewer chose not to publish.)
Does this industry really have that little credibility? Plainly stating a glaringly obvious falsehood is the realm of 'fake news'.
Did you notice the same issues in the Dx0 samples? Does Apple's Portrait mode also sometimes get things wrong?
If the camera is of very high importance to the user - and that particular feature too -, the Verge isn't where they will look for reviews. They will look to more specialist sites or generalist sites who ask a photographer to do the review.
That said, any site that resorts to what you commented on (possibly cropping out defects with the aim of hiding them) needs to be called out.
The problem with Dx0 is summarised by this: they produce a single digit result - you can't even specify a lens with a single digit.
What then? Well a bunch of marketers parade around this meaningless number as if it's not a subjective assessment shoe horned into an objective figure. Then fanboys play echo chamber with the number as if the have a clue about photography, that is until a brand they don't like gets awarded a bigger number - then they suddenly hate the website and realise that the testing methods are bullshit. The cycle repeats itself every year until Dx0 run out of digits.
How about someone gets the Dx0 guys to take a blind test. Give them preshot test photos from all of the recent flagship phones and get them to rate them - I bet the results won't look anything like their official ratings.
So far every review I have read about the Pixel's portrait mode has said two things: That the single lens camera really can replace the dual lens cameras and that the effect is equal to or better than portrait mode offered by dual lens arrangements from other vendors including Apple.
Yet, in the same review each have shown photos of Pixel's portrait mode with large blurring errors such as far away details being sharp while closer less textural objects being blurred heavily. Leading to inconsistent and counter-intuitive images that frankly look like bad photoshop jobs. These are definitely not 'better', rather they look unusable, entirely broken.
More concerning is that many of these reviewers have taken to cropping out the broken sections to reinforce their point or when conducting polls.
To be more specific, let's highlight the verge. Their review demonstrates very clearly who is paying to keep their doors open, publishing a gushing review despite these obvious flaws. Flaws that are present in their own demo images. In which case one must ask - how much are they lying in the rest of the review? There is so much that we take on the basis of trust in a review, yet here we see glaringly obvious lies. (And what about the images that the reviewer chose not to publish.)
Does this industry really have that little credibility? Plainly stating a glaringly obvious falsehood is the realm of 'fake news'.
Did you notice the same issues in the Dx0 samples? Does Apple's Portrait mode also sometimes get things wrong?
If the camera is of very high importance to the user - and that particular feature too -, the Verge isn't where they will look for reviews. They will look to more specialist sites or generalist sites who ask a photographer to do the review.
That said, any site that resorts to what you commented on (possibly cropping out defects with the aim of hiding them) needs to be called out.
The problem with Dx0 is summarised by this: they produce a single digit result - you can't even specify a lens with a single digit.
What then? Well a bunch of marketers parade around this meaningless number as if it's not a subjective assessment shoe horned into an objective figure. Then fanboys play echo chamber with the number as if the have a clue about photography, that is until a brand they don't like gets awarded a bigger number - then they suddenly hate the website and realise that the testing methods are bullshit. The cycle repeats itself every year until Dx0 run out of digits.
How about someone gets the Dx0 guys to take a blind test. Give them preshot test photos from all of the recent flagship phones and get them to rate them - I bet the results won't look anything like their official ratings.
Yes, the marketers will take advantage of scores but in general terms, anyone with an interest in knowing how well a camera phone performs will take a good look at the samples and then seek out a review from a trusted source and then add all the opinions up. The rest may be left with other mainstream sites and the scores but the higher the score, the more likely it is that the camera will meet their needs.
For me it is more worrying that someone may deliberately altar a sample to hide a poor performing aspect of a phone. One thing is to 'sell' the phone by heaping praise on it (even if it isn't realistically worthy of the praise) but if they are trying to sway my opinion by deliberately hiding negative aspects in samples, it should be called out in the interests of everyone.
DED missed one of the most important advantages of iPhone over the Pixel 2 and Android smartphones: the hundreds and hundreds Apple Stores around the world. The Apple Stores provide unlimited free timeless services to Apple products purchased. And I believe Apple Stores are created by Steve Jobs to combat the 'fake news media' which were biased toward Microsoft Windows. In Costco there are stands selling smartphones for major telecomm companies. The major problem is they display mostly Samsung Galaxy phones. They are turned off. You cannot try them and compare with iPhones. In Apple Stores all iPhones are turned on and in a fully usable state not some marketing state. You are free to play them without any employee to come to bother you. Which Android makers can meet this standard?
In Apple Stores all iPhones are turned on and in a fully usable state not some marketing state. You are free to play them without any employee to come to bother you. Which Android makers can meet this standard?
The experience isn't exactly the same as in Apple retail stores because you don't have as many phones available nor specialist staff (at least not at every location). Many are stores-in-stores like Apple has in some places.
The strong point is that there are literally thousands of them and all the phones are usable. On top of that you have carrier outlets where you can also use the phones.
In addition to all that Huawei has (and is opening more) of its own retail outlets plus street level service centres in major cities where you get direct contact with the brand which, IMO, is one of Apple Retail's strongest points.
Comments
Most ridiculous thing I’ve read. The best sellers will be iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X with the S8 a very distant 4th.
At their peak, Samsung could barely get close to selling half as many phones as Apple. And that was years ago before their sakes tanked and Apple continued to set records.
Yet, in the same review each have shown photos of Pixel's portrait mode with large blurring errors such as far away details being sharp while closer less textural objects being blurred heavily. Leading to inconsistent and counter-intuitive images that frankly look like bad photoshop jobs. These are definitely not 'better', rather they look unusable, entirely broken.
More concerning is that many of these reviewers have taken to cropping out the broken sections to reinforce their point or when conducting polls.
To be more specific, let's highlight the verge. Their review demonstrates very clearly who is paying to keep their doors open, publishing a gushing review despite these obvious flaws. Flaws that are present in their own demo images. In which case one must ask - how much are they lying in the rest of the review? There is so much that we take on the basis of trust in a review, yet here we see glaringly obvious lies. (And what about the images that the reviewer chose not to publish.)
Does this industry really have that little credibility? Plainly stating a glaringly obvious falsehood is the realm of 'fake news'.
If the camera is of very high importance to the user - and that particular feature too -, the Verge isn't where they will look for reviews. They will look to more specialist sites or generalist sites who ask a photographer to do the review.
That said, any site that resorts to what you commented on (possibly cropping out defects with the aim of hiding them) needs to be called out.
And the bokeh effect on Dieter’s post is awful. Really awful. The same level that some low end Huawei phones do it. Parts of the background are in focus and it is all inconsistent. If you do any bit of photography with a real camera or even the iPhone, you know that is bad bokeh. Or should I say shallow depth of field.
The camera is also awesome, especially for one lense. The Camera situation isn't even done on pixel 2 phones yet. There is a Google designed soc just for image processing inside with pixel 2 phones that isn't being used yet. It will be activated with Android 8.1 and who knows how that will further improve it's already great camera.
Yes Google has never offered 3yrs of updates on there phones before but.. Historically Google's latest version of Android runs better on their phones than latest version of ios on old iPhones. We know that iOS doesn't run great on 3yrd old iPhones.
What then? Well a bunch of marketers parade around this meaningless number as if it's not a subjective assessment shoe horned into an objective figure. Then fanboys play echo chamber with the number as if the have a clue about photography, that is until a brand they don't like gets awarded a bigger number - then they suddenly hate the website and realise that the testing methods are bullshit. The cycle repeats itself every year until Dx0 run out of digits.
How about someone gets the Dx0 guys to take a blind test. Give them preshot test photos from all of the recent flagship phones and get them to rate them - I bet the results won't look anything like their official ratings.
For me it is more worrying that someone may deliberately altar a sample to hide a poor performing aspect of a phone. One thing is to 'sell' the phone by heaping praise on it (even if it isn't realistically worthy of the praise) but if they are trying to sway my opinion by deliberately hiding negative aspects in samples, it should be called out in the interests of everyone.
The experience isn't exactly the same as in Apple retail stores because you don't have as many phones available nor specialist staff (at least not at every location). Many are stores-in-stores like Apple has in some places.
The strong point is that there are literally thousands of them and all the phones are usable. On top of that you have carrier outlets where you can also use the phones.
In addition to all that Huawei has (and is opening more) of its own retail outlets plus street level service centres in major cities where you get direct contact with the brand which, IMO, is one of Apple Retail's strongest points.
Samsung has basically the same set-up.