• Breaking News

    Saturday, March 14, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Android The Google Pixel 4a will offer UFS 2.1 storage for faster app loading speeds than the Pixel 3a

    Android The Google Pixel 4a will offer UFS 2.1 storage for faster app loading speeds than the Pixel 3a

    March 14, 2020

    Android The Google Pixel 4a will offer UFS 2.1 storage for faster app loading speeds than the Pixel 3a

    The Google Pixel 4a will offer UFS 2.1 storage for faster app loading speeds than the Pixel 3a

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 11:40 AM PDT

    Magisk may no longer be able to hide bootloader unlocking from apps

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:58 PM PDT

    Pixel 5: Google Camera strongly suggests not a 'flagship'

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 01:48 PM PDT

    I did a power analysis of exynos990, it's worrying

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 06:41 AM PDT

    So as Anandtech tested the specint/fp of Snapdragon 865.

    I tested specint for exynos990

    The results are very worrying. Score is 31(compared to 33+ for 865), power draw is staggering 3.8w(4.2w system total power-0.4w idle power).

    So the if we compare the exynosM5 in exynos99 to the A77 cores in 865, M5 is 10% slower while drawing more than double power.

    No wonder my exynos s20+ heats up easily and has miserable battery life

    submitted by /u/lch920619x
    [link] [comments]

    Will SwiftKey Android ever get cursor control?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 11:24 AM PDT

    Google Home 2.19.1.18 adds Nest Cam events in Feed, better Lighting shortcuts, and more

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 01:42 PM PDT

    OnePlus 8 Pro spotted in Robert Downey Jr hands

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 09:47 AM PDT

    My experience with the S20 Ultra

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 12:33 PM PDT

    Some background about myself: I've been using Android for more than 8 years now with the occasional iPhone here and there (most recent 11 Pro Max). The newest Androids I own are the S10+, One Plus 7 Pro, and the Pixel 3XL (tried the 4XL but ended up returning it). But introduction aside, here is why I think you should get the S20, or even the S10 instead of the Ultra.

    Camera:

    I could definitely tell the differences in terms of detail compared to my S10+, Pixel, and iPhone; the zoom detail is shockingly good. However, Samsung still needs to work on its color reproduction, exposure, and aggressive skin smoothing. With 90% of the pictures I've taken, the highlights are either blown out in clouds or lightning, or the colors are over-saturated. When my wife took a picture of my face, it smoothed out my skin and over-brightened my skin tone--which I can see some people enjoying, but not my cup of tea personally. There's also focusing issues, and I ended up with a lot more blurry pictures than I hoped for.

    What I do like about the camera is how crisp everything looks. The dynamic range on it is phenomenal, well, excluding the blown out highlights and clouds. Samsung's night mode is also very well done. Again, the detail in it beats the competition, but because of the higher MP things are a lot more noisier than phones that aren't. The noise, plus all the issues I mentioned before makes taking pictures at night a bit... well, worrying? What I mean by this is, I know I'm going to get a really detailed picture, but most of the time it's going to be compromised by Samsung's aggressive software and all the other issues mentioned above. But when everything does work the images look great. I would say it's comparable to Google's night mode, but personally, I still prefer Apple's because it captures the essence of the night better, and is overall more balanced. However, the Ultra can shoot night mode in ultra-wide whereas the Pixel and iPhone can't... although I wouldn't recommend doing so because the images aren't that good.

    Everyone knows that Samsung has amazing hardware, but that alone isn't going to put them above the Pixel and iPhone. Unless you zoom in a lot or are looking to enlarge your photos, 108MP is simply overkill if you're only looking at photos on your phone and tablet. In this case, you're getting a diminishing returns in-terms of detail, and should really be looking for other things like color saturation, highlight and shadow balancing, focus consistency, and in general just better camera software. The "8K" video recording is also very inconsistent. Stabilization is very good, but colors, and transitioning from frame to frame is very very choppy, and the focusing is also all over the place. Just because you "can" do 8K doesn't mean you should. 4K60 is a lot better, and should be the mode you should shoot on, but unfortunately it's still not in iPhone territory.

    Display/Battery/Performance:

    Nothing much to say here. Amazing. Once you go 120 hertz, you just can't go back. There are other phones that can also do high refresh rate, but not with the same quality of display that the Ultra uses. Although you're limited to FHD, I think it's well worth the trade-off. I did however, had an issue with the auto-brightness adjustment. It was either too dark, or too bright; it's rather slow and not very responsive to changes in lightning. Just a heads up.

    But here's where things get tricky, if we exclude refresh rate, then I do believe the Ultra has the best display. But as soon we start including refresh rate, things get more complicated. If the ultra did 120 hertz at QHD, then yeah, it definitely is the best display then, no brainer--but it can't, and that's where the problem lies. I really wish Samsung could give the user the option to do 120 at QHD even if that means killing the battery life even faster. I personally wouldn't mind since the battery life in this thing is great. Not quite a 2-day phone like the 11 Pro Max, but it'll definitely last throughout the day . I got around 5-6 hours of screen-on time at 120 hertz.

    Performance wise the SD865 is blazing fast. I'm sure we've all seen enough benchmarks; nothing to worry about here in terms of speed. But what I love even more is the 12GB of RAM. Yeah it's overkill, but I never have to reopen apps ever again (you can pin them now too). Speakers are very loud an punchy, probably one of the best I've heard, as well as the haptic being also very responsive.

    Final Verdict:

    The Ultra is undoubtedly a super high quality phone, but is it really worth $1400? Well, if you don't care about price and just want to have the latest and greatest galaxy, then obviously value isn't an issue, but for most people looking for a premium phone I would recommend the S20 or the S10 instead. In terms of camera, aside from detail and zoom, you honestly really won't notice a difference between the S20s and last year's S10s since Samsung's software is still the same. You might get slightly crisper pictures, but I really couldn't tell that much of a difference compared to my S10+ in terms of colors and everything else. So unless you really really want to flex that 100X zoom, you won't be seeing a huge jump like the iPhone 11 did compared to the XS. The Ultra is also thick, big, and much heavier than what I'm used to. It gets uncomfortable to use at times, especially since the screen is harder to reach.

    The only really difference between this year and last years galaxy's is the refresh rate, but if you really want that you can always just get the S20 that's essentially the same except the zoom for $400 less. Or you can look for an S10 on sale and get that, which I think is probably the best bang for your buck if you don't care much about high refresh displays since performance wise (SD855-->SD865) you're not going to notice either.

    I applaud Samsung for going all out, but I really wish they could've spent more time on the camera, because although it's very good, at $1400, it should be the best, not comparable and sometimes behind the competition. Zoom and extra detail should be a bonus, not the main focus for computation photography. There should be no compromises in camera software at this price tag. I also would love the option to go QHD at 120 hertz. There's no 5G around where I live as of now, so I can't say anything regarding data speeds, but LTE should be more than enough unless you're downloading movies. DON'T BUY THE PHONE FOR 5G. Software support should also be extended for another year imo, or even up to 5 since the Ultra does have the hardware headroom to do so, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

    The Ultra is a really great phone, but it's not great enough to keep me from returning it. In my opinion, the difference isn't big enough to justify the $1400 price tag, maybe when/if it goes on sale later, but right now it's a no-go from me. If you don't care for high refresh, I really do highly recommend finding an S10/S10+ on sale.

    submitted by /u/tekreviews
    [link] [comments]

    I think Live captions is rolling out to Pixel 2s

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 06:25 AM PDT

    Certain apps not working on home WiFi (The FIX!!!)

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 02:50 PM PDT

    I have a Moto G6 Play and since i've bought it i had problems with some apps not working on my home wifi but working fine with 4G/3G data and other WiFis.

    I looked through multiple fixes with no luck, until today, when i started fiddling with multiple network configurations, i came across some posts about MTU and packet loss. I ran ping tests on some sites using the command prompt and discovered a huge packet loss when sending a ping packet larger than the configured MTU on my router.

    So i came to the fix for my phone, i ran tests with a terminal on my phone and found that my phone's MTU was higher than my router. I then decided to configure both MTUs to match and the apps that weren't working, started working all of a sudden!

    These are the steps i done (You need to have a ROOTED phone, otherwise this won't work):

    Open command prompt

    1 - Type "ping www.google.com -f -l 14XX" (Change the XX for any number, like 1490, for testing start with a high packet and then start lowering until you found the limit. Note that when the packet is higher than your MTU it will show a message that the packet needs to be fragmented. When you are sending a packet inside your MTUs range then it should show the response times of the server without any fragmentation. My current MTU is 1464.)

    2 - With your MTU in hand, go to your phone, download a terminal app

    Type "su" and grant superuser permission - hit enter

    Type "ipaddr" ( This will show an overwhelming list of network adapters) - hit enter

    The default MTU for your phone should be 1500 which should be higher than your routers. (Check wlan0's MTU)

    Type "ifconfig wlan0 mtu XXXX" (Fill XXXX with your MTU value, in my case was mtu 1464) - hit enter

    This will match your phone's MTU with the router's MTU and will stop fragmenting the packets. Like sending a 1500 bytes packet through a 1464 bytes MTU. The phone will send complete packets with no loss.

    I had apps like Reddit, Pinterest and bank apps not connecting at all and some others having connection issues all the time. After changing the MTU, i tested all apps and until now, they are working flawlessly .

    I don't know if this is a definitive fix but at least it get things to work as they should. I hope this can help lots of people that, like me, were annoyed by the constant connection errors and having to switch to 3G/4G all the time.

    submitted by /u/Vbeserk
    [link] [comments]

    Mobvoi obscuring SoC on tech specs?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 09:08 AM PDT

    Why I'm using a Huawei Mate 30 Pro - YouTube - Android Central

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 09:40 PM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment