Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Oct 2015 23:18 UTC
Android

The Verge on the Nexus 6P:

The Nexus 6P effectively levels the playing field with other great phones by offering really beautiful hardware and a camera that can finally compete. And it does that while undercutting all of them on cost. The Nexus 6P starts at $499, and for that price there is not a single phone on the market that's better. Not one.

If you compare it to the other "premium" phones like the iPhone 6S, Galaxy S6, or Note 5, you're going to end up finding yourself putting a different set of things on your decision scales than before. With the Note 5: is a slightly better camera and a stylus worth $240 more, or would you rather have a clean Android experience? And the iPhone 6S: is iOS's superior app ecosystem and 3D Touch worth $150 more, or do you live in Google's ecosystem and want Google Now on Tap?

I find it remarkable that the Nexus 6P has managed to cram so much excellent, high-end phone - a great camera, even! - in such a small price tag. Except if you're European of course, where we're being hit with serious price hikes that really destroy the 6P's value proposition.

Just as remarkable: the Nexus 5X.

Still, if you’ve been holding onto a Nexus 5 for two years just waiting for Google to do right by you, those points might not matter. Barring few exceptions, such as the lack of wireless charging, there’s very little that a Nexus 5 lover will find to complain about with the 5X. It’s compact, cheap, and performs well, even if it’s not the best-looking or best-feeling phone you can get. If you’ve been eyeing Motorola’s new Moto X or the plethora of other phones in the sub-$500 price range, the 5X is a really compelling option. In fact, among phones under $450, I don’t think there’s a better option, and it’s easily the one I’d pick.

As one of those fervent Nexus 5 lovers - I may have bought an iPhone 6S, but my bright orange-red Nexus 5 will remain in my heart for a long time to come - the 5X really does appeal to me. I'm not a fan of the camera bulge, and it definitely needs an orange-red option, but other than that, it looks exactly like I imagined a 2015-2016 Nexus 5 would look.

These two phones are definitely the best Android phones you can buy right now bar none.

Thread beginning with comment 619561
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Serious question: 16GB?
by ingraham on Wed 21st Oct 2015 16:48 UTC
ingraham
Member since:
2006-05-20

I'm trying to understand the 5X with 16GB of storage and no SD card. That gives you more like 12GB of usable space. Take some photos and some videos, plus a big app or two, and you're out of space. Yes, you can jump up to the 32GB for an extra $40. (Never mind that a 16GB microSD card is under ten bucks, and even 64GB is around twenty.) But why does the 16GB even exist? I'm seriously asking; is 16GB really a viable option at this point?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Serious question: 16GB?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Oct 2015 17:57 in reply to "Serious question: 16GB?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It entirely depends on what you do with it. 16GB is still plenty for a bunch of photos and videos, especially for someone who takes such only occasionally. I, for example, could very easily get by with that -- looking at my phone I seem to have used about 4GB, and I haven't even tried to use the space sparingly.

If you constantly keep taking lots of pictures and videos or fill the space with 200GB+ FLAC-compressed music, then of course you'll run out of space. In the real life, however, not everyone does that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Serious question: 16GB?
by mistersoft on Fri 23rd Oct 2015 17:59 in reply to "RE: Serious question: 16GB?"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

hear what your saying, but as the OP mentioned - cost of flash memory is pretty damn low these days

phone maker could easily get away with segmenting their phone at 64, 128, 256 rather than the 16, 32, 64 they seem to at the moment in reality

and given the price hikes usually offered - the jumps I suggested would be fair and would fit.

I think they very artificially segment on a lower tighter scale because they (partly) have to to squeeze people (enough)

-
it's a bit like when car manufacturers *could* just lower the physically/engineering specs of their cars as they go progressively toward the budget end of a range (but they often will make their cars/SUVs/whatever a little -or a lot- less aesthetically pleasing to boot) - just to give us lovely customers a little more shove if they can..

I'm not a total communist but oh for some nicer minded companies..where profit wasn't all!

Edited 2015-10-23 18:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Serious question: 16GB?
by chair on Thu 22nd Oct 2015 00:35 in reply to "Serious question: 16GB?"
chair Member since:
2012-12-18

But why does the 16GB even exist?

Because for the majority of people it's good enough. I've got a 16 GB phone and currently there's about 5 GB free. I did have a problem with 16 GB on my old Nokia N9, but now I keep all my music with Google Play Music, and only store what I'm regularly listening to on my device. You have to consider the fact that the things that are important to you in a particular product may not be important to others. Despite the vocal complaints on the internet, I expect that 16 GB is enough for most people. Especially considering Google's focus on storing data in the cloud. Google (and every phone manufacturer) would have done market research to determine what consumers need and want.

So why should everyone pay more for something only a minority want?

Never mind that a 16GB microSD card is under ten bucks, and even 64GB is around twenty.

I think fundamentally you don't understand how product manufacturing works. It's not just you, many people on the internet complain that product X doesn't have feature Y, even though it only costs $Z more. The thing you need to understand is that if a feature doesn't increase the number of units sold (and the lack of a feature doesn't decrease sales), the manufacturer is really just throwing away money if they include it.

But it's only a small amount, right? Per unit, yes, but not when you consider all units sold over the entire lifetime of the product. Say a feature costs $1, but it doesn't increase sales significantly (and doesn't decrease sales significantly if the feature is lacking). If the product sales are 1,000,000 units, it's $1,000,000 wasted.

That's a significant amount. That can be the difference between successful and unsuccessful product. It moves the break even point (the point where the profit form each unit sold equals the fixed costs of developing the product) and increases the risk of developing that product.

But you'd gladly pay the extra cost of that feature, right? But increasing the sale price of the product means decreasing sales. Generally the sale price of a product is determined first, then the product is designed to meet the specifications for as cheap as possible. So why don't they create just sell two products, where the upgraded product only costs an additional cost of the feature? It's called upselling. Yes, it's a rip off. The profit margin on upgraded product is greater. It's how pretty much every product line of anything works. For the manufacturer's point of view it's not about the value of a particular product, it's about the profitability of the entire product line.

It's funny how people complain about a particular product having an extra feature that's poor value. Upselling it's something that's done to almost every single product you've ever bought.

Reply Parent Score: 1