LG Unveils G6 Android Nougat Smartphone With a Compact 5.7-Inch QHD+ 18:9 Display (hothardware.com) 111
MojoKid writes: LG recently unveiled the new G6 smartphone, going completely back to the drawing board versus its predecessor -- the not so well-received G5. In its place is a very compact aluminum unibody design and a large 5.7-inch QHD+ display with a 2880x1440 resolution. That display is the main focal point of the G6, and it has a rather unorthodox 18:9 screen ratio, which LG says allows that smartphone to better fit in your hand. LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix. Its thin bezel also gives the LG G6 an 80 percent screen-to-body ratio. The handset is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor along with 4GB of RAM, 32GB of internal storage and a microSD slot, which can accommodate up to an additional 2TB of storage. LG also outfitted the G6 with dual 13-megapixel rear cameras: a wide angle (F2.4 / 125 degree) shooter and a standard camera (F1.8 / 71 degree) with optical image stabilization. The LG G6 launches next month and will be available in Ice Platinum, Mystic White, Astro Black color options. Pricing is TBD. Some other specs include a non-removable 3,300 mAh battery, USB-C connectivity, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.2, fingerprint sensor and an IP68 water and dust resistance rating. It's also the first non-Google smartphone to come pre-loaded with the Google Assistant. How do you think the LG G6 compares to what we currently know about the soon-to-be-launched Samsung Galaxy S8?
18:9 (Score:1)
Am I missing something? Why don't they just say 2:1?
Re: (Score:1)
Meh. When they release a phone with a 100:50 ratio I'll be interested.
Re:18:9 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The original iPhone was 27:18 (or 15:10 or 3:2).
We should probably approximate screen aspect ratios in decimal instead of as a fraction, it makes them easier for people to compare.
16:9 -> 1.77:1
16:10 & 8:5 -> 1.6:1
18:9 & 2:1 -> 2:1
21:9 & 7:3 -> 2.33:1
4:3 -> 1.33:1
5:4 -> 1.25
64:27 -> 2.37:1
CinemaScope -> 2.35:1 or 2.39:1
15:9 & 5:3 -> 1.66:1
IMAX -> 1.43:1
11:8 -> 1.375:1
CinemaScope 55 -> 2.55:1
24:9 -> 2.66:1
hopefully you take the longest over the shorted d
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing something? Why don't they just say 2:1?
Because that isn't 2674:1337 enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Because 18:9 is BIGGER than 2:1. BIGGER!
Re: (Score:2)
Because bigger numbers are better! Only a loser will use a 2:1 screen. Real men? they have a 10,000,000:5,000,000 ratio screen!
and it has a 330,000 uAh battery! DEAR GOD ITS HUGE! MOAR POWER!
And all you thinkers can STFU! stop your freedom hating education and knowlege from getting in the way of FREEDOM!
Re:Control over themselves (Score:1)
Non-removable battery (Score:5, Insightful)
That just guaranteed I won't buy it. I'll have to find another replacement phone when the time comes.
Re: (Score:3)
LG V20 has a removable 3200mAh battery. But it's a beast (5.7" display)
There are lots of other phones with removable batteries, but all the ones I found had smaller battery packs. (But perhaps better battery life in some cases)
Re: Non-removable battery (Score:3)
The combination of removable battery and card reader was unique to LG over the past two model years of smartphones. They even based their marketing around providing both. It's a sad day for anyone who feels that both are essential to decent phone experience.
Re: (Score:3)
IP68 and a removable battery is very difficult to do.
Re: Non-removable battery (Score:2)
I'd rather have a removable battery. There's plenty of water resistant phones. Give me one that lets me swap the battery and storage.
Re: (Score:2)
IP67 and removable battery isn't too hard, and I'd be happy with that. It's enough to save you from dropping the phone in a puddle.
Re: Non-removable battery (Score:2)
The G3, G4 and G5 are also supremely easy to repair. It's not just the loss of the removable battery, although that's also a huge issue. The G-series was a huge favorite for me because I could fix one in just seconds with nothing more than a precision Philips head screwdriver.
But yeah, since I don't want a phone any larger than a G4 or G5 and I can't get both removable battery and SD reader, I guess I'm done upgrading my personal phone.
Re: (Score:2)
My G4 phone has been great. I'm now at 21 months of use (and I use my phone a lot for work, I drain the battery completely before the end of the day) and it's now just starting to show signs of battery degradation. I remember hardly using it at all the one weekend (2 days) and it only dropped to about 82% or so.
I guess when the battery finally gives out on my G4 I'll have to consider one of those big arse batteries.
I had two Samsung phones prior (S1 and S3) and both phones showed signs of battery fatigue at
Re: (Score:2)
The G6 is really not any better than the G5. They have the same CPU, same GPU, same amount of RAM, the G6 has a slightly better screen but the G5 has a slightly better camera and of course the G5 has a replaceable battery.
Hell, I still have a G3 and I don't see any need to upgrade any time soon.
At least in my part of the world, G5s are super cheap right now. I just got one for $250 CAD (no contract). It's a great phone. Problem is, instead of marketing it as a great phone, they marketed the gimmicky "friends" modular attachments, and by all accounts it flopped. Their failure is my gain, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take IP68 over a removable battery any day. It's very difficult to have both.
Re: Non-removable battery (Score:2)
You have options already if that's what you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here—the speaker on my 2007 Samsung u740 (before they called it "Alias") died and I made the transition to a smart phone last April. My #1 requirement was a removable battery, and I found the G4 to be what I needed. (The G5 was nice, but too big for my Carhartt slacks' phone pocket, and I didn't feel like I needed the modular features.)
I don't really know if I'll ever need to replace the battery as I rarely go outside the 30-80% charge range (using the Ampere app as a charge alarm,) but I want my
LOL WUT (Score:2)
LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... ...no.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost no one is adopting 2:1. It's anything but "universal".
Content is created in all sorts of shit, with 1.85:1, 2.33:1 (21:9), 2.35:1, and 2.39:1 being the most common for film, and 16:9 being nearly universal for anything broadcast. The vast majority of content is delivered in / expects a display of 16:9.
You may as well tell me that everything's going to be 48 FPS and 3D thanks to the critically acclaimed and monstrously popular Hobbit film trilogy. And I'm sure Samsung's 2017 4K TV lineup will all b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the difference between an 18:9 display and a 2:1 display?
$300
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference between an 18:9 display and a 2:1 display?
Duh, obviously the former has 9 times more* pixels than the latter.
*(Actually, it's 8 times more, or 9 times as much, in each linear dimension, so 81 times as much in total. But this is marketing, so don't worry about the techy details.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're laughing over market-speak logic, but here's a question for you... why did marketers go from "2K" to "4K" television screens when they could have been both more accurate and more impressive by going from (1920x1080=) "2MP" to (3840x2160=) "8MP" screens?
Duh, megapixels are for digital cameras, that's got nothing to do with displays.
Re: (Score:1)
I expect the ratio comes from the TV technical industry, not LG marketing, and is used to indicate the number of pixels resolution is a good ratio to the original content's resolution when scaled. Notice how the ":9" corresponds to the 1440 pixel dimension, which is exactly twice the the 720 in 16:9 720P content.
Stupid pixel race (Score:5, Insightful)
This screen scores approximately 565 pixels per inch. The average human eye cannot make out this much resolution -- I know that my eyes can't at my age.
Why pay for resolution that you can't see without a magnifying glass?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you do have a magnifying glass?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about. A flagship phone must have a 4K screen and 10 core SoC.
Re: Stupid pixel race (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I have 20-10 vision and 534 PPI phone. I can discern the individual pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
Just some math for you, for giggles. Don't read too much into it.
Back when I was a kid, computer display used fonts of an 8x8 pixel matrix, and that was perfectly readable.
Now, using 8x8 characters, you can get 70 characters horizontally and vertically in one square inch (plus a bit of a border). This means that you can fit 4,900 characters in one square inch, and they SHOULD be legible (maybe not comfortably).
Hmmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
I went from a Note 2 (1280x720) to Note 4 (2560x1440) and I love the resolution. Everything is much sharper, and colors are super smooth precisely because I can't see the pixels.
VR is another matter; 2560 is ok, 4k would be better, but the problem is Samsung's OLED screen has too much space between pixels. LCD screens look much better when under that kind of magnification.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm speculating to some extent, but in many cases you don't actually WANT to see the pixels. You want to see a straight line where the pixels are actually jagged. You want to see smooth gradients, curves that curve, and circles that are the same thickness and smoothness at every angle.
Of course, this problem was mostly solved by anti-aliasing and hinting, but my point is that you need many more pixels than the eye can pick out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the industry is gravitating towards people strapping magnifying glasses and phone to their face. 565ppi is not high enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Print quality is 600 DPI for historical reasons, actually you only need about 500 DPI to look visually perfect up close. They went to 565 because that gives them a standard resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Daydream.
My phone's 1440x2560 (538PPI), and in regular use, it isn't much different than regular HD resolution.
But when you use it for Daydream, it's pixelated as hell.
Crazy Displays (Score:2)
Wow, this is nuts. ... then because of hollywood most of us were forced to 1920 x 1080 and even more absurdly, mum and dad users were working at 1366x768 !!! For 10 years I waited and waited for the PC industry to bring out large hi res monitors... but again, it wasn't until the consumer 4k movement started, that PC manufactures started bringing out what I can only say is the absolute glory of 4k big monitors for programming.
10 Years ago, I was working at 1920 x 1200
but why oh why would you want 4k on 5.5"
Re: (Score:3)
Not so much a waste of pixels as a waste of processing power and battery life. There is really stupid waste in unnecessarily pushing around what amounts too invisible pixels. Basically marketdroid fuckwits in corporations taking over from engineers. Of course not user removable battery means a big no on the phone for me. When a phone manages to achieve an unstable state, nothing is more effective than popping the battery.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean those Chinese engineers whose native language actually does benefit from high resolution rendering?
Admittedly LG are Korean which probably benefits less for most of its characters, but I expect they're still interested in the Chinese (and Japanese) markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Because on a computer it's excellent in portrait mode for reading documents. At the moment I have a portrait screen on either side of my landscape screen. IDEs, Blender and video editors tend to stay on the landscape screen because their GUIs suck in portrait mode, but I keep reference documents open on each of the portrait screens for easy reading.
My take on the long rectangle (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
10 Years ago, I was working at 1920 x 1200 ... then because of hollywood most of us were forced to 1920 x 1080 and even more absurdly
1920x1080 as TV resolution is more than 20 years old at this point. It predates your 10-year-old 1920x1200 display.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon, we will reach Peak Pixel and then there will pixel shortages, leading to the Great Pixel War of 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly for stupid people.
"Compact" my ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure how you can call a phone compact that most people could not fit in their pocket without it sticking out.
Re: (Score:2)
I have pants with big pockets, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
This is Slashdot. Cargo shorts are the preferred format for pants around here. Except for the non-conformists, who wear jorts.
Re: (Score:2)
Camo pants have large side pockets on the legs. You can put a chain saw in them.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they still teach the map course to infantry. They should since in a real war the satellites will be one of the first things to go. No more GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily a bad thing and kind of a selling point there.
Maybe you can hold it with one hand, scroll text and get to see a usable portion of the page that's not obscured by your thumb.
Might be great for portrait keyboard too (landscape keyboard might be shit, or maybe you can get a split one)
Re: (Score:2)
Some might have shit software. It's just like the bad old days of a Packard Bell with Windows 98 and XP bundled with a ton of crapware. What about you get Norton Anvitirus, Real Player, Acrobat Reader preloading with system tray icon, Packard Bell / Acer / whatever "troubleshooting" and "driver" utility, sound card special configuration GUI, webcam shitware, get a printer and install the "helpful" bundleware, Microsoft Active Desktop, yahoo/AOL/Ask Jeeves/Packard Bell toolbars in Internet Explorer, all with
Re: (Score:2)
LG phones are not. At least, the LG G4 had a nearly universal motherboard/CPU problem that caused phone death, and LG was extremely unhelpful with repairs. Going back in time, the LG Nexus 4 had a list of design problems as long as my arm, though if you were lucky enough to get a late iteration of the device, that may not have been a problem for you.
LG has not shown itself to be a trustworthy brand (to me personally), and even the three popular Chinese brands seem to produce a better product.
Android phones
Re: (Score:2)
I got you covered. https://www.jitterbugdirect.co... [jitterbugdirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What we want is something Sony Xperia Z1/Z3/Z5 Compact came pretty close. Approx 4.5", quite powerful, stays working after little rain, battery lasts quite long. Sony abandoned the concept in X series - Compact in that series lost the IP rating. What they should've done - add less plastic-y frame and back cover (fingerprint smudges only on screen please) and make the phone 2mm fatter to give even more battery power.
But the marketing department knew better...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if your car had a non-removable battery, or even tires for that matter.
Geez, don't go giving the car manufacturers ideas!
I see it is omitting the physical home button (Score:2)
Lovely, I just love a phone I can't hold easily. I rest my thumb on my physical home button ALL THE TIME to stabilise the phone in my hand. That's INCLUDING the sling grips (google them) I use on the back of the case to keep it stable.
Nothing more ghastly than a home button I can't rest on as it's thinking it's being pressed.
I'm now in the minority on this, my current phone has it, the next Samsung is finally doing away with it (and I'll be doing away, with the next Samsung)
I dislike this trend and I w