iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max Announced With High Refresh Rate 120Hz Displays (theverge.com) 124
Apple has officially announced the high-end part of the iPhone 13 lineup: the iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max. It's got a faster A15 Bionic chip, three all-new cameras, and an improved display with up to a 120Hz ProMotion high refresh rate display that can go as bright as 1,000 nits. The iPhone 13 Pro will start at $999, while the iPhone 13 Pro Max will start at $1099. Both will be available to order on Friday, shipping on September 24th. From a report: The OLED screens on both models are the same sizes as last year at 6.1 and 6.7 inches but with slightly smaller notches that should allow for more space in the iOS status bar. Apple says the phones have an all-new three-camera system. The ultrawide should offer better low-light photography, and the telephoto now goes up to 3x zoom, enabling 6x optical zoom across the three cameras. All three cameras now have night mode, and there's a new macro mode for photographing subjects at just 2cm.
120 Hz = useless (Score:1)
I hoped Apple would stay away from this gimmick just like they avoided 3D phones back in 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:120 Hz = useless (Score:4)
This was also true when Apple switched to the PowerPC chip. Why spend so much money on a 667mhz Powerbook, when you can get a 1ghz Gateway2000 with an Intel Celeron processor.
I don't think it is case of Customers like big numbers, but a lack of common benchmark metrics that are advertised.
You buy a PC vs a Mac. The Clock Speed is one of the few values that they will often share. The rest of the benchmarks are like in Metrics vs Empirical. Difficult to translate between the two unless you really know the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hoped Apple would stay away from this gimmick just like they avoided 3D phones back in 2010.
Aren't all phones 3-dimensional? Are you saying Apple make a 2-dimensional phone? 'Cause that would totally fit in my pocket!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hoped Apple would stay away from this gimmick just like they avoided 3D phones back in 2010.
Aren't all phones 3-dimensional? Are you saying Apple make a 2-dimensional phone? 'Cause that would totally fit in my pocket!
Most people don't remember, but some Android manufacturers released phones with a 3D display back in 2010. There was the HTC EVO 3D. The phone could take 3D videos (using 2 cameras) and show them on the display (you didn't even need 3D glasses) or output to a 3D TV using HDMI.
Back then, some people viewed 3D phones as the future, and some people laughed at the iPhone for being only 2D.
Re:120 Hz = useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the 120hz refresh rate is dynamic, so it scales up and down depending on the needs of the system at the time, means better battery life. Yes that actually is useful, sorry.
S'not all good news for Apple, though. Consider this: They said "don't use our phones on motorcycles" and then they went ahead featured one of their phones mounted to a motorcycle anyway heh.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that really matter, especially around here?
Re:120 Hz = useless (Score:5, Interesting)
I have 120Hz on my Samsung, while it sacrificed screen resolution to have it. It is actually a good thing.
While having a 4k Display on your phone vs 1k you really will not notice much at all. the 120hz vs 60 does have a noticeable difference in fast scrolling, also when using it in a moving environment, the image will stay much better in one piece vs say having a set of boxes.
However that being said, I hope phone and device makers, stop trying to get more resolution and frame rates soon, so the advancements in performance can go into other areas, such as CPU speed, or better battery management, (being a fast processing often means much longer lower power idle time)
Re: (Score:2)
My Pixel 5 has 90Hz and it's noticeably better than 60, including for reading Slashdot.
Lol at Apple though. 120Hz was pointless last year, this year it's hot stuff. Also OLED was pointless once, now they love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol at Apple though. 120Hz was pointless last year, this year it's hot stuff. Also OLED was pointless once, now they love it.
That's literally their MO.
Any tech improvement is garbage until they implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
One issue they normally run into is scale. When Samsung wants to do some groundbreaking new whatever, they make a tiny number of them and give them a high price, and everyone is fine, because the rest of their lineup doesn't need it. By contrast, usually Apple wants to roll out technical advancements across their line. That is a big part of why Apple is always a year or three late to any party.
Re: (Score:2)
A tiny number of OLED displays?
No. That theory doesn't hold water.
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, usually Apple wants to roll out technical advancements across their line.
No they don't, the just-announced iPad Mini for example still doesn't have a 120Hz screen but the iPad Pro does.
Re: 120 Hz = useless (Score:2)
10 fps ought to be good for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACTUALLY useful thing is that it can go down to 10Hz, saving battery when there's nothing really changing on the screen. But yeah, 120Hz doesn't really change much. I've tested my iPhone XR beside a Samsung with a 120Hz display, and for all the hype you see on YouTube tech channels, I really couldn't see a meaningful difference.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah, 120Hz doesn't really change much. I've tested my iPhone XR beside a Samsung with a 120Hz display, and for all the hype you see on YouTube tech channels, I really couldn't see a meaningful difference.
Not trying to be insulting, but are you very old?
To me the difference is as clear as night and day.
60Hz has noticeably jankier animations.
For me, at least, it was one of those things where 60Hz was fine, until i used 120Hz.
Once acclimated to 120Hz, 60Hz was painfully bad.
Both of my iPad Pros are 120Hz, and they've always been noticeably more fluid than my iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
>But yeah, 120Hz doesn't really change much
I mean, maybe not for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessary, but it's definitely noticeable and nicer than 60Hz. The dynamic refresh rate should help alleviate battery concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't [testufo.com] know [surma.dev] what the fuck you are talking about.
Just because YOU can't can differentiate between 30, 60 and 120 FPS doesn't mean no one else can't either.
For response people can detect as little as 1 millisecond [youtube.com] input lag.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because YOU can't can differentiate between 30, 60 and 120 FPS doesn't mean no one else can't either.
Oh I am sure they can, if they look for it. Just like I could probably differentiate between 8k and 4k by sitting 1 inch in front of a 100" TV.
The question is whether it brings anything useful when replying to an email/chat, taking pictures, or reading web sites. Basically what people do on their phones.
Perhaps it has some use to hardcore 3D phone gamers, but the rest of us couldn't care less.
I worked on a 30 Hz screen for a couple of months (my laptop could only do 4k 60 Hz using display port and I was alr
Re: (Score:2)
120Hz displays have been on the iPad since 2017.
Your claim that it is a gimmick is patently false.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between 60Hz and 120Hz on my Samsung is as clear as night and day in basic screen animations.
Why should I care about basic screen animations? I'd turn them off if I could.
Re: (Score:2)
People in general? Because smoother transitions are easier on the eyes. Less jarring.
When you've holding something down with your finger and moving it across the screen, the smoother it looks, the more real it feels.
I suspect if you're telling the truth (You'd turn off all animations if you could) that just about everything in life seems like a gimmick to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Scrolling works just fine at 60 Hz. But if I thought it was not enough, I'd change my computer monitor first, not my phone. I changed a couple months ago and chose a 32" 4k 60Hz. There were some 144 Hz gaming monitors but I couldn't care less. And I've never met anyone working on a computer doing coding / excel / email / whatever typical work tasks saying he wishes his refresh rate was higher than 60 Hz. Never. I can't speak for those in the 3D animation / gaming / film industry however.
Re: (Score:2)
Scrolling works just fine at 60 Hz.
Just fine is a subjective assessment, of course.
One could argue it "works just fine at 30 Hz"
Doesn't mean 60Hz isn't better. Doesn't mean 120Hz isn't better than that.
I'd change my computer monitor first, not my phone.
I don't think 120Hz was added to phones because it was expected to make people change their phones.
Rather, I suspect it was part of the regular cadence of technological improvements that are expected, otherwise people will "change their phone"
120Hz is better than 60Hz in terms of fluidity of animations. That's simply a fact.
I changed a couple months ago and chose a 32" 4k 60Hz. There were some 144 Hz gaming monitors but I couldn't care less.
Sure. And video
Re: (Score:2)
120Hz is better than 60Hz in terms of fluidity of animations. That's simply a fact.
Yes and 240 Hz is better than 120. And 480 Hz is better than 240. More is always better. The thing is, at some point, people stop caring.
99% of people stop caring around 60 Hz. 99% of the remaining 1% probably stop caring around 120 Hz. And then you can probably find a few who would swear that 480 Hz is better than 240. With enough practice, they could probably even tell the difference on a randomized study.
Also, you forget that 120 Hz uses more power than 60. So 120 is not always better than 60.
I'd cap my
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and 240 Hz is better than 120. And 480 Hz is better than 240. More is always better. The thing is, at some point, people stop caring.
Oh absolutely. We're just obviously not there, yet (for most people) as the push is higher, and people are still liking what they see in terms of improvement.
Clearly, the improvement is logarithmic in nature.
30Hz to 60Hz is going to feel far more important than 60Hz to 120Hz. But 60Hz to 120Hz is still very noticeable, and I personally love it.
In DeX mode on my Samsung Tab S7+, the first thing you notice when you drag a window around is how shockingly buttery and good it feels compared to a laptop (well,
Re: (Score:2)
I was not talking about HDR. I was talking about splitting the same color spectrum/brightness into 32 or 48 bits instead of 24. You could theoretically do HDR with 16-bit colors.
The refresh rate of the panel is variable, with a cap of 120. So it only uses 120 when it thinks it will be visually appealing.
Well you can't have it both ways. Either it enables 120 Hz when scrolling, and therefore reduces battery life, or it doesn't and then there is no use for the feature.
What I was saying is that I wouldn't sacrifice 5 minutes of battery life so that my scrolling increase from 60 to 120 Hz.
Move a window from one side of your screen to the other. Measure how long it takes. Then measure the distance.
Derive your distance per time, and then divide by refresh.
In just about all cases, 60Hz is going to result in some very large jumps on that screen.
120Hz is going to appear surprisingly more fluid. Trust me. I've done it.
Oh I am sure geeks will find it more fluid. Jus
Re: (Score:2)
I was not talking about HDR. I was talking about splitting the same color spectrum/brightness into 32 or 48 bits instead of 24. You could theoretically do HDR with 16-bit colors.
Not really. The quantization artifacts would be impressively bad.
The quantization artifacts at 8bpc are bad enough.
10 is where it starts to look good.
HDR is the best way to demonstrate the capabilities of 10bpc color.
If you want to see the difference without HDR, of course, you can just do a banding test across the widge of your monitor. It is also quite stark.
But screw that hypothetical stuff. Just watch an HDR movie. Notice the lack of banding in the blacks. That's not because it's HDR- that's becau
Re: (Score:2)
A screen with dynamic refresh that can drop to say, 15Hz when nothing's going on, and ramp up to 120 when something is, is still using less power than a traditional non-dynamic refresh screen that's fixed at 60Hz.
Of course but then you could have a dynamic refresh rate display with a maximum of 60 Hz. Such a display would use less power than a 120 Hz one. It's not an issue for a 32" desktop monitor but it is for a mobile phone with a small battery.
It's a shame you had to make that tradeoff.
My 4K display does 60hz just fine.
Mine too, but the only display port on that monitor is used to connect to my desktop. My laptop connect to it using HDMI, and that laptop can only output 4k 60 Hz using DP. I didn't care enough to get 60 Hz to switch the cable from one PC to the other. And that is for 30 v
Re: (Score:2)
Of course but then you could have a dynamic refresh rate display with a maximum of 60 Hz.
Absolutely. They just didn't.
Such a display would use less power than a 120 Hz one.
No argument there.
I'm just saying the particular enhancements went hand in hand, which makes the determination of the bulk enhancement being worse difficult.
Nobody was bothering with VRR (in the mobile space, at least) before 120Hz panels.
It's not an issue for a 32" desktop monitor but it is for a mobile phone with a small battery.
Even then, that's hard to say.
I imagine the backlight (on LCDs) *vastly* outweighs additional computation and driving costs for higher refresh.
For OLEDs, it may matter more (in that refresh may be a larger percentage of the total usage of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not entirely true, people can perceive refresh rates up to ~100Hz with optimal contrast ratios and high concentration. Beyond that your brain cannot physically process any faster and the only reason you'd go beyond that is if you need to actually more accurately time physical responses to stimuli. Most researchers will agree that beyond 120Hz (240Hz for example) in well-built environments the additional timing precision just becomes noise, I guess that if you're a pro-gamer athlete and you fall outside the
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point is that you CANNOT perceive it, so your brain translates it into a single smoother flowing image. Essentially if anything on any screen moves more than 1 pixel per refresh then a higher refresh rate will look smoother to your eye, even if (and actually because) you cannot see the individual frames.
This is obvious when scrolling through a document rapidly, or making a huge snap sweep left to right in a game. It may not help you be more accurate (agree that you're not seeing each individual
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously different people are going to have different capabilities when it comes to perception. I know people who can't tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz refresh rates, for instance. Whereas I and many others can do so. There is some upper limit on frame rates, of course, and likely everything past around 90 is sharply diminished returns.
That being said, the iPhone being able to do 120 Hz is a gimmick that some gamers will find useful, just as a high refresh rate monitor is better than a norm
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true, people can perceive refresh rates up to ~100Hz with optimal contrast ratios and high concentration.
It is a lot more complicated than that.
That's like the similarly bogus claim that "Humans can only perceive N colors"
Your eyes do not have a refresh rate, just like they do not have quantized color perception.
Undoubtedly, there is an upper limit for both where it's useless, but there are also many side effects to introducing quantization errors by making assumptions on that upper limit. For colors, it's banding.
For refresh rate, it's perception of smoothness.
Re: (Score:2)
> Most people perceive their 120Hz to better because a 120Hz monitor also boosts contrast ratios and has features like HDR
I mean, you can change the refresh rate on the monitor to disabuse yourself of this notion. When I first got a fast refresh monitor, there were several things that could stop it from refreshing at 120 Hz (it would go to a 60 Hz refresh rate), and so I'd notice it, go in and fix it. This told me that I clearly could notice it, at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
Your brain has an upper limit of being able to process information - https://mollylab-1.mit.edu/sit [mit.edu]... [mit.edu]
Discrete processing time of your brain is, as I said, a silly way to look at it, which will lead you to incorrect conclusions.
The brain does not have a frame rate.
How long it takes the brain to look at a frame, and analyze what is on it is not relevant.
Most people perceive their 120Hz to better because a 120Hz monitor also boosts contrast ratios and has features like HDR.
No.
This is absurd. Contrast ratios are not superior at all on a 120Hz display, and HDR is only used with HDR content.
Also most people are comparing tech that is 10y old with brand new and then say it's the particular new feature that makes it better, like the people that say their Android at 60Hz doesn't look smooth compared to a 120Hz model - because any cheap model Android indeed drops frames rendering the desktop while the more expensive ones have better CPU/GPU.
Most people are looking at real hardware, while it is clear that you are not.
Newer tech doesn't even refresh the entire screen or refresh at the speeds advertised, making it appear smoother by compressing the result and/or strobing the backlight at a higher refresh rate.
Wow. Way fucking wrong.
You're now conflating motion blur redu
will there be an iPhone 13 Mini? (Score:2)
thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it exists. Minor upgrades like more battery juice, cinema mode, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No finger print. Still face ID. SE (2020) still exists.
Incremental (Score:3)
At best the specs given are incremental improvements over iPhones of the last three models. The macro lens finally coming in at iPhone 13 is more embarrassing than revolutionary. And the OLED screen, even if it does provide everything it promises, it marginal in real world differences. The improvements in battery chemistry is nice, but not huge. Additionally, the A15 sounds like it's added a lot more to the internal neural processing to enable the Deep Fusion stuff, and I guess that is "neat" that they are going after photography, but even the iPhone X was (and is still) doing quite well in the taking very well captured images.
I get that Apple is just doing the yearly release to get it out there, but at some point this all is becoming snooze. You know what would be exciting at this point? Removable battery. Like that would blow my mind at this point if some phone was to actually start making inroads for giving people repairable phones. All this other stuff, it's fluff. None of it when rubber meets road means a hill of beans. Consumers have lost so much in this industry, it wouldn't take much in empowering consumers over their devices to make serious headwinds. Like I said, actually make an iPhone with a removable battery, and all the tech sites will gush over how different that one feature is.
I guess "Congrats" to Apple for making yet another phone and what not, but gosh the ones coming out of Apple as of late have been merely incremental in advances and just major devastation for reduction of consumer options and choice of what they ultimately get to do with their devices. I mean I'm not going to crucify them, they're just doing what they usually do, but every time they release a phone I keep hoping they'll do something that is actually pro-consumer and OF COURSE I'm routinely disappointed when they do nothing or even sometimes the exact opposite of it. I guess I'm just Sisyphus in my expectations of Apple (or any phone maker at this point).
Re: Incremental (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise yes it is an incremental update. I am always happy about better screen and better cameras whenever i change my phone but otherwise phones are not so exciting anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This year I bought an iFixit kit for my wife's iPhone 6s and swapped it out in about 30 minutes. Quite simple to do and now her phone works as new. Really, there hasn't been anything revolutionary about the iPhone to make me want to upgrade from the iPhone 6s. Face unlock certainly wasn't it, and lack of 3.5mm headphones isn't it either. Looks like I'm going another year as long as our iPhone 6s's keep chugging along.
Re: Incremental (Score:4, Insightful)
I upgraded from the iPhone 6S to the iPhone 11 Pro. It's extremely nice, a large quality of life upgrade. The battery lasts significantly longer, the screen is sharper and more vivid, the "feel" of the phone is also subjectively better, and of course it's much faster. They're all small things that add up.
The camera and the telephoto and wide angle functions are also really improved, and having night mode is a huge plus.
Re:Incremental (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people really want a removable battery? Last time I remember seeing that was on a flip phone. The number of times I put a new battery in? Zero. Now with power bank accessories about the size of a Chapstick tube, I'd be fine just using something like that on the rare occasion that I need more battery. And of course it's incremental, If the features were revolutionary every year, iPhones or Androids would act as teleportation devices and be powered with zero point energy. If you look at the changes over the past 14 years, the iPhone and Android have dramatically changed how we live and communicate. Personally, I'd like to see more effort put into Siri.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people really want a removable battery?
Not if they want the phone to be waterproof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do.
I previously replaced the battery twice on my Nexus 4 (non removable) after cracking the back case. My barely tech-literate mother was able to replace the battery on her Galaxy S4 during pandemic lockdown when I couldn't visit by ordering a battery on ebay.
My Moto G5 is due for a new battery soon after 4 years of use and well out of warranty. There isn't even the option to pay for someone to do it in a shop (shops are closed during lockdown) when I can get one delivered for $AU15 and do it myself.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do people really want a removable battery?"
Reminds me of my old Nokia 232 phone. (same one that Mulder and Scully used) You could swap batteries easily and there were large batteries available that gave you double the runtime.
Ah, the good old days....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do people really want a removable battery?
Of course some people want a removable battery. How else are we to be certain that the damn thing is actually OFF?
Re: (Score:2)
At best the specs given are incremental improvements over iPhones of the last three models.
Yeah what happened to all those "analyst" claims that the iPhone 13 was going to have sattelite phone capability?
Re: (Score:2)
You might be holding it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Incremental (Score:2)
People make a big deal about removable batteries. I don't understand why.
My phone is 3 years old. Still has original battery, which states it is at 85% capacity. Even if I wanted to replace it, it would be $70 to have Apple do it, and then it would be good for another 3 years.
I wouldn't want to sacrifice ANYTHING to make the battery removable. On the other hand, if someone feels a removable battery is important, there are other options available to them, hey don't need to bother both iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
My phone is 3 years old. Still has original battery, which states it is at 85% capacity.
I don't necessarily disagree with your overarching point, but you're pretty lucky I think.
I've owned iPhones since the very first. And while I've never looked at what it states as the capacity (that must be a pretty new-ish feature) I know that usually within the first year, their effective capacity is low enough to become annoying (dead by the end of the day)
Re: (Score:2)
My phone is 3 years old. Still has original battery, which states it is at 85% capacity.
I don't necessarily disagree with your overarching point, but you're pretty lucky I think.
I use an iPhone XS Max that I purchased on the day it came out so it's almost bang on 3 years old, I just checked and its battery health is saying 87%.
Re: (Score:2)
82%.
I average 1h31m of screen on time a day (over the 10 days it shows)
And it drains at about 8% per hour.
95% of the "Battery Usage By App" is "Messages".
I can't give a perfect amount of time that the battery lasted when it was new, but I know it was more than 12.5 hours, and I know it was more than 12.5 / 0.85
So you're right, I have a new conclusion, and it doesn't regard luck:
Apple's battery voltage to capacity curve is wrong as all fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost is low enough, infrequently enough, that it doesn't actually bother me.
Re: Incremental (Score:2)
So...having a phone with a removable battery is important because I should carry an extra battery with me to help out a friend who happens to have the same make/model of phone as I do?
Why wouldn't that friend just carry their own extra battery? And why would I feel responsible for keeping their phone charged?
That has got to be the dumbest rationale possible for removable phone batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Removable batteries are nice in that you can go from 0% charge to 100% charge in a matter of less than a minute if you have two or more batteries and a stand alone charger for the batteries.
Fuck me you people must be shit scared of the idea of electric cars.
Would be especially helpful for that friend that likely everyone has that can't seem to remember to charge their phone and every time the group is getting ready to go out they're like hold up my phone is almost dead, btw do you have a charger I can use for 10-15min to top it up?
If you're going to carry a spare battery with you why not just carry a charge pack?
Re: (Score:2)
Carrying a charge pack and wire and feeling like a dork with the whole contraption falling out of whatever pockets while trying to use/charge it ... is why i hate that option compared to 'power off, swap battery, boot up' in ~1 minute.
Also, spare batteries don't have the significant charging losses or extra electronics to take up space so they're more efficient electrically and physically. Plus, again, no awkward wire.
There's some reasons for fixed batteries but most of them are just to improve profit marg
Re: (Score:2)
Carrying a charge pack and wire and feeling like a dork with the whole contraption falling out of whatever pockets while trying to use/charge it ... is why i hate that option compared to 'power off, swap battery, boot up' in ~1 minute.
It's not a particularly clumsy solution [apple.com] like you describe. The charge pack cable solution is more flexible than the spare battery or magsafe solutions that require specific compatibility.
Also, spare batteries don't have the significant charging losses or extra electronics to take up space so they're more efficient electrically and physically.
Ok seems like a bit of a stretch but you do you, if you and your friend group all have compatible phones with removable batteries then I'm sure that solution works for you.
Plus, again, no awkward wire.
There's plenty of wire-free charging cases and of course the capacitive solutions. The "awkward wire" isn't a necessity of the charge pack approach.
With
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an 'S' year. Not that I think there's a lot of space for so-called innovation regardless, but this would have been the iPhone 12S in the old parlance, and this is definitely that kind of upgrade.
That said, the macro thing threw all my plans out the window. I was prepared to buy the 13 Mini, but I've wanted a built-in macro system for so long, I can't justify the Mini, and that means either buying the 13 Pro or waiting for the system to trickle down. So I'm gonna wait.
Copying Android with 120Hz display (Score:1)
But keeping the Apple marking alive with a new useless buzz word - "ProMotion"
Re: (Score:2)
They've called it that for years, ever since they added it to the iPad.
Still no USB-C. Still not a real device. (Score:2, Interesting)
Still don't care.
When Apple comes into line with the rest of the industry and starts using standardized ports on their phones, I'll start caring about their phones again. Until I can get a phone with a standards-based connector for audio, I'll be sticking with my iPhone 6s with its actual headphone jack. And when Apple drops support, the Pixel 4a looks mighty tempting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until I can get a phone with a standards-based connector for audio
An iPhone's standards-based audio link is called Bluetooth.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no words for how much I hate Bluetooth. It's the difference between just plugging in a wire in my old car and having to fiddle with Bluetooth for five minutes once per week because the d**n thing won't connect correctly before giving up and rebooting both my phone and my car...
... not to mention how much joy it is to deal with a single set of headphones and multiple devices when a bunch of software is in control over which computer or phone the headphones are going to talk to.
... not to mention
Re: (Score:2)
You have to realise you're in the 1% market.
Most people want headphone for music, calls (video or audio only) and watching stuff like netflix. That's all.
And for most people bluetooth works in cars with few issues, and no one wants to plug in unless it's for android auto/carplay
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I've used it in at least three different vehicles so far (multiple manufacturers), and "no issues" does not describe my experience in any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did make 1990s-era Macs crash when I walked in the room, so I wouldn't rule it out. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, everyone has bluetooth issues with their car. What make and model is your car? You are the only person I've ever heard state that bluetooth works good.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, everyone has bluetooth issues with their car.
This statement is absurd.
What make and model is your car?
2011 Ford Mustang GT/CS. Girlfriend is rolling around in a 2015 Passat TDI SEL Premium. Neither relevant though.
You are the only person I've ever heard state that bluetooth works good.
This one is less absurd, because you've qualified it with "I've"
If you have never heard anyone say the bluetooth in their car works well, it's most likely because that's simply the default state. You don't talk about what works.
Re: (Score:2)
> And for most people bluetooth works in cars with few issues
I have never seen bluetooth work in cars with few issues. I am in rental cars a decent amount, so I can assure you that bluetooth sucks across all brands period.
Bluetooth also has wild latency, enough that is disturbing in a video game and somewhat distracting on a phone call. Normal people who just use it to make calls complain about this because it sucks.
The use for bluetooth is a podcast. It's 100% at that. It's like 90% for music, good
Re: (Score:3)
When Apple comes into line with the rest of the industry and starts using standardized ports on their phones, I'll start caring about their phones again.
I'm sure Apple spends all day, every day crying into their giant mountain of gold bullion [cnbc.com], awaiting your return. You heartbreaker!
Re: Still no USB-C. Still not a real device. (Score:1)
I don't care about a headphone jack, but I do want USB-C. Had it come with that, I would definitely get one. Without it? Meh....
Re: (Score:2)
For me, USB-C is a standard headphone jack. I can use one connector to plug wired headphones into both my Mac and my iPhone if they both have USB-C. It's also a standard charger, etc., but it's the headphones that would drive me nuts constantly if I upgraded my 6s.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll never do it, and they would be stupid to do it. They'll drop ports first.
Hundreds of millions of people already own a lot of peripherals for iPhones, and they absolutely lost their shit when Apple changed from the 30-pin connector to the objectively better Lightning connector.
What would USB-C get them, technically speaking? Nothing. They're about the same size. There's no real technological advantage to USB-C.
So really, if they changed now for the sake of 'compatibility', all they'd be doing is maki
Re: (Score:3)
Hundreds of millions of people already own a lot of peripherals for iPhones, and they absolutely lost their shit when Apple changed from the 30-pin connector to the objectively better Lightning connector.
Hundreds of millions of people owned wired headphones too, so for a while they provided a converter dongle. They are also selling converter dongles because they removed the variety of ports from their macbooks as well. They've replaced lightning with USB-C on iPads too.
What would USB-C get them, technically speaking? Nothing. They're about the same size. There's no real technological advantage to USB-C.
The question is more why should the iphone have a different connector to everything else? They've demonstrated - via the iPad - that they can certainly make that change.
Re:Still no USB-C. Still not a real device. (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll never do it, and they would be stupid to do it.
They've already done it on every product that they sell except for the iPhone models and the middle model of iPad (more on this later).
Hundreds of millions of people already own a lot of peripherals for iPhones, and they absolutely lost their shit when Apple changed from the 30-pin connector to the objectively better Lightning connector.
Almost nobody owns Lightning peripherals, give or take, unless you count charge cords as peripherals. The entire Lightning peripheral market is basically within the margin of error. It's not like back in the days of the 30-pin connector where lots of manufacturers were building amplifiers with built-in docks and replaceable plastic pieces to hold your phone. Almost nobody does that with Lightning, because the connector isn't strong enough to hold up to that kind of abuse long-term, realistically speaking.
What would USB-C get them, technically speaking? Nothing. They're about the same size. There's no real technological advantage to USB-C.
For starters:
Bluntly put, Lighting stinks on ice, and massively holds back the iPhone even for average users. The impact on power users is, of course, even worse.
So really, if they changed now for the sake of 'compatibility', all they'd be doing is making their sizable user base angry at them, and accusing them of a callous money-grab. By staying with Lightning, they a) may still be accused of a callous money-grab, but mostly by people that *don't already own their devices*; and b) they don't have to fight with everyone else for USB-C parts on their most popular and wide-spread device.
Why would anyone think that switching to a standard cable is a money grab? No. It's the opposite. Lightning is a money grab, because Apple makes money off of every single (legitimate) Lightning able sold. Apple makes nothing off of USB-C cables. And for a couple of bucks for an off-the-shelf cable made by any of a thousand companies, the existing Apple chargers can charge a USB-C-based iPhone just as easily as a Lightning-based iPhone.
Remember that 99% of people aren't us and they do not give two shits about what connector is on their phone. They want the same cable they had from before to work with their new iPhone. They want to plug into the same docks, same battery cases, whatever.
Battery cases aren't generally compatible across phone models. Heck, even minor speed-bump updates like the iPhone 6 to iPhone 6s caused some incompatibility. And nobody uses docks anymore, or if they do, it's a wireless charging dock, not a Lightning dock.
Appeasing you and everyone else that asks about USB-C is just throwing money away for literally no good reason.
(They can make the change with the iPad Mini because they haven't released one in so long it doesn't matter--nobody has peripherals that they want to carry over anymore. You'll note that the regular iPad, the one most like the other iPads that already exist, still
Re: (Score:2)
Almost nobody owns Lightning peripherals, give or take, unless you count charge cords as peripherals. The entire Lightning peripheral market is basically within the margin of error. It's not like back in the days of the 30-pin connector where lots of manufacturers were building amplifiers with built-in docks and replaceable plastic pieces to hold your phone. Almost nobody does that with Lightning, because the connector isn't strong enough to hold up to that kind of abuse long-term, realistically speaking.
Citation needed. I agree that this is not the same as when every hotel room had an alarm clock with a 30-pin port on the top, but there are still plenty of lightning docks out there, and battery cases with a lightning port. If Apple hadn't switched to doing stuff with Magsafe, there would be even more of that stuff still.
Higher-speed data. AFAIK, the Lightning port on iPhone is still a crufty USB 2.0 interface capped at 480 Mbps. That has an impact for everything from backups to wired networking.
The ability to use a single charger with both your Mac and your iPhone. When I'm on a trip, I can plug in my Pixel 3 (from work) and charge it using the same power supply as my laptop. But my iPhone requires a special cable just for it, and has to be plugged into my laptop. Blech.
The ability to use a single wired headphone standard for both the Mac and the iPhone. (This works so much better with Android devices and the Mac.)
The ability to feed a usable amount of power in the other direction for powering peripherals or charging one iOS device with another.
Massively lower cable failure rate. Most Lightning cables are absolute junk.
1. I doubt most people use their cables to do backups, or make backups at all. If you think peripherals are a marginal case, this is even more marginal.
2. Fair point.
3. Another marginal cas
Re: (Score:2)
Almost nobody owns Lightning peripherals, give or take, unless you count charge cords as peripherals. The entire Lightning peripheral market is basically within the margin of error. It's not like back in the days of the 30-pin connector where lots of manufacturers were building amplifiers with built-in docks and replaceable plastic pieces to hold your phone. Almost nobody does that with Lightning, because the connector isn't strong enough to hold up to that kind of abuse long-term, realistically speaking.
Citation needed. I agree that this is not the same as when every hotel room had an alarm clock with a 30-pin port on the top, but there are still plenty of lightning docks out there, and battery cases with a lightning port. If Apple hadn't switched to doing stuff with Magsafe, there would be even more of that stuff still.
But the battery cases won't be compatible with the next phone anyway unless Apple keeps the dimensions exactly the same, which they usually don't. And the vast majority of accessories (e.g. Square, your stereo amplifier, your clock radio, your external speaker, etc.) connect by Bluetooth so that they don't have to create two separate versions for the iPhone and Android. So the only thing that uses Lightning at this point is charging. Most people aren't going to get bent out of shape over a $20 dock or a
Re: (Score:2)
My new iPad Pro has USB-C
Lol.
My 3 year old iPad Pro has USB-C.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't the device I was talking about? I also have an iPad Pro with USB-C. The standard iPad is still like most other iPads, because most other iPads are from an era before USB-C connectors.
You're talking about the lineup. Most iPads in the lineup have USB-C, no question. I'm talking about most other iPads ever sold to people, and the iPads that people are most likely to already own. Those are all Lightning.
Re: Still no USB-C. Still not a real device. (Score:2)
IP53, stereo speakers, FM radio, amoled full HD+ always on display, IR blaster, dedicated uSD slot plus dual SIM, USBC port plus naturally a 3.5mm audio jack. All for less than 300 USD. Word of caution, it's a Xiaomi, so you'll spend an hour on getting rid of all the ads. That's the only downside I can see so far. Oh, and Xiaomi is typically ea
So what did people want from this phone? (Score:2)
I still use an iPhone XS Max over here. I'd probably still be using an iPhone X, actually, except the earpiece speaker on mine blew out and Apple damaged the circuit board in an attempt to do an in-house repair on it. So they wound up giving me an option to trade up a generation at a pretty low price.
Personally, I think we're past the point where anything truly amazing or innovative is happening with annual new cellphone releases? Practically speaking, the most significant reason that's really "phone/netwo
Re: So what did people want from this phone? (Score:1)
Yep, spot on.
I also have an XS Max. Three years old. Just replaced the display with one from Amazon ($100) last week.
If he new display didn't work to my satisfaction, I was gonna buy a new phone..:not because of new phone features, but because I needed a new phone. As it is, I have a tough time justifying buying a new phone when my current one works fine.
Maybe next year? We will see what the iPhone 14 has in store.
why oh why? (Score:2)
But why do they still insist on extending the camera lenses beyond the body?
Why are they so scared of making the whole thing those 2mm thicker, and having a proper design? Steve would've fired someone for that shit. Phones are small enough, you don't need to make them as thin as possible. Fit in a bit more battery and memory in the space you gain and everyone's happy.
So, another year of sticking with my SE, which is beautiful and still does the job. Maybe someone at Apple will eventually wake up and get the
Re: (Score:2)
The new models are even heavier than last year. The Pro models are quite heavy now.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So new idea: Widen the body, fill the gained space with Helium, or vacuum, to make things feel lighter (at least in atmosphere). :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have cases on their phones and then the lenses are flush or slightly recessed with the effective body of the device. This is based on iPhone 11 Pro Max and iPhoene 12 Pro Max. Will have to get a 13 in hand to verify.
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing I wonder about is why people have cases. Maybe I'm just below-average clumpsy and don't drop mine or spill drinks all over it or something?
But yes, good point. If you assume that people will add a case anyway (and you're ok with one of the most fragile parts of the phone actually being NOT protected by your case...)