• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • My experience is dated, but figured I’d share it in case no one else has any input.

    I owned a few Motorola Android phones before and after the Google involvement. I think my most recent purchase was 2015.

    At that time, they were extremely “pure android” with very few additions beyond the stock experience. The things they added were way ahead of their time - I still think those devices had the best “always on” display implementation to this day, and they did it way before it became a norm.

    Their software and update support was rivaling Google at the time, and most other manufacturers were still in the days of 2 years of updates if you’re lucky.

    They just stopped making phones it seemed like. I ended up moving towards Pixels over the years, but Moto is the one company that would tempt me to switch back. That or maybe HTC but they’re dead.

    Hope you get a more recent answer - I didn’t even realize they were still making phones to be honest.





  • There’s isn’t enough physical space for three sensors on a smaller phone especially if it’s the size of the iPhone mini

    I wouldn’t go as far as to claim that “more cameras” is the complaints being made here. Sure, telephotos make sense as things that take up more space. But most people are using them for like 1 in 50 shots or something. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone would genuinely notice the difference unless they’re an extreme case or they’ve been told the other ones are better. Within reasonable effective focal lengths, these are pretty negligible in the sizes we’re talking about.

    If Apple couldn’t make a smaller phone sell particularly well, I doubt anyone else could.

    I hard disagree with this. Apple is literally the worst company to try to make this shit work. Apple’s core selling point is the status symbol of it all. People trying to show off having the flashiest phone are not going to buy a product being touted as a half baked smaller and cheaper version of something else. Their entire marketing was about it being mini. Apple customers are not the core audience for something like this, and Apple marketed it as exactly what people disliked about small phones.

    around or less than 5% of total iPhone 12 and 13 sales

    I find it more surprising that this was below expectations than I do that only 5% of people bought a smaller phone. I doubt much more than 1 in 20 people really is after a smaller phone. I’m sure they exist, but based on the people I know and the number of people I’ve heard interested in smaller phones, I’d estimate it more like 1 in 20 to 1 in 40. It’s not for most people by any means. But 1 in 20 is still a decent number of people.


  • They have to understand that the cameras on the biggest flagships occupy a lot of space and it isn’t feasible to bring it to a smaller form factor.

    Not… Really… Sure it makes some difference, but the much more constraining factor is the money. Cameras arent that big, but they’re one of the priciest pieces of hardware in the device.

    The problem is more that they keep trying to sell small phones at cheaper price points. So they end up with much worse screens, socs, and cameras so they perform like shit. People don’t want a small phone because they don’t care about their phone. People want small phones because the standard size is fucking huge. They need to make a high-ish tier small phone instead of low tier small phone that performs like the 50 Walmart shit.







  • That’s why Pixels and some others have a “smart charge” feature that will wait to charge your phone until just before your alarm time so that it will finish right before you take it off the charger.

    why am I going backwards to needing to babysit my phone when it’s charging, and why would anyone want to charge their phone when they want to be using it vs when they’re asleep?

    I honestly don’t understand why people have such trouble with this. I can throw my phone on a charger when I go to shower and it’s at 80 percent when I get out, and that’s enough for my day. I could leave it while I get dressed and eat or something and it’d be at 100 if I needed. I don’t need my phone 24 hours a day. And there are many points in my day where I’m not using my phone for an hour that I could spare to charge it. I don’t need to leave it burning away permanent battery capacity for hours and hours every night.


  • Yes, the battery doesn’t charge to “dangerous - could explode” levels. But they very much do still charge to levels that are damaging to long term health/capacity of the battery.

    Yes, they tune the batteries so that 100% isn’t the absolute cap. But even with that accounted for, many batteries will be above values that would be considered good for the long term health of a lithium cell. 80 percent on most phones is still very much at levels that are considered damaging to lithium batteries.

    To put it another way, the higher you charge a lithium battery, the more stress you put on it. The more stress you put on it, the fewer charge cycles those components will hold. It’s not like there’s a “magic number” at 80 percent, it’s just that the higher you go the worse it is. Yes, some manufacturers have tweaked charge curves to be more reasonable. But they’ve also increased limits. Many batteries now charge substantially higher than most people would consider sustainable.

    And after such changes, 80% lands pretty close to the general recommendations for improved battery longevity. Every percent will help, but it’s not a hard and fast rule.

    Calibrations have gotten a little better in some ways, but all you have to do is look at basic recommendations from battery experts and look at your phones battery voltage to see that almost every manufacturer is pushing well past the typical recommendations at 90 or even 85 percent.



  • Can’t answer the rest of your question because I don’t use a one plus but:

    aren’t you supposed to charge the phone overnight?

    No, you aren’t “supposed” to charge your phone overnight. Leaving your phone on the charger at 100% is actually pretty bad for long term battery health. Hence why the notification exists in the first place. Modern phones also full charge in like an hour, so this leaves your phone in that state for many hours.

    The longer story is it’s actually best to stop charging your phone at 80 percent unless you really need the extra juice, because any time your phone spends above that is potentially damaging, but that tends to be hard to deal with for most people.

    Most of the phones I’ve seen with this feature have a “battery warning” or “charge notification” or “protect battery” type setting somewhere you can turn off. But again, I’ve never used a one plus so Idk if they do or where it is.


  • I really do not understand how server anti cheat is not way easier.

    In a clean slate, it is. It’s also way more effective (except for things like wall hacks, aim bots, recoil suppressors, etc, but most of those things are only really important and popular in competitive FPS). It’s also much simpler to understand and to leave no “holes” behind. It also lives in the developers domain so it can’t be “compromised” or circumvented.

    The thing is that client side “anti cheat” can be commoditized. Every game with server authority/anti cheat needs specific server software to run their game logic. Client anti cheat is basically “look at everything else running on the system and see if any of it seems suspicious”. As such, there’s not really anything “game specific” to these - they basically are just a watch dog looking for bad actors - so as such, one company can come along, make one, and sell it to other devs.

    This being “off the shelf” and not something the dev team has to think about besides a price tag means that management is just going to buy a third party solution and check off the “anti cheat” box on their task list.

    I feel like devs are caught up on realtime anti cheat and not willing to do anything asynchronous.

    First, this is a management problem and not the devs. Any dev worth their salt knows this isn’t really a good solution.

    But I’d say the more relevant and prominent thing here is that game companies just don’t want to have to run servers anymore. It’s a cost, requires dev time, and requires maintenance, and they don’t want to do that. If these games had servers running the game world like games used to, they’d inherently have their own “anti cheat” built in for free that wouldn’t necessarily catch everything but would do a better job than some of these. And it could be enhanced to cover more bases.

    But studios don’t want to do this anymore. It’s easier to make the game p2p and slap an off the shelf anti cheat and call it a day.

    Some games still require matchmaking servers etc, but the overhead there is way lower.

    Or they really like paying licensing fees for client-side anticheat.

    Not that I agree with the decision, but it is definitely cheaper and faster than the alternative. But picking something like nprotect totally fucking baffles me. There are better options.

    I just don’t understand how any competent software engineer or systems admin or architect trusts the client so fervently.

    In some ways, same. Every project I’ve been on that has gotten anywhere near client side trust I’ve fought adamantly about avoiding it. I’ve won most arguments on it, but there are some places where they just utterly refuse.

    But then there are things like New World… I don’t know how the fuck that shit released like it did. The number of things trusted to the client were absolutely baffling. I expected Amazon’s first foray into gaming to be a fucking joke, but I was totally appalled at how bad it turned out. They even touted hiring ex blizzard talent to get my hopes up first.