The internet has a hate on for the new Pixel phones.
I'm a bit shocked, but yeah, the internet seems to be jumping all over the Pixel 2. Both the regular and XL versions. Some of it feels quasi-warranted, but most feels ridiculous. I'm a bit biased perhaps because I just bought one each for myself and my wife (non-XL versions both). But here are my thoughts on 2 of the major controversies, 2 minor ones and 1 of the most BS comparisons I've ever seen.
Pixel XL screen. This is probably the biggest one I've been hearing about. Firstly, the legit... it seems like the screen is not the top performer. If that is a big deal, get something else. Every phone, no matter how much you pay for it, has weaknesses. It IS admittedly unfortunate and odd that a flagship smartphone company would bork the screen, but apparently the problem also exists on another LG made flagship as well. So, point proven. Another point, many sites have said that if the screen weren't a problem, this would be the best phone of the year. That means that other phones either have other deficiencies or other ways in which the Pixel 2 beats them. They may not be as glaring, but there are ample uber expensive phones to choose from and this statement indicates that those companies also made trade-offs.
I tend to agree with the conservatives on the matter. The screen deficiencies are likely noticeable side by side, and to people who deeply care about screen quality. The poor viewing angle seems likely to be more noticeable. But, I've had plenty of phones in the past with that problem. And, after a while I simply stopped noticing. I'm not telling you to suck it up. I am telling you that if you never scrutinized your phone screen in the past, you probably won't notice it now.
Pixel 2 fragility. This one was batty. There is exactly one such review. And the process is brutalizing. The 3 biggest things sites focus on; bending, finger print sensor and paint.
Let's start with paint. Anyone with a brain knows... if the aesthetics of your phone are important... buy a FUCKING CASE. Bitching about the body being scratch-able IS idiocy. NO phone is invulnerable. I've seen the strongest of phones experience all manner of hideous deformity. So, it doesn't matter if your phone is glass, or metal, or made of pure fucking granite. BUY A CASE.
The finger print sensor is probably the worst in my opinion. But, the problem is really that the testing is not only on a stupidly small sample set (1 phone), but the level of abuse dealt to a surface within a depression in the phone body (which would be further inset if you, again, BOUGHT A FUCKING CASE) was extreme. So the problem is this... reviews say "if you scratch the fingerprint sensor it will no longer work". But that isn't even what the video shows. What the video shows is "if you take a large ass blade and hack repeatedly and deeply at the fingerprint sensor, it stopped working on this phone". We don't know the level of abuse at which it would have stopped functioning. We also don't know if this would even be common with this level of damage. But yeah... if you use your fingerprint sensor to protect you in a knife fight... it may stop working.
Lastly was the bend test. I actually watched the video if the above didn't clarify that for you. What was interesting to me was, there was definitely a point at which the case failed. BUT, the phone A) bent a lot before failing in such a manner B) flexed more or less back into perfect shape despite and C) continued to work as if nothing had happened. If the phone failed with minimal pressure or bending that would be bad. If the phone remained distorted after bending, that would be bad. If the phone stopped working, that would again be bad. Reviewers say dumb things like "you don't want to put this phone in your back pocket". Would you recommend people sit on other phones? What an idiotic comment.
On the fragility side of things, there are minor concerns. But, if the way this phone performed legitimately concerns you, you either intentionally abuse your phone, or historically damage them often. Either way, you should have learned by now to buy a robust case to match your abusive lifestyle.
Minor controversies are the missing headphone jack and lack of wireless charging. Taking away the headphone jack seems wrong. I agree. The inclusion of a dongle should help most people. I'm a little pissed that they didn't include ear buds as well. I've spoken about this at length before. The lack of wireless charging is another one I've brought up recently. As phone tech begins to advance more slowly, I think wireless charging becomes more critical. Charging ports and cables go through more wear than most of a phone.
Last bitching point for me... this article. The reviewer must have a hard on for the iPhone. When I read the title I fully expected to crack it open and find that the reviewer had taken photos which either favored the iPhone or were so close it was a judgement call. What I saw was the reviewer time and again point out GLARING flaws with the iPhone photos, but still choose it as the winner. Here is my rundown:
Art Wall: This one is subjective in my opinion, but I can agree with the reviewer choice of the iPhone here. Whether it is oversaturated or the Pixel photos are under saturated, the colors are the art wall are more vivid on the iPhone and everything else could go either way. I would call it close though.
Portrait Mode: The iPhone blurs more of the subject and sacrifices sharpness in the subject as well. The Pixel SHOULD win the Portrait mode competition simply on the basis that it more accurately applied the Bokeh effect which is the DEFINING ELEMENT of a Portrait shot. However, the difference in sharpness is SO pronounced it more than compensates for the underexposure referenced which is barely noticeable. In short, the Pixel provided a clearer AND more complete shot of what it was trying to photograph.
Flatiron Building: Agree with reviewer again. Pixel shot is clearer. More contrast. Better overall.
Lego Man: AND again, I disagree. YES, the iPhone is brighter, but look out the window in both pictures. The iPhone TOTALLY overblew it, The ground has ZERO detail, there is even a person in a white top and I can't tell where their torso begins and ends. The shot is of the Lego Man, and while the iPhone doesn't ruin the shot and it is brighter, despite being brighter the Pixel again shows more contrast. If the images were cropped and just the Lego Man were visible, I'd say it could be a draw, or even understand how someone would think the iPhone were better. Taking the whole picture into account though, the right side of the photo makes the argument that the iPhone is once again over exposed by comparison, and so I would be forced to give the tie to the Pixel.
Zoom: I'm not sure how Apple did this... but it looks blurry by comparison. The Pixel doesn't have optical zoom. It SHOULD lose this. Everyone should accept that it SHOULD lose this battle. I did. But then I looked at the pictures. Based on these pictures... the Pixel raped the iPhone. I almost think the reviewer either reviewed the wrong photos or labeled them wrong. He explicitly points out the façade on the building and sign on the pole. I can almost read the sign on the Pixel picture where it looks like a blurry mess on the iPhone.
Flash outdoors: The Pixel wins. Clearly. Agree with reviewer.
Group Photo: And we disagree again. I agree that there appears to be more warmth in the face tones. Also there is more pop in the woman's hair. But I don't if that is real or over saturation. And the iPhone loses on every other aspect. Look at the man in both pictures. In the iPhone one he is closer to the camera but almost appears clean shaven (and blurry). In the Pixel shot he is further back but CLEARLY isn't clean shaven (or blurry). The details on the woman's shirt, the detail in her hair, the table between them. Sure, the iPhone colors are more pleasing, but the picture is in EVERY OTHER MEASURABLE WAY terribly by comparison.
Low Light: Pixel wins and we agree.
Fountain: iPhone wins AND I agree! This is the picture which I think is most subjective. But, for once the Pixel seems brighter, and this results in a lot of detail, especially on the surface of the water being lost.
So... they end up with 6 to 4 in favor of iPhone. I end up with... 7 to 2, in favor of the Pixel.
I'm not saying that the Pixel camera IS better. I'd be fine if it weren't. But based on these pictures I'm not sure who could agree with the outcome. It isn't just preference of under vs over exposed. There is simply less detail and more blurriness in almost every iPhone photo in the article. If the ratings were genuinely based on those pictures alone, the Pixel should win. As others stated in the comments, under exposure can either be fixed by adjusting exposure length OR, if you feel that is cheating for deviating from default camera settings... you can adjust that AFTER, but an over exposed picture you can't fix.
Many in the comments focus on the Lego Man. While I disagree with the "draw" conclusion, I agree if you ignore everything but the subject of the photo it is purely subjective. However, once you notice the difference outdoors, it not only clearly separates the two photos, but also leads me to believe the greens close to window on the Lego Man are actually WAY over exposed in the iPhone shot, and since the color seems consistent in the shot, likely the entire photo is and it is just a little extra color saturation helping it save face.
For me, the pictures which ruined the credibility of the verdict were the portrait, zoom and group photos. I still think either the reviewer messed them up the zoom photos in their head when reviewing or posted them wrong. The things explicitly noted in the picture were backwards to the results. And the group photo may have produced more flattering pictures or the subjects, but they were clearly inferior in quality. And while defenders of the Lego Man verdict are quick to point out that the subject was fine and thus the verdict is either good or should go to the iPhone ignore that the Portrait pic on the iPhone applied the Bokeh effect far too liberally on the subject and produced a far more distorted picture of the subject in general.
Pixel XL screen. This is probably the biggest one I've been hearing about. Firstly, the legit... it seems like the screen is not the top performer. If that is a big deal, get something else. Every phone, no matter how much you pay for it, has weaknesses. It IS admittedly unfortunate and odd that a flagship smartphone company would bork the screen, but apparently the problem also exists on another LG made flagship as well. So, point proven. Another point, many sites have said that if the screen weren't a problem, this would be the best phone of the year. That means that other phones either have other deficiencies or other ways in which the Pixel 2 beats them. They may not be as glaring, but there are ample uber expensive phones to choose from and this statement indicates that those companies also made trade-offs.
I tend to agree with the conservatives on the matter. The screen deficiencies are likely noticeable side by side, and to people who deeply care about screen quality. The poor viewing angle seems likely to be more noticeable. But, I've had plenty of phones in the past with that problem. And, after a while I simply stopped noticing. I'm not telling you to suck it up. I am telling you that if you never scrutinized your phone screen in the past, you probably won't notice it now.
Pixel 2 fragility. This one was batty. There is exactly one such review. And the process is brutalizing. The 3 biggest things sites focus on; bending, finger print sensor and paint.
Let's start with paint. Anyone with a brain knows... if the aesthetics of your phone are important... buy a FUCKING CASE. Bitching about the body being scratch-able IS idiocy. NO phone is invulnerable. I've seen the strongest of phones experience all manner of hideous deformity. So, it doesn't matter if your phone is glass, or metal, or made of pure fucking granite. BUY A CASE.
The finger print sensor is probably the worst in my opinion. But, the problem is really that the testing is not only on a stupidly small sample set (1 phone), but the level of abuse dealt to a surface within a depression in the phone body (which would be further inset if you, again, BOUGHT A FUCKING CASE) was extreme. So the problem is this... reviews say "if you scratch the fingerprint sensor it will no longer work". But that isn't even what the video shows. What the video shows is "if you take a large ass blade and hack repeatedly and deeply at the fingerprint sensor, it stopped working on this phone". We don't know the level of abuse at which it would have stopped functioning. We also don't know if this would even be common with this level of damage. But yeah... if you use your fingerprint sensor to protect you in a knife fight... it may stop working.
Lastly was the bend test. I actually watched the video if the above didn't clarify that for you. What was interesting to me was, there was definitely a point at which the case failed. BUT, the phone A) bent a lot before failing in such a manner B) flexed more or less back into perfect shape despite and C) continued to work as if nothing had happened. If the phone failed with minimal pressure or bending that would be bad. If the phone remained distorted after bending, that would be bad. If the phone stopped working, that would again be bad. Reviewers say dumb things like "you don't want to put this phone in your back pocket". Would you recommend people sit on other phones? What an idiotic comment.
On the fragility side of things, there are minor concerns. But, if the way this phone performed legitimately concerns you, you either intentionally abuse your phone, or historically damage them often. Either way, you should have learned by now to buy a robust case to match your abusive lifestyle.
Minor controversies are the missing headphone jack and lack of wireless charging. Taking away the headphone jack seems wrong. I agree. The inclusion of a dongle should help most people. I'm a little pissed that they didn't include ear buds as well. I've spoken about this at length before. The lack of wireless charging is another one I've brought up recently. As phone tech begins to advance more slowly, I think wireless charging becomes more critical. Charging ports and cables go through more wear than most of a phone.
Last bitching point for me... this article. The reviewer must have a hard on for the iPhone. When I read the title I fully expected to crack it open and find that the reviewer had taken photos which either favored the iPhone or were so close it was a judgement call. What I saw was the reviewer time and again point out GLARING flaws with the iPhone photos, but still choose it as the winner. Here is my rundown:
Art Wall: This one is subjective in my opinion, but I can agree with the reviewer choice of the iPhone here. Whether it is oversaturated or the Pixel photos are under saturated, the colors are the art wall are more vivid on the iPhone and everything else could go either way. I would call it close though.
Portrait Mode: The iPhone blurs more of the subject and sacrifices sharpness in the subject as well. The Pixel SHOULD win the Portrait mode competition simply on the basis that it more accurately applied the Bokeh effect which is the DEFINING ELEMENT of a Portrait shot. However, the difference in sharpness is SO pronounced it more than compensates for the underexposure referenced which is barely noticeable. In short, the Pixel provided a clearer AND more complete shot of what it was trying to photograph.
Flatiron Building: Agree with reviewer again. Pixel shot is clearer. More contrast. Better overall.
Lego Man: AND again, I disagree. YES, the iPhone is brighter, but look out the window in both pictures. The iPhone TOTALLY overblew it, The ground has ZERO detail, there is even a person in a white top and I can't tell where their torso begins and ends. The shot is of the Lego Man, and while the iPhone doesn't ruin the shot and it is brighter, despite being brighter the Pixel again shows more contrast. If the images were cropped and just the Lego Man were visible, I'd say it could be a draw, or even understand how someone would think the iPhone were better. Taking the whole picture into account though, the right side of the photo makes the argument that the iPhone is once again over exposed by comparison, and so I would be forced to give the tie to the Pixel.
Zoom: I'm not sure how Apple did this... but it looks blurry by comparison. The Pixel doesn't have optical zoom. It SHOULD lose this. Everyone should accept that it SHOULD lose this battle. I did. But then I looked at the pictures. Based on these pictures... the Pixel raped the iPhone. I almost think the reviewer either reviewed the wrong photos or labeled them wrong. He explicitly points out the façade on the building and sign on the pole. I can almost read the sign on the Pixel picture where it looks like a blurry mess on the iPhone.
Flash outdoors: The Pixel wins. Clearly. Agree with reviewer.
Group Photo: And we disagree again. I agree that there appears to be more warmth in the face tones. Also there is more pop in the woman's hair. But I don't if that is real or over saturation. And the iPhone loses on every other aspect. Look at the man in both pictures. In the iPhone one he is closer to the camera but almost appears clean shaven (and blurry). In the Pixel shot he is further back but CLEARLY isn't clean shaven (or blurry). The details on the woman's shirt, the detail in her hair, the table between them. Sure, the iPhone colors are more pleasing, but the picture is in EVERY OTHER MEASURABLE WAY terribly by comparison.
Low Light: Pixel wins and we agree.
Fountain: iPhone wins AND I agree! This is the picture which I think is most subjective. But, for once the Pixel seems brighter, and this results in a lot of detail, especially on the surface of the water being lost.
So... they end up with 6 to 4 in favor of iPhone. I end up with... 7 to 2, in favor of the Pixel.
I'm not saying that the Pixel camera IS better. I'd be fine if it weren't. But based on these pictures I'm not sure who could agree with the outcome. It isn't just preference of under vs over exposed. There is simply less detail and more blurriness in almost every iPhone photo in the article. If the ratings were genuinely based on those pictures alone, the Pixel should win. As others stated in the comments, under exposure can either be fixed by adjusting exposure length OR, if you feel that is cheating for deviating from default camera settings... you can adjust that AFTER, but an over exposed picture you can't fix.
Many in the comments focus on the Lego Man. While I disagree with the "draw" conclusion, I agree if you ignore everything but the subject of the photo it is purely subjective. However, once you notice the difference outdoors, it not only clearly separates the two photos, but also leads me to believe the greens close to window on the Lego Man are actually WAY over exposed in the iPhone shot, and since the color seems consistent in the shot, likely the entire photo is and it is just a little extra color saturation helping it save face.
For me, the pictures which ruined the credibility of the verdict were the portrait, zoom and group photos. I still think either the reviewer messed them up the zoom photos in their head when reviewing or posted them wrong. The things explicitly noted in the picture were backwards to the results. And the group photo may have produced more flattering pictures or the subjects, but they were clearly inferior in quality. And while defenders of the Lego Man verdict are quick to point out that the subject was fine and thus the verdict is either good or should go to the iPhone ignore that the Portrait pic on the iPhone applied the Bokeh effect far too liberally on the subject and produced a far more distorted picture of the subject in general.
Comments
Post a Comment