Totally unimpressed. I would be back to Android in the blink of an eye if the company didn't force me to use the iOS environment (and supply me with the phone).

ZellSF wrote:

Your group of acquaintances is not "most people" and neither is the very narrow sample that is this forum.

True, but it is a fair indicator. I'm sure most people the world over use phones the same way that my acquaintances do; to send and read texts, to make phone calls (obviously!, to check Facebook and Twitter and other 'social' media, to quickly look up something to settle an argument, to check on prices or availability of items online and in shops, to browse the web when bored, and so on. I doubt many people use a mobile phone for professional photography, or to do any comprehensive video editing, or to record their singing for commercial use, etc. Most people want a device that's easy to use, reliable, easy to carry, and requires as little work or attention by the user (including having to remember to charge the phone) as possible.

The people who have the most data on what people use their phones for and what they want for their phone are focusing on cameras and design. That tells me what most people want.

That's not exactly 100% reliable either. Companies lie, especially if they have a vested interest in what they say. And I do believe that if you sold two phones, both identical except one had a better camera and twice the storage space, and the other had much better battery life, then most people would choose the latter. And I also think that many of the people who chose the former would do so simply because that phone sounds better on paper, and so (to them) would be better to impress their peers with, and in fact many of the people who bought the former phone wouldn't even notice the advantages in every day use.

Kerr Avon wrote:

to make phone calls

You and your friends are really weird, I personally don't know a single person who uses their phone to make calls 🤣 And I'm usually pretty angry at people who call me. Calling somebody out of the blue is very rude when you can simply send a message!

ShovelKnight wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

to make phone calls

You and your friends are really weird, I personally don't know a single person who uses their phone to make calls 🤣 And I'm usually pretty angry at people who call me. Calling somebody out of the blue is very rude when you can simply send a message!

Yes, it was stating the obvious, but if I hadn't mentioned it, then someone would probably have said something like "I don't know about you, but now and then I like to make phone calls with my phone. I was lucky to find a mobile phone that supports that feature. 😉 "

Mind you, with the copyright/patent system heading the way it is, in ten years or so Apple will probably copyright making phone calls on mobile phones, and then Samsung, Microsoft etc won't be able to legally sell mobiles that can make outgoing phone calls. Still, we can all buy the latest iPhones in 2029 if we want to make phone calls, at the very reasonable cost of $15,999 for the latest state of the art iPhone. And only another $7,999 if you want the optional speakers built into the iPhone so you can actually hear the phone calls.

Better be quick though, as the next firmware update after you buy the iPhone will slow the iPhone down dramatically. Well, they've gotten away with it for so long, so why stop in 2029?

ShovelKnight wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

to make phone calls

You and your friends are really weird, I personally don't know a single person who uses their phone to make calls 🤣 And I'm usually pretty angry at people who call me. Calling somebody out of the blue is very rude when you can simply send a message!

What? I am in and among the "young people" of America and everyone calls everyone. Calls are not considered rude.

keenmaster486 wrote:

What? I am in and among the "young people" of America and everyone calls everyone. Calls are not considered rude.

I was simply making fun of statements like "I don't use this feature ergo nobody does."

Kerr Avon wrote:

Better be quick though, as the next firmware update after you buy the iPhone will slow the iPhone down dramatically. Well, they've gotten away with it for so long, so why stop in 2029?

If Apple didn't already exist it should have been created just to see people talk nonsense about it 🤣

ShovelKnight wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

Better be quick though, as the next firmware update after you buy the iPhone will slow the iPhone down dramatically. Well, they've gotten away with it for so long, so why stop in 2029?

If Apple didn't already exist it should have been created just to see people talk nonsense about it 🤣

Ha! That would be a coincidence if Apple didn't exist. But it could also be a bad thing if that were true, because I'm sure a lot of people like their line of smartphones, but it's probably not worth it to just be paying like $150 for activating your iPhone, just to feed Apple's hungry digital mouths 😜

I think that Micro$oft need to get back to the smartphone game, but focus only in the OS and release it for any smartphone they can license. I can imagine them slapping the useless android ass with a mobile version of Windows 10, but they need to get their advantage on the sync device stuff. Being a phone able to sync with both PC and Mac well (better than iTunes as well is a must), then I could consider changing to a phone with M$ OS if Apple doesn’t stop with this nonsense of “triple useless cameras”. I despise android OS because of its security flaws and the badly designed UI/UX experience.

I know they failed with the Windows Phone, but Ballmer isn’t there anymore so theyve learned with their mistakes and are in a different path now (Linux in W10, Edge with Chromium engine...) so I cannot see why they don’t want to try again. The Surface Pro is a great piece of art.

And while we are criticizing the new iphones, I was terrified when I heard that the next iPads could have the same stupid cameras too. If they do that it’s the end of the line for me with Apple devices. I’ve had enough of their stupid ideas since Jobs death and the terrible leadership of Tim Cook. Was good while Jobs was alive.

Lot of vitriol there, bfcastello.

Saying that "Android" has a "badly designed UI/UX" doesn't make any sense, since "Android" has no UI/UX to speak of.

Perhaps you don't like the Google Pixel launcher? Or Samsung's launcher? Or whatever-brand-of-phone-you-tried's launcher? There are hundreds of launchers and skins out there, and countless myriads of apps (including dialers, contacts, calendars, browsers, etc). There's really no such thing as "The Android UI". It is what YOU make it.

As for security flaws, well perhaps the numbers should speak for themselves:

iOS

Versus

Android

The number of cameras also seems like a trivial thing to be so upset about. Is it overkill and a bit silly? Yeah probably. But they're just there, nobody's forcing you to use all three.

Relax!

Kerr Avon wrote:

True, but it is a fair indicator. I'm sure most people the world over use phones the same way that my acquaintances do; to send and read texts, to make phone calls (obviously!, to check Facebook and Twitter and other 'social' media, to quickly look up something to settle an argument, to check on prices or availability of items online and in shops, to browse the web when bored, and so on.

None of those benefit especially from a bigger battery, but a lot of social media (including SnapChat, which you excluded) are very picture heavy (pictures you take with the phone camera).

Kerr Avon wrote:

I doubt many people use a mobile phone for professional photography, or to do any comprehensive video editing, or to record their singing for commercial use, etc. Most people want a device that's easy to use, reliable, easy to carry, and requires as little work or attention by the user (including having to remember to charge the phone) as possible.

I doubt many people use their phones as soap while showering either, but it like your examples isn't related to the conversation you were replying to. Except maybe the part of professional photography, but that's not who better cameras in mobile phones are made for; they're made for regular people so they can take pictures without having to be a professional photographer.

Kerr Avon wrote:

That's not exactly 100% reliable either. Companies lie, especially if they have a vested interest in what they say.

Saying that anyone lies without elaborating on their motivation is meaningless.

Kerr Avon wrote:

That's not exactly 100% reliable either. Companies lie, especially if they have a vested interest in what they say. And I do believe that if you sold two phones, both identical except one had a better camera and twice the storage space, and the other had much better battery life, then most people would choose the latter.

Still a baseless assumption. At any rate, I never said battery wasn't important, just that your statement that it was the only thing "most people" found important was (most likely) incorrect.

ShovelKnight wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

to make phone calls

You and your friends are really weird, I personally don't know a single person who uses their phone to make calls 🤣 And I'm usually pretty angry at people who call me. Calling somebody out of the blue is very rude when you can simply send a message!

ZellSF wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

True, but it is a fair indicator. I'm sure most people the world over use phones the same way that my acquaintances do; to send and read texts, to make phone calls (obviously!, to check Facebook and Twitter and other 'social' media, to quickly look up something to settle an argument, to check on prices or availability of items online and in shops, to browse the web when bored, and so on.

None of those benefit especially from a bigger battery, but a lot of social media (including SnapChat, which you excluded) are very picture heavy (pictures you take with the phone camera).

Yes, and none of those sites have a stipulation like "Warning: Photos uploaded to this site must be taken on a camera with a higher quality than the camera you owned six months back". Cameras in phones have been good enough for most people for a long time now, it's battery life that most people seem to complain about. Photos that are taken and intended to be uploaded to the 'net, or to be viewed on the same mobile phone that took the photos, or are uploaded to the 'net and then viewed by other people on their own mobile phones, won't exactly benefit from better cameras on newer phones, the limiting factor is the small size of the mobile phones' screens. I really doubt many people with a modern (or modern-ish) phone take a photo, look at it on their phone, and think "Wow, I wish this photo was in 16K resolution, even though no one would actually see the benefits, not even me. Still, when 4K is in the past, and 16K phones come out, then I'll definitely buy one, and then when I take 16k photos and view then on my 11 x 7 centimetre mobile, the difference will be night and day".

And it takes battery power to take photos. One more reason why longer battery power is desirable, unlike the non-advantage for many people of getting a better quality camera in their phone.

Kerr Avon wrote:

I doubt many people use a mobile phone for professional photography, or to do any comprehensive video editing, or to record their singing for commercial use, etc. Most people want a device that's easy to use, reliable, easy to carry, and requires as little work or attention by the user (including having to remember to charge the phone) as possible.

I doubt many people use their phones as soap while showering either, but it like your examples isn't related to the conversation you were replying to.

Of course it's related. My "group of acquaintances" and "the very narrow sample that is this forum", to use your own words, are people who (a) use mobile phones, (b) don't (as far as I can see) use their phones for any complicated functions, and (c) even if they did want to perform the functions I name then would probably use a desktop PC instead for the convenience and power that the PC would offer over a mobile phone.

Except maybe the part of professional photography, but that's not who better cameras in mobile phones are made for; they're made for regular people so they can take pictures without having to be a professional photographer.

But phone cameras nowadays are good enough for most people. You yourself mentioned Snapchat, but can you honestly say you see many people with modern phones taking pictures for Snapchat and then lamenting that they wished the camera's built in phone was better quality.

But you try sitting in the staff canteen, or on a train, or anywhere else where there a crowds of people, and it would be long before, in a group of people chatting, one will stop to check their phone for messages, and mention that the battery is nearly dead. Do you not think that that person would take battery life into account when buying a new phone?

Better battery life benefits everyone, better phone cameras nowadays benefits far fewer people, so more people would be motivated to buy a new phone for it's battery life than for it's better quality photos.

Kerr Avon wrote:

That's not exactly 100% reliable either. Companies lie, especially if they have a vested interest in what they say.

Saying that anyone lies without elaborating on their motivation is meaningless.

Business is about making money. Where there is money there is corruption, and often lies and deceit. And if the multi-billionaire phone companies, electrical component manufacturers, the silicon chip manufacturers, etc, want to point the market a certain way, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't 'grease the wheels', so to speak, of some of the people/businesses who control the direction of public spending?

Kerr Avon wrote:

That's not exactly 100% reliable either. Companies lie, especially if they have a vested interest in what they say. And I do believe that if you sold two phones, both identical except one had a better camera and twice the storage space, and the other had much better battery life, then most people would choose the latter.

Still a baseless assumption.

It's not baseless at all. I have the opinions of people I have spoken to or overheard, and the opinions and wishes I've read on various forums, plus
the (to me) common sense judgement that most people will choose something that immediately benefits them (such as battery life) over something that offers them little if any tangible benefit (such as a camera that they'll only use to take photos to be viewed mainly on mobile phone screens).

Granted, that all doesn't add up to absolute proof, but it's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, and people who'd value better battery life are in the minority, but it doesn't seem likely to me.

At any rate, I never said battery wasn't important, just that your statement that it was the only thing "most people" found important was (most likely) incorrect.

But that's what my experience suggests. And offhand I can't remember any other function or feature (other than battery life) being regularly wished for. Most people use their phone then put it away. They do the same things on the phone several times a day, then put the phone away and don't think about the phone again until they want to make a text, or answer a call, or check their e-mail, etc. I don't remember ever being out with my mates and us discussing any features we'd like to see on mobile phones.

SquallStrife wrote:

Lot of vitriol there, bfcastello. […]
Show full quote

Lot of vitriol there, bfcastello.

Saying that "Android" has a "badly designed UI/UX" doesn't make any sense, since "Android" has no UI/UX to speak of.

Perhaps you don't like the Google Pixel launcher? Or Samsung's launcher? Or whatever-brand-of-phone-you-tried's launcher? There are hundreds of launchers and skins out there, and countless myriads of apps (including dialers, contacts, calendars, browsers, etc). There's really no such thing as "The Android UI". It is what YOU make it.

As for security flaws, well perhaps the numbers should speak for themselves:

The UI of any smartphone using Android is SHIT. Yes, S.H.I.T. Badly designed, terrible to use, complicated, ugly, you can choose. I can't use them. Windows Phone when it was around was much better than Android in all aspects. In an Android phone, you have to make several things before you can use something. In an iPhone, just one gesture can open what you want to use. My grandpa has an Android phone and is always complaining about how complicated it is. I let her use my iPhone for some time, and presto! She could do everything she wanted with the phone, because iOS is intuitive, Android isn't. See, iOS just works!

As a UI/UX designer, I can't stand what Samsung or Google does with Android, I can't use them. "It is what YOU make it" There you go, I don't want to make, I want to use. Apple's iOS is ready to use, easy, clean, beautiful and straight to the point. "It just works", period. I don't want a phone where I have to configure everything, even how it looks like. I want a phone that just works.

Now, security... as you can see, yes Android has much more flaws than iOS, and let me be clear: I can root and hack any Android in my hands with just less than 2 minutes. It's ridiculously easy. It's the main reason why I don't want an Android. End period.

JonathonWyble wrote:

ShovelKnight wrote:

Kerr Avon wrote:

Better be quick though, as the next firmware update after you buy the iPhone will slow the iPhone down dramatically. Well, they've gotten away with it for so long, so why stop in 2029?

If Apple didn't already exist it should have been created just to see people talk nonsense about it 🤣

Ha! That would be a coincidence if Apple didn't exist. But it could also be a bad thing if that were true, because I'm sure a lot of people like their line of smartphones, but it's probably not worth it to just be paying like $150 for activating your iPhone, just to feed Apple's hungry digital mouths 😜

Huh? First I heard you have to pay Apple anything to activate your phone. But yes, I heard of having to pay your mobile provider to unlock the SIM card as the providers are greedy bastards...

Look, you can like whatever you like, there's no need for everyone to like the same product. But some of the angst against Apple is just irrational. I mean... c'mon... you're going to NOT buy a new iPhone because it has three camera lenses? That's just silly.

I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the world that are going to dump an iPhone X for an iPhone 11 because it has a better camera. People are going to buy one because A) their old one is full / beat-up / broken / old and outdated and they need a new one; or B) they'll trade in their old one while they can still get value out of it. Either way, they'll buy the 11 because that's what the new model is, and it makes no sense to buy an obsolete model that you'll just have to replace sooner. (If you can milk an old phone for three years past its intended service life, good for you -- seriously, no sarcasm here, good for you.)

As a "I have a camera and don't care about the smartphone camera" person, I have to say, I've seen some reviews of the new iPhone 11 camera and it addresses a lot of the reasons I tell people that phone cameras will never equal a real camera. It's actually astonishingly good. I'm not about to give up my GH3 for it, but I'm still impressed.

I'll tell you one thing though: IT'S NOT ABOUT RESOLUTION. It's about low-light performance (where sensor size is everything, but somehow they're computing their way around optical physics), and it's about being able to capture more scene (ultra-wide angle lens) or more detail (telephoto lens) than any past iPhone camera. That requires either other lenses (which is why I carry a bag full of them) or one super-expensive, difficult-to-manufacture, large lens that still compromises something. Not an option. So three lenses it is. You may think it's a dumb gimmick, but on a recent vacation, I used the crap out of my wide-angle lens and my zoom lens, and my S.O. did her best with the one and only wide-ish angle lens she had on her phone. It's useful. Won't matter for selfies, but stand in front of the Notre Dame and try to get it all in frame without a wide-angle lens.

And hey, we'd all love a battery that lasts a week browsing the web at full brightness. Let me know when you discover the battery equivalent of The Bag of Holding. Until then, it is what it is. You'll just have to wait.

Part of my not-caring-about-the-camera attitude is because I simply don't take very many pictures to begin with, except documentation purposes such as posting pictures of my old computers on VOGONS.

When I take "nice" pictures I use my old film cameras, because I don't take very many to begin with, and vintage mechanical cameras are more fun.

SirNickity wrote:

Look, you can like whatever you like, there's no need for everyone to like the same product. But some of the angst against Apple is just irrational. I mean... c'mon... you're going to NOT buy a new iPhone because it has three camera lenses? That's just silly.

Not silly. I am not going to buy a phone that does not bring anything new or better than my current iPhone X. I am not going to buy an ugly phone. Apple was known for good designs. Not anymore. Cheese crater mac pro? protruding phone camera? and THREE cameras for nothing? Possibly the same design for the 2020's iPads? It's not apple, must be something else. If they do the same to the next iPads in 2020, I will stop giving them my money for their products, because they aren't doing what I want to buy, simple as that. And it is not silly to say "Why the hell I'd buy a device with three cameras? I don't need them, so I won't buy it." The key words here are "I DON'T NEED THEM".

SirNickity wrote:

I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the world that are going to dump an iPhone X for an iPhone 11 because it has a better camera. People are going to buy one because A) their old one is full / beat-up / broken / old and outdated and they need a new one; or B) they'll trade in their old one while they can still get value out of it. Either way, they'll buy the 11 because that's what the new model is, and it makes no sense to buy an obsolete model that you'll just have to replace sooner. (If you can milk an old phone for three years past its intended service life, good for you -- seriously, no sarcasm here, good for you.)

I have a X 256GB, running latest iOS 13, and it still looks like new, not full, not outdated, not obsolete and is still blazing fast. I am not going to buy the 11 because a) it's f*$#*$#ing ugly, b) I don't need three cameras and c) it does not offer anything that my X model can't do, so there is absolutely no need to buy it.

SirNickity wrote:

As a "I have a camera and don't care about the smartphone camera" person, I have to say, I've seen some reviews of the new iPhone 11 camera and it addresses a lot of the reasons I tell people that phone cameras will never equal a real camera. It's actually astonishingly good. I'm not about to give up my GH3 for it, but I'm still impressed.

Frankly, nothing beats a professional Canon or Nikon camera. Not even an iPhone 11 camera. I can get with my iPhone X the same quality photos the 11 can do, I just need to install certain pro apps.

SirNickity wrote:

I'll tell you one thing though: IT'S NOT ABOUT RESOLUTION. It's about low-light performance (where sensor size is everything, but somehow they're computing their way around optical physics), and it's about being able to capture more scene (ultra-wide angle lens) or more detail (telephoto lens) than any past iPhone camera. That requires either other lenses (which is why I carry a bag full of them) or one super-expensive, difficult-to-manufacture, large lens that still compromises something. Not an option. So three lenses it is. You may think it's a dumb gimmick, but on a recent vacation, I used the crap out of my wide-angle lens and my zoom lens, and my S.O. did her best with the one and only wide-ish angle lens she had on her phone. It's useful. Won't matter for selfies, but stand in front of the Notre Dame and try to get it all in frame without a wide-angle lens.

While I agree with the first part of what you said for a good photo, it does not count as an argument in defense of three cameras in a phone. The extra lens should have been made optional, detachable, take them when you want to use, period. Just like you do with professional cameras. Sell them separately, for the pros out there only.

So yes, it's a dumb gimmick, 90% of the people buying this model will not use it properly because not everyone is a pro photographer. It's a waste of money.

For me the phone must come with only one camera. More than that is an overkill. If they had done a 11 model with only one camera, then I'd buy it instead of the 11 Pro that has three. But they made the 11 standard with two cameras while they still kept the ugly rounded square there. No thanks, but no thanks.

SirNickity wrote:

And hey, we'd all love a battery that lasts a week browsing the web at full brightness. Let me know when you discover the battery equivalent of The Bag of Holding. Until then, it is what it is. You'll just have to wait.

I can use the phone with the screen dimmed... full brightness is bad for your eyes. My battery lasts the whole day and only is put to charge when I go to bed and sleep. For me it's good enough. I dunno about the others (the social network addicted people will complain for sure).

keenmaster486 wrote:

Part of my not-caring-about-the-camera attitude is because I simply don't take very many pictures to begin with, except documentation purposes such as posting pictures of my old computers on VOGONS.

When I take "nice" pictures I use my old film cameras, because I don't take very many to begin with, and vintage mechanical cameras are more fun.

THIS. It's exactly what I think.

Poor Apple, they just can't win. When they make beautiful things, people scold them for prioritising form over function, now they finally released a thicker phone with significantly increased battery life and much improved cameras and people are slamming them for prioritising function over form 🤣