Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Oct 2016 22:15 UTC
Google

The Google Pixel reviews are coming in, and they are quite positive.

The Verge's Dieter Bohn:

This is Google's first phone, and for a first effort it is remarkably good. By almost every metric I can think of - speed, power, camera, smart assistant, you name it - it matches or exceeds the best phones available on the market today. And though the design is far from groundbreaking, it's certainly approachable. The whole package is pretty incredible, and if you're not put off by the premium price, you'll be very happy with this premium phone. I prefer the XL, which isn't huge and seems to get notably better battery life

Walt Mossberg, also for The Verge:

If you're an Android fan, willing to buy a premium phone, the Pixel is your answer. To repeat: it’s simply the best Android phone I've tested. If you're an iPhone user thinking of switching, the Pixel will seem physically familiar, but you'll have to overcome the sticky links you've developed with fellow iPhone users, things like iMessage (which Google can't match yet) and iCloud Photo Sharing (which Google is trying to copy). You'll also have to do without the comfort of your neighborhood Genius Bar.

But my main message, dear readers, is this: Google has come out of the gate with a top-flight phone and suddenly, there’s no longer an Apple-Samsung duopoly in premium handsets.

Joanna Stern for The Wall Street Journal:

Android people, please step forward. Good news! Your next phone-buying decision just got a heck of a lot easier. The Google Pixel is now the best Android smartphone you can buy. The other leading contender was disqualified due to spontaneous combustion.

iPhone people, it's your turn. Ask yourself: Why do I have an iPhone? Is it because of its software, services and privacy policies? Or is it because it's a very good phone for things like Google Maps, Gmail, Spotify and Facebook Messenger? If you've answered yes to the latter, the Pixel may be for you, too.

Lastly, the Android Central review:

The Google Pixel XL is my new daily driver. As for the smaller Pixel, I know it's going to take a lot to tear Daniel Bader away from this compact Android powerhouse. Both are excellent smartphones which we can wholeheartedly recommend, even with their sky-high price tags. The question of whether a smartphone can be worth $700 to $1,000 in 2016 is a debate altogether. But if any phone is worth that amount of cash, the Pixels are. Just as that same argument can be made for the iPhone 7 or Galaxy S7.

Interesting how all the American reviewers mention iMessage so often as a barrier to switching. Living in a country where WhatsApp has a 100% market share and iMessage is entirely unused, it's just an annoying junk app to me.

Order by: Score:
iMessage
by WorknMan on Tue 18th Oct 2016 22:25 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I use an iPhone at work, and I really don't understand what's so damn special about iMessage. It sends and receives texts. So do about a hundred apps on Android, and you can choose which one you want to use.

Reply Score: 7

RE: iMessage
by Drumhellar on Tue 18th Oct 2016 22:58 UTC in reply to "iMessage"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

1. You can use it on your Mac (and iPad, for that matter), and it'll send/receive the same messages, from your number

2. End-to-end encryption (to other iMessage users, at least)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: iMessage
by CaptainN- on Tue 18th Oct 2016 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE: iMessage"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

3. It is (almost) seemlessly integrated with normal texts (for Android buddies)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: iMessage
by Drumhellar on Tue 18th Oct 2016 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iMessage"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

God. The fact that they color texts from non-iPhone users a different color is tacky.

They didn't even pick a decent looking color, either. Instead, they chose a bright and garish color of green.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: iMessage
by leos on Wed 19th Oct 2016 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

God. The fact that they color texts from non-iPhone users a different color is tacky.

They didn't even pick a decent looking color, either. Instead, they chose a bright and garish color of green.


They don't color texts from non iPhone users a different colour. Texts are always green. IMessage messages are always blue. Whether or not the other end is an iPhone is completely irrelevant

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: iMessage
by Gargyle on Thu 20th Oct 2016 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iMessage"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

You can say that, but it still comes down to a pleasantly blue colour when texting your iFone buddies and that awful green when texting non-iFone buddies. Or do you mean to say that there are in fact iFone users that rather use SMS messages than iMessage messages, and there are non-iFone users that are able to use iMessage? I think not, in both cases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: iMessage
by REM2000 on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

It's always been green for SMS messages, the first iPhone SMS messages were green too.

Blue messages for iMessage was introduced in 2010 with the iMessage service and the iPhone 4.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: iMessage
by Gargyle on Thu 20th Oct 2016 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iMessage"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Yes, it has always been green indeed, but the tint of green has changed from pleasant to awful over time. There even are articles on the internet lamenting this!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: iMessage
by tkeith on Wed 19th Oct 2016 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iMessage"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

Hangouts does all those things. I guess imessages "killer feature" is that it is locked to one manufacturer.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: iMessage
by CaptainN- on Wed 19th Oct 2016 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

What Apple has done with iMessage would not have worked without a ton of hype, and a big giant market share , but most importantly - relatively seamless integration with SMS - which actually, Hangouts doesn't do at all.

Also, Hangout is ugly and unfun, and the desktop component uses a web browser, like it's 2005 or something, and is at least as unfun as the mobile client, if not more. ;-P

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: iMessage
by bn-7bc on Thu 20th Oct 2016 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iMessage"
bn-7bc Member since:
2005-09-04

So what you are saying is that I can send anyone a google hangout link, and we could be communicating with no need for them to install snyting at their end, hmm sonds like a plus ro meesp if this icludes voice and video chat

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: iMessage
by henderson101 on Thu 20th Oct 2016 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Hangouts used to randomly decide that a conversation that was part hangout, part sms was 2 conversations and split them. There was a way to fix it, but it was a PITA, then that stopped working too. I lost faith in hangouts after that.

Edited 2016-10-20 11:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: iMessage
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: iMessage"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13


1. You can use it on your Mac (and iPad, for that matter), and it'll send/receive the same messages, from your number


With Hangouts and Google Voice, I can send and receive messages from any computer with a web browser. Plus, there's lots of SMS apps that have this same capability as iMessage. (I assume some work with Macs too.)

Edited 2016-10-19 00:26 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: iMessage
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iMessage"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Can you receive SMS messages sent to your mobile number, in browser? And, answer them from the browser?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: iMessage
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Oct 2016 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Can you receive SMS messages sent to your mobile number, in browser? And, answer them from the browser?


I'm not sure... never tried it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: iMessage
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I can, but rarely do is that a iMessage feature too? Not sure why I'd want that.

iMessage just seems like a lonely version of irc or slack for you hipsters.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: iMessage
by Carewolf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Can you receive SMS messages sent to your mobile number, in browser? And, answer them from the browser?

Haven't seen a messaging platform that could NOT do that since the late 90s. Why are you Apple users so proud of ancient standard features?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: iMessage
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iMessage"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Can you receive SMS messages sent to your mobile number, in browser? And, answer them from the browser?

Can you receive SMS messages in iMessage in your browser when your phone is not online?

Or do you mean to ask if received SMS messages on the phone are also displayed on other platforms where you can access Hangouts?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: iMessage
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iMessage"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Hangouts. And, using the mobile number I've had for ages, rather than having to get a Google Voice number. I use Textra as my messaging app - somewhat unstable, but I don't erase text messages ever, and the default Android messaging program gets really, really slow once the message count gets high.

I'm just curious. I think most of my friends have iPhones anyways, so I'm not likely to be able to take advantage of any end-to-end encryption that Hangouts might have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: iMessage
by cropr on Wed 19th Oct 2016 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE: iMessage"
cropr Member since:
2006-02-14

1. You can use it on your Mac (and iPad, for that matter), and it'll send/receive the same messages, from your number

2. End-to-end encryption (to other iMessage users, at least)


In my country the market share of the iPhone is just below 20%. So less than 4% of all messages sent are iPhone to IPhone. Standard SMSM messgaes cover 100% of the users. So all the extra features that iMessage has on top of a normal SMS application are not that relevant.

Although I have an iPhone, iMessage is for me the app I use to send and receive SMS messages, period. Of the 50 top persons I interact with, only 7 have an iPhone. I won't use any nice feature iMessage can offer, if I can only use it for 7 out of 50 correspondants.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: iMessage
by darknexus on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: iMessage"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

3. Transparency. I don't have to worry about whether I'm sending an iMessage or not. If the receiver supports it, an iMessage is sent. If not, it's a regular text. On Android I always had to keep track of who used Hangouts, who used WhatsApp, etc. It got quite irritating. Google has had the opportunity, for many years, to make Hangouts match and far exceed iMessage. Yet, as with most things Google, they've sat on it and done the bare minimum in features while adding tons of bling and advertising space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: iMessage
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iMessage"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

3. Transparency. I don't have to worry about whether I'm sending an iMessage or not. If the receiver supports it, an iMessage is sent. If not, it's a regular text. On Android I always had to keep track of who used Hangouts, who used WhatsApp, etc. It got quite irritating. Google has had the opportunity, for many years, to make Hangouts match and far exceed iMessage. Yet, as with most things Google, they've sat on it and done the bare minimum in features while adding tons of bling and advertising space.

I don't see how this can apply to Hangouts but not to iMessage.

Or should you not know who uses WhatsApp when using iMessage? I'd think not.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: iMessage
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Oct 2016 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iMessage"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

There's an option in Hangouts to use it as your default SMS app, so it should work just like iMessage - send a Hangouts message when the other person is using Hangouts, or otherwise send an SMS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: iMessage
by satai on Wed 19th Oct 2016 10:26 UTC in reply to "iMessage"
satai Member since:
2005-07-30

If all you friends/contacts live in iMessage world (that is FaceTime world too) it's hard to just go away. Your connection to them gets degraded to SMS/MMS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: iMessage
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Oct 2016 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: iMessage"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Your connection to them gets degraded to SMS/MMS.


What is the difference, besides the gimmicky stickers and shit?

Reply Score: 2

Whatsapp
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 18th Oct 2016 22:44 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Why whatsapp? I mean they're all dumb and none is really better than the other, in the same way that most shoes just work and there isn't a need to really feel bad about using or not using a specific brand.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whatsapp
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Oct 2016 23:11 UTC in reply to "Whatsapp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why whatsapp?


Beats me. With messaging, you use what everyone else uses. That's just how it works. In The Netherlands, that was MSN Messenger back when it was still called IM, and it's WhatsApp now that it's called messaging. Both MSN and WhatsApp have actually become verbs (for the act of digital messaging) and nouns (for the actual digital message) in Dutch.

Don't ask me why those two, specifically. I don't think there's any logical reasoning at play here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Whatsapp
by leos on Wed 19th Oct 2016 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Whatsapp"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

"Why whatsapp?


Beats me. With messaging, you use what everyone else uses. That's just how it works. In The Netherlands, that was MSN Messenger back when it was still called IM, and it's WhatsApp now that it's called messaging. Both MSN and WhatsApp have actually become verbs (for the act of digital messaging) and nouns (for the actual digital message) in Dutch.

Don't ask me why those two, specifically. I don't think there's any logical reasoning at play here.
"


You know what everyone has? A phone number with SMS capability. Why bother with whatsapp when you can already send anyone a text without needing any extra apps (or even a smartphone)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Whatsapp
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whatsapp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

SMS costs money. The more SMS-messages I send the higher the next bill will be. On the other hand, no matter how many messages I send over Whatsapp or anything similar, the bill stays the same.

That's more than enough of a reason for many people, but then there's also how easy Whatsapp and friends make sharing of videos, pictures and whatnot. SMS can't do any of that.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Whatsapp
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whatsapp"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

That's probably why not a lot of people use Whatsapp in the States - SMS/MMS tend to be free, with data being the thing that costs money

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Whatsapp
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Whatsapp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Aye, they have ridiculously low datacaps and just as ridiculously high overage-fees and all, from what I've seen. Over here in Finland, with most carriers you just pay a monthly fee for a speed of your choosing, but you can then use it as much as you wish, no caps associated.

Probably no wonder, but mobile broadband is hugely popular over here and no one seems to think twice about watching Youtubes or using Spotify or whatever even when they aren't within WiFi-range.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Whatsapp
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Whatsapp"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It's not quite as bleak over here anymore - Caps are growing, going pass the cap tends to just buy another chunk of data rather than grossly overpriced per-MB charges like they used to, or they'll just throttle past the cap (I think Verizon charges $5/mo for that, which is lame, but whatever)

T-Mobile (My carrier) no longer has caps for new customers, but throttles video and blocks tethering unless you pay $10/mo or so for each. Otherwise, they're fast in areas with their best coverage.

My plan is older, so it works better - high cap, and either free throttled video (lower resolution, doesn't count against the cap), or unthrottled video that counts against the cap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Whatsapp
by helf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whatsapp"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm on Sprint and I have unlimited data. Actually unlimited. No bizarre throttling or weird restrictions based of what you are streaming, etc. Just unfettered 4G/LTE if its available. I use around 40-50GB/m on average and have passed 100GB on busy months ;)

But my Sprint plan is pushing 16 years old and costs me around $300 for 5 phones. Still, not bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Whatsapp
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whatsapp"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

SMS costs money. The more SMS-messages I send the higher the next bill will be. On the other hand, no matter how many messages I send over Whatsapp or anything similar, the bill stays the same.

I doubt that SMS messages are billed per message but data (what WhatsApp actually consumes) isn't.

In my country, both for SMS messages *and* data you are given a package that includes an insane amounts of SMS messages and a (hopefully reasonable) amount of data that you can use at will, without costing you more than the standard monthly cost.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Whatsapp
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Whatsapp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I doubt that SMS messages are billed per message but data (what WhatsApp actually consumes) isn't.


They are, over here. I wouldn't have said that if it wasn't like that. It all depends on the plan you have, and the cheaper plans are all about pay-as-you-go, ie. you pay a certain amount of money per minute for voice-calls and a certain amount of money per SMS-message.

As for data: it's speed-limited, not amount-limited. Even with the cheapest, 4.90€/month pay-as-you-go plan you get 256Kbps bandwidth and you can literally use it 24/7 the whole month and it'll still cost that 4.90€. That's about 80GB data a month.

That just is how most carriers operate here in Finland.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Whatsapp
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Whatsapp"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

That's actually the way I'd like it most of all: unlimited data, limited whatever-else.

Unfortunately, where I live you pay a fixed amount of cash to charge your prepaid sim. Those credits are used up when calling, but aren't used up when using data or sms (within limits) in the first months after you've charged up. After that, both messages and data also costs credits until you're out and you're cut off.

It seems that every country has its own quirks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Whatsapp
by henderson101 on Thu 20th Oct 2016 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whatsapp"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The problem is - Finland, population circa 5.4 million. Infrastructure has been important and kept up with demand. People are more switched on about technology in general.

UK, population circa 65 million. Infrastructure ignored, creaky. Mobile service providers are all monopolistic and prices vary little across the board (it has been getting steadily cheaper, but not for data.) One large and a few smaller providers give fair use unlimited plans, but they are never less than £25 - £30, usually closer to £40 per month. People are switched on about technology, but people accept poor service. The infrastructure struggles to accommodate the capacity.

US - well, lets just say population, size of country, telephony monopoly - you're screwed.

So, yeah, sure Finland gets a fair deal. The reason is that you have a small population, people expect a good service and your providers are trying to provide always on mobile data and so moved to a model where they throttle your speed to a specific level for what you pay. In the UK we could do that, but it would probably make the cell towers go in to meltdown. We have too much congestion already in urban areas.

I wish our providers would adopt that model, because it might shame some of them in to improving their networks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Whatsapp
by darknexus on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whatsapp"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

SMS costs money. The more SMS-messages I send the higher the next bill will be.

Wow, those plans still exist? Get with the times. I haven't been charged for an sms in about seven years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Whatsapp
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Whatsapp"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

"SMS costs money. The more SMS-messages I send the higher the next bill will be.

Wow, those plans still exist? Get with the times. I haven't been charged for an sms in about seven years.
"
If you read further, you'd know she lives in Finland and there the subscriptions tend to cost you money when calling or texting, but data is only bandwidth-capped and not capacity-capped. That last bit it very, VERY nice indeed!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Whatsapp
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Whatsapp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Exactly. It just gets better when you realize that you can just set up a hotspot for your desktop or laptop or tablet whenever you need, or like when I was visiting my mum for a week, I tethered my laptop to my mobile's broadband, with no worries about datacap-overages or anything. I installed a couple of games on Steam and downloaded a virtual-machine image from my server over it (I had forgotten to take it with me on USB-drive), just like I would use Internet at home -- just somewhat slower, as I have much more bandwidth at home.

My plan costs me 17.90€/month + whatever costs I incur from the few SMS-messages (typically 15 SMS/month or less, as my mum hasn't learned to use anything else yet) I use a month, but that includes 21Mbps uncapped mobile-broadband. So, that begs the question: if I have the choice of using Whatsapp or whatever over that mobile-broadband, why the literal f--k would I bother with SMS? That darknexus-guy just doesn't seem to get it. Uncapped mobile-broadband just makes so much sense in the modern world and it makes life so much easier.

Edited 2016-10-19 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Whatsapp
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whatsapp"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

why the literal f--k would I bother with SMS? That darknexus-guy just doesn't seem to get it. Uncapped mobile-broadband just makes so much sense in the modern world and it makes life so much easier.


Ahhh, well I guess because in most other countries mobile data is still (made) very expensive (and capped at unreasonably low limits) while texts are thrown in for free at a rate of thousands per month.

It's really weird.

Maybe they hurt themselves too much throwing in those free texts that they decided to earn their money back on mobile data, which is exactly what they are doing. Even The Netherlands with their historical unlimited mobile data plans started being capped a few years ago, because they smelled DELICIOUS MONEY... and screw the proletariat that might suffer from these decisions!

Edited 2016-10-19 13:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Whatsapp
by Alfman on Wed 19th Oct 2016 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whatsapp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WereCatf,

My plan costs me 17.90€/month + whatever costs I incur from the few SMS-messages (typically 15 SMS/month or less, as my mum hasn't learned to use anything else yet) I use a month, but that includes 21Mbps uncapped mobile-broadband. So, that begs the question: if I have the choice of using Whatsapp or whatever over that mobile-broadband, why the literal f--k would I bother with SMS? That darknexus-guy just doesn't seem to get it. Uncapped mobile-broadband just makes so much sense in the modern world and it makes life so much easier.



21mbps uncapped? Wow, that sounds unbelievable. I'm always shocked when I hear about services in countries outside of the US.

TMobile, one of the most affordable carriers here in the US, is advertising an "unlimited" 4G LTE plan for $70/mo, which sounds like a great deal, except for the limitations...

On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds.


After the quota runs out (my plan has a 6GB quota) and the unlimited part starts the 4G LTE speeds can be capped very low, just a bit faster than modem speeds:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11/t-mobile-forced-to-stop-hid...
T-Mobile reduces speeds to 128Kbps or 64Kbps—except when you run a speed test.


Most customers probably don't realize tmobile throttles videos at 1.5mbps
Customers may choose full-resolution video option (sold separately).



To be honest, these don't effect me because I have cable internet service at home, but otherwise if I needed to depend on cellular internet (like my parents do) then it would be quite an impediment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Whatsapp
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2016 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whatsapp"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

SMS/MMS are more often than not free with most providers in Scandinavia, unless you subscripe to the cheapest offer available - or one of those prepaid, subscription-less phones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Whatsapp
by jal_ on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whatsapp"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

You know what everyone has? A phone number with SMS capability. Why bother with whatsapp when you can already send anyone a text without needing any extra apps (or even a smartphone)

1) (already mentioned) pictures, videos and voice messages
2) (already mentioned) relatively free
3) group talk!
4) web interface if needed
5) end-to-end encrytion

Reply Score: 3

They are all just AIM
by CaptainN- on Tue 18th Oct 2016 23:29 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

I mean, under the hood it's all just AIM. Does anyone still use that? I remember that was all the rage back in the day. :-)

My step father even still uses ICQ

Edited 2016-10-18 23:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: They are all just AIM
by Alfman on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:06 UTC in reply to "They are all just AIM"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

CaptainN-,

I mean, under the hood it's all just AIM. Does anyone still use that? I remember that was all the rage back in the day. :-)

My step father even still uses ICQ


Haha, I was on there too. I preferred powow, but it was too unpopular. I actually developed a client/server chat program that a few of us used at school. It supported a shared whiteboard, session recording/playback, synchronized mp3 playing. Ultimately without a significant user base nor commercial support, I took it down once I left academia because I lost access to university hosting.

Given how easy they are to develop, I suspect there were probably tens of thousands of chat platforms similar to mine globally. Of course the world doesn't need more than a couple, and network effects tended to focus all the attention on the very few popular ones.

Good memories though ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: They are all just AIM
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Oct 2016 13:52 UTC in reply to "They are all just AIM"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

ICQ was the big thing a long time ago (damn, I've gotten oldish). Used that a lot between 1998 and 2006.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Flatland_Spider
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:18 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

Why do I have an iPhone?


Android forced all email into the Gmail app and getting Google Calendars to pick up Exchange Calendars because of the switch to Gmail is tricky. The schizoid nature of messaging for Andorid. SMS works fine, but MMS/group messages only if the stars align just right, or aren't aligned just right. Maybe it's because of solar flares. Whichever, MMS doesn't work well. Of course none of this is integrated with Hangouts now.

Then there is Google killing stuff, replacing stuff with equivalents that aren't equivalents until years later, and letting stuff rot on the vine.

Email is just better on the iPhone, and the experience is smoother overall. Then there is getting multiple OS updates to the phone and actually software support from people selling business software.

I carried Android and iOS for about three years, and I used iOS more. I recently switched my personal phone to iOS, and it's been nice.

Reply Score: 1

duh...
by unclefester on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:26 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

"The question of whether a smartphone can be worth $700 to $1,000 in 2016 is a debate altogether."

iPhone 7 Plus USD749-949 outright.
http://www.iphone7updates.org/iphone-7-price-usa-unlocked-price-pre...


The author seems completely oblivious to the fact that most of the cost of an iPhone is hidden in the carrier contract.

Reply Score: 3

RE: duh...
by ebasconp on Wed 19th Oct 2016 01:42 UTC in reply to "duh..."
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

That is not always the case in all countries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: duh...
by unclefester on Wed 19th Oct 2016 01:46 UTC in reply to "RE: duh..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

That is not always the case in all countries.


That was my point. The US is the only country where the iPhone has a large share of the market (due to subsidies).

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Flatland_Spider
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 19th Oct 2016 00:37 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

Interesting how all the American reviewers mention iMessage so often as a barrier to switching. Living in a country where WhatsApp has a 100% market share and iMessage is entirely unused, it's just an annoying junk app to me.


It's SMS that's ubiquitous in the US. iMessage just lets people send text messages from their Mac or iPad. It's really cool when you're used to messages being siloed on one device.

iMessage being novel just speaks to how horrible device integration and systems integration is on the consumer side. We're living in walled gardens rather then open ecosystems.

Things like Pushbullet (https://www.pushbullet.com/) or Hangouts are the closest Android equivalents, and Pushbullet is a little more full featured then iMessage when people pay for it.

The thing that's nice about SMS is that's it's universal. If someone has a cellphone, they can get text messages, and it's the path of least resistance when every messaging app has its own protocol or locks 3rd parties out of its servers, like Whatsapp did in 2014 when a Pidgen plugin was released.

In summary, messaging is crap, and outside of Facebook Messanger, Slack, and SMS, every other messaging app has like two accounts, and those accounts might be test accounts that no one uses.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by unclefester on Wed 19th Oct 2016 01:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by Flatland_Spider"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

WhatsApp has over one billion users.

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

And?

Facebook has 1.71 billion.

That doesn't make them any less proprietary.

Edited 2016-10-19 02:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You were falsely claiming that WhasApp etc had virtually no users.

SMS has so many limitations that it is virtually useless. You don't even know if your SMS was receieved.

Reply Score: 4

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

For all it's flaws, SMS has a wide install base. It's like email, it's not the greatest and everyone wants it to be something it's not, but it's entrenched at this point.

I claimed I have very little use for messaging apps because they aren't federated or open which results in a siloed information, and and rather then try and convince everyone to switch to an app, I go with the path of least resistance which is SMS.

I really wish they would phase SMS out in favor of something else like XMPP, and I really wish the phone companies would switch to a data based model, such as SIP, where I could use a softphone to get calls on my current computer.

So yeah, there are a lot of wishes.

Edited 2016-10-19 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I really wish they would phase SMS out in favor of something else like XMPP

Then XMPP needs some seriouf fixing and forced standardization. It's a mess of incompatible codecs/extensions/additions. Forget XMPP.
and I really wish the phone companies would switch to a data based model, such as SIP, where I could use a softphone to get calls on my current computer.

Oh that would be very nice indeed, and at least SIP has a minimum standardization level we could rely on. They could even monetize it by having SIP as an additional plan add-on and the like. Count me in on that wish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by leos on Wed 19th Oct 2016 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

WhatsApp has over one billion users.



Whoopdedoo. There are 6.8 Billion active cell phones in the world. SMS works with probably 99% of them, no shitty app required.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by Spiron on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

One has to wonder how many of those Billion user are actually active and where they are. I barely see anyone with it here in Australia, my few friends in America say the same.

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

One has to wonder how many of those Billion user are actually active and where they are. I barely see anyone with it here in Australia, my few friends in America say the same.


Australia and the US are totally unrepresentative of phone use. They are amongst the few countries where iPhones and two year contracts are mainstream. Most other places rely on prepaid phones or monthly contracts.

Probably 90-95% of Whatsapp accounts are active. In India, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East Whatsapp has around 70% market penetration. It is so widely used in India that even the emergency services have Whatsapp phone numbers.

Reply Score: 2

sapere aude Member since:
2006-03-07

Exactly. Here in Brazil, WhatsApp is the de facto text messaging standard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by Spiron on Wed 19th Oct 2016 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Flatland_Spider"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Well that's sort of frightening to know, you guys replaced a shitty but open standard with a far less shitty but completely closed program

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Well that's sort of frightening to know, you guys replaced a shitty but open standard with a far less shitty but completely closed program


There is nothing shittier and limited than SMS. That is why carriers have been trying to introduce RCS for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services


In Australia an SMS sent on a prepaid mobile costs around 10-20c. That is for a mere ~1KB of data.

Reply Score: 2

Pixel XL, more like Meh XL
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 04:06 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I've been wanting to upgrade my LG G2 and I was hoping either of the new Google-phones would make for a worthy successor, but..there's literally nothing about them to make them appealing to me.

For one, I don't like the glass back. Glass is slippery, and there is nothing "premium" about it, it's just another gimmicky fashion trend that people fall for. I'd much prefer a non-slippery soft-touch plastic back.

Secondly, I have zero use for Google's new Assistant. It won't work with Finnish anyways, so there's just no reason to get excited about it.

Third, no OIS. They literally said they went with software-stabilization in order to make the phone slimmer, not because of any actual technical reasons. After watching several videos and such the phones' software-based stabilization in low-light situations leaves a lot to be desired. Low-light performance is important to me, so that's a nail in the coffin.

Fourth, horrible price. It's just a no-go from the get-go.

Now I'll have to wait again for the next Google-phones before I can even consider ditching my aging G2, and I'm not happy about that at all.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:37 UTC in reply to "Pixel XL, more like Meh XL"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

In the meantime to soothe your pain, you can swap your G2 for a G4, maybe? I see that you can buy them for half the introduction price now!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No, I learned my lesson with G2 and I'm never touching anything with non-stock Android again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL
by Gargyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

That's a little bitter. I'm happy with my Sony device.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pixel XL, more like Meh XL
by lighans on Wed 19th Oct 2016 10:44 UTC in reply to "Pixel XL, more like Meh XL"
lighans Member since:
2006-01-14

Well. I had a G2 for 2 years. My new phone is a Nexus 5x. Fast, cheap and good fingerprint. When support of Google stops, I will certainly switch to cyanogenmod.

I raelly don't understand about people buying a 700 dollar/euro high end phone. Why? Are they doing high end stuff with it? No, they are whatsapping (in Dutch it is a verb) or snapchat all day. One can do that with a medicore smartphone.

Reply Score: 2

WhatsApp
by caudex on Wed 19th Oct 2016 05:37 UTC
caudex
Member since:
2008-07-05

I highly doubt WhatsApp has 100% market share in the Netherlands. A very high percentage, yes, 100%? No.

Personal rant below:

And by the way, WhatsApp is in my humble opinion the shittiest of all the available chat clients. Even Facebook Messenger is better. Apple's iMessage, Viber, Line, Kik, etc, all have more features, are better maintained, have better structured UI:s, and so on. WhatsApp is basically a glorified MMS extension tied to Facebook.

The fact that there's still not a desktop client for WhatsApp doesn't make it better. Sure, it has a web client, but it's not the same thing (but it's better than nothing I guess).

The amount of features added to iMessage for each update is quite astounding actually. WhatsApp still has no support for stickers, video calls, etc. Once people get hooked to all the new iMessage features, it'll be harder to get them to use something as primitive as WhatsApp.

Reply Score: 1

RE: WhatsApp
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 05:51 UTC in reply to "WhatsApp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Once people get hooked to all the new iMessage features


Quite difficult for anyone not using an iPhone to get hooked to.

Reply Score: 3

RE: WhatsApp
by l3v1 on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:57 UTC in reply to "WhatsApp"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Once people get hooked to all the new iMessage features


You have to keep in mind that although in the US the iPhone might have around 40% share, the rest of the world looks much different, and [probably] nobody will buy an iPhone just for iMessage so you can't just expect people to get hooked.

Reply Score: 4

RE: WhatsApp
by Z_God on Wed 19th Oct 2016 08:50 UTC in reply to "WhatsApp"
Z_God Member since:
2006-06-11

I'm Dutch here. I can confirm that WhatApp doesn't have 100% marketshare. I have never used it and all Dutch people I communicate with are on Google Talk. This is likely due to Android being very popular here. (I never used Android myself either though.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: WhatsApp
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2016 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: WhatsApp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm Dutch here. I can confirm that WhatApp doesn't have 100% marketshare. I have never used it and all Dutch people I communicate with are on Google Talk. This is likely due to Android being very popular here. (I never used Android myself either though.)


WhatsApp is in use on 92% of all smartphones in The Netherlands. So maybe not quite 100%, but effectively it might as well be.

Google Talk isn't even a thing any more.

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/109689/whatsapp-staat-op-11-komma-2-milj...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: WhatsApp
by Z_God on Wed 19th Oct 2016 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WhatsApp"
Z_God Member since:
2006-06-11

The article literally states that men tend to use Hangouts and G+ which is effectively the same as Google Talk. That seems to be my experience as well. I don't know what clients people exactly use, but I just chat with them on their Jabber addresses which end in gmail.com from my own gmail address. While interoperability has become more limited with the newer Google clients, everything still works as long as you use a gmail.com address in your Jabber client.

I wonder how many people in the Netherlands have a smartphone. Then it would be more easy to understand that 92%. In practice however, I see a notable increase among gmail users over the past years which I guess is caused by whatever Android has built in.

Reply Score: 2

UK iMessage
by REM2000 on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:49 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Im from the UK and there is a lot of iPhone use. Pretty much all my friends and family use iPhones and iPads. My Dad uses a Mac but has an old nokia phone.

Using iMessage i can send/receieve messages, photos and video. The group chat is also pretty useful.

Could you do these on other platforms, sure, whatsapp is really widespread as is facebook messager, however for me it's convenient and easy way to stay in touch with everyone.

I love that whatever device i am using, iPhone/iPad or Mac all my messages are syncronised so i can continue the conversation no matter what device i use.

I remember the Google Engineer platform speech from 4 years ago and decided to stick with the Apple platform.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Sidux
by Sidux on Wed 19th Oct 2016 08:05 UTC
Sidux
Member since:
2015-03-10

I'm still sad to see articles like this treating Apple and Samsung like the only premium devices, and now all of the sudden Pixel is the best thing ever.
There are just many other handset that evolved pretty fast and can surely be in the same premium category as well (Moto Z, LG V20, HTC 10) but they do not get the same treatment.

Reply Score: 5

"Best Android Phone"
by jbauer on Wed 19th Oct 2016 11:18 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

If they say so...

If I needed a new phone I'd buy the S7 without a doubt.

Pros for the Pixel:

- It should get new Android versions faster it will probably get three big updates instead of two.

Pros for the S7:

- Much bigger display in a smaller body. No soft. buttons.
- Expandable storage
- Wireless charging
- IP68 water resistance
- Software features that are actually useful (like SideSync)
- Cheaper!

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Best Android Phone"
by Adurbe on Wed 19th Oct 2016 14:53 UTC in reply to ""Best Android Phone""
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure I like the world where the Samsung S7 is considered the "cheaper option"!

Reply Score: 3

Wait
by darknexus on Wed 19th Oct 2016 12:09 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I'll wait a year or more. If it can still match the battery life, and is still reliably getting every update, I'll consider it. If Google then actually comes out with a second generation that's comparable, I'll believe they're serious and will probably get one. I'll be patient. At this point, Google have to earn my trust.

Reply Score: 2

Funny....
by gan17 on Wed 19th Oct 2016 17:42 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Living in a country where WhatsApp has a 100% market share and iMessage is entirely unused, it's just an annoying junk app to me.

I live in a country where WhatsApp makes up the majority as well, but I still think it's a junk app. Dug out my old Nexus 5 (the first one) just to use Whatsapp because I couldn't bring myself to install it on my daily driver iPhone. Give me iMessage any day of the week.

As for the Pixel, I'll pass.

Edited 2016-10-19 17:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

What's WhatsApp?
by SaschaW on Wed 19th Oct 2016 17:48 UTC
SaschaW
Member since:
2007-07-19

I don't know anyone using it here in the US. Sounds like just one more messenger that nobody needs. :-D

Reply Score: 1