Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
By Rich Woods
Google Pixel 5 review: A great phone without a wow factor
by Rich Woods
Google's Pixel is one of those devices that I look forward to reviewing every year. Despite some strange missteps throughout the years, it's a device that never fails to delight. This year, it's still as great as ever, but it's also missing a wow factor, and I think that's on purpose.
Google notably turned things down a notch this year. The Pixel 5 doesn't have an XL variant, and it doesn't have a Snapdragon 8 series processor, with it being replaced by the Snapdragon 765G. It finally has an edge-to-edge display, like we first saw on the Pixel 4a, and the telephoto lens has been replaced by an ultra-wide sensor, rather than just using all three.
CPU Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G 2.4 GHz + 2.2 GHz + 1.8 GHz, 64-bit GPU Adreno 620 Body 144.7x70.4x8mm (5.7x2.8x0.3in), 151g Display 6 inches, 19.5:9, 1080x2340, Flexible OLED, 432ppi, 1,000,000:1 contrast, 90Hz Battery 4,000mAh, 18W wired charging, Qi wireless charging, reverse wireless charging RAM 8GB LPDDR4x Storage 128GB Camera 12.2MP f/1.7 + 16MP f/2.2 107-degree field-of-view, Front - 8MP f/2.0 Video 4K - 60fps, Front - 1080p - 30fps Audio Stereo speakers
Connectivity Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz 802.11a/b/g/n/ac 2x2 MIMO
Bluetooth 5.0 + LE, A2DP (HD codecs: AptX, AptX HD, LDAC, AAC)
GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, QZSS Cellular connectivity LTE:
Up to 4CC (12 layers) DL & 2CC UL
TDD: Up to 4CC x 100MHz 2x2 MIMO DL & 1CC x 100MHz 2x2 MIMO UL9
TDD: Up to 1CC x 100MHz 4x4 MIMO DL & 1CC x 100MHz UL
FDD: Up to 1CC x 20MHz 4x4 MIMO DL & 1CC x 20MHz UL
Colors Just Black, Sorta Sage OS Android 11 Material 100% recycled aluminum enclosure
Corning Gorilla Glass 6 cover glass
IP68 water and dust resistance Price $699
The Google Pixel 5 comes in two colors: Just Black and Sorta Sage. Google sent me the latter, and it's definitely the prettier way to go. It's green, but it's not a particularly bold or flashy flavor of green. It's quite stylish. And of course, it's made out of metal; well, kind of.
The Pixel 5 is metal but with what Google calls a bio-resin on top. It's pretty much plastic. It also cut a hole in the aluminum, which is what makes it work with Qi charging. For years, companies have made phones out of plastic or glass, because metal doesn't work with wireless charging. Google made it work.
The nice thing about the build is that it's not as fragile as your typical glass sandwich. When companies started using glass backs on smartphones, they added another thing that can break, and of course, that's twice as much surface area that you have to pay to fix if you drop your phone. The Pixel 5 doesn't compromise between feeling premium and wireless charging.
Another thing that's different is that the design is, frankly, dull. For the first three generations, Google used a two-tone design that had a glossy top and matte bottom, and it was unique. For the Pixel 4, it has a flat, matte back and a different color border, reminiscent of the HTC Desire days. With the Pixel 5 and starting with the Pixel 4a, it's just a unibody.
The square camera housing with rounded corners looks nearly identical to what it looked like on the Pixel 4 series, and one thing to make a return is the fingerprint sensor. Google, like Apple, made the decision last year to go all-in on facial recognition and ditch the fingerprint sensor completely. Of course, then a pandemic happened and many of us are wearing masks when we go out in public. Seriously, you'd have to be completely tone-deaf to make a premium smartphone with facial recognition and no fingerprint sensor in 2020.
On the bottom of the device, you'll find the USB Type-C port for charging. Just like last year, there's no 3.5mm audio jack, as Google continues to go along with the industry-wide trend of only putting the legacy port in devices that cost less money.
On the right side of the device, there's a volume rocker and above that, the power button. Rather than being a different color this year, the power button is a metallic shade of green that makes it look more sophisticated than the more playful look we've seen in the past.
On the left side, you'll find the nano-SIM slot, which you presumably won't be using much.
Here's the thing about the Pixel 5 design. I like it. I think it feels premium with its metal-ish chassis, and it fits just right in my hand. I don't love it though. There's no 'wow' factor when I look at this device. Honestly, I'm not sure if that even matters since most people will just put a case on it, and Google's fabric cases are quite nice.
The Google Pixel 5 has a six-inch screen, which is very small. If you're comparing it to the six-inch Nokia Lumia 1520, keep in mind that this device is 70.4mm wide, and the Lumia 1520 was 85.4mm wide, so it was over 21% larger. I wanted to make that point because people tend to think that since the number of inches on a screen size is getting bigger, that means that displays are getting bigger.
They're not, or at least not in a conventional sense. Screens are measured diagonally, and the closer you get to a square, the more surface area you'll have from a diagonal measurement. In other words, six inches at 16:9 was a whole lot bigger than it is now at 19.5:9. The bezels are smaller now too, of course.
Speaking of bezels, Google did a great job of making them uniform on all four sides, or at least as close to it as possible while not showing a visible difference. That top bezel that was used for Soli radar in the Pixel 4 is gone now too, so we get an edge-to-edge screen with a hole-punch cut-out.
The specs of the display aren't tremendously impressive. It's FHD+ instead of QHD+, although I still don't believe that anyone can honestly tell the difference. It's also 90Hz, so it has a nice and smooth refresh rate. Sure, 120Hz would be better, especially since we're seeing it on the $50-more-expensive OnePlus 8T, but there's not as much of a difference between 90Hz and 120Hz as there is between 60Hz and 90Hz.
The screen is pretty, just as you'd expect from OLED. In fact, it seems identical to the Pixel 4 series. There really doesn't seem to be any change to how colors are rendered here.
As usual, the Pixel 5 does offer an always-on display, and it does have my very favorite feature: Now Playing. Now Playing automatically tells you what song is playing, no app-launching required. It shows up on the AoD, but if the phone is awake, it can show up on the lock screen or in the notification shade.
Last year's Pixel 4 series was the first Pixel to have a dual-lens rear camera, adding a telephoto lens. Google caught criticism for not including an ultra-wide sensor though. After all, most premium smartphones have all three. This year, the Mountain View firm swapped out the telephoto lens for an ultra-wide sensor, once again choosing to not use all three.
I'm not sure the telephoto lens ever really mattered though. Google's Super Res Zoom is really good, and while you can't take it up to 8x like you could on the Pixel 4, you can get pretty close with similar quality.
The main sensor is 12.2MP f/1.7, the same as last year's, and honestly, I think that the technology that Google's using is starting to show its age a bit. The company has tried time and again to do things with software that other companies need additional hardware to do; for example, Google was the first to manage portrait mode with a single camera lens. While it's done a great job, I think it's time to show what it could do with its computational photography chops combined with some better hardware.
Aside from the ultra-wide sensor, there are some other improvements, such as Night Sight on portrait mode. Yes, now you can get all of the low-light creamy goodness while getting that magnificent bokeh effect. Google also added automatic Night Sight, so you don't have to manually switch to a night mode to use it. In fact, the Camera app is almost completely redesigned.
One thing that the firm swore off last year was adding the ability to switch between lenses. That's here this year though. Last year, Google was very clear that it didn't want the user to have to think about what lens the camera was using, something that I applauded. Sadly, that tune has changed.
One other thing that I want to point out is that the Pixel 5, along with the Pixel 4a 5G, supports recording 4K 60fps video. First of all, this is the first Snapdragon 7 series-powered device I've ever seen that has that capability, and second of all, it's the first Pixel. The Snapdragon 8 series has had 4K 60fps capture support since the Snapdragon 845, and the feature still isn't available on the Pixel 3 or 4.
Gallery: Google Pixel 5 samples
You can clearly see the difference with Night Sight in portrait mode. It's quite impressive. Of course, regular Night Sight is impressive too, as it always has been, and it does work with the ultra-wide sensor.
Google has historically had one of the best cameras on the market, even if the hardware seemed subpar. It's one of the reasons that I've fallen in love with every Pixel that I've used, and in fact, I use a Pixel to shoot pictures of products for reviews. Even the device pictures of the Pixel 5 were shot on, you guessed it, a Pixel 4 XL.
Performance, battery life, and 5G
Some people seem to think that 5G affects battery life, and I'm here to tell you that that's simply not true. The reason it's not true is 5G is nearly meaningless. Yes, millimeter wave (mmWave) 5G does use more battery life, but millimeter wave really doesn't work.
Here's the deal. There are different kinds of 5G: low-band sub-6GHz, mid-band sub-6GHz, and mmWave. The lower the band, the further it will reach and the cheaper it is to roll out. That's why T-Mobile has its 600MHz nationwide network that most people have access to. Sub6 5G has never shown increased battery usage in my testing, but it also offers only modest improvements over 4G LTE, if any at all. T-Mobile is improving by adding Sprint's 2.5GHz mid-band, and 5G as a whole will use a combination of all three.
Millimeter waves are what you'll need, at least right now, to get the multi-gigabit speeds that you're seeing in the Verizon promotions. The only problem with mmWave is that for it to work at all, you need to be in line-of-sight with a 5G tower. The frequency is so high that it can be blocked by anything you can imagine, such as a window, a piece of paper, a tree leaf, or anything else. Use your imagination on this one. It won't even work in your pocket.
The Google Pixel 5 is one of few unlocked phones that supports both sub6 and mmWave 5G. Samsung and Apple are the only other ones doing it as far as I know, and the Pixel 5 is the most inexpensive option, with Apple's iPhone 12 mini coming in at $729. Most phones are sub6-only, although the 5G phones made for Verizon support both, because for a long time, Verizon only had mmWave.
The problem here is something often referred to as the mmWave tax. Phones that support both mmWave and sub6 just cost more. For example, the Pixel 4a 5G costs $100 more if you get it on Verizon (the unlocked model does not have mmWave support), and the Pixel 5 costs less in other countries because it doesn't have mmWave support there.
Like I said, 5G mostly doesn't matter right now, but I'd also never recommend buying a smartphone that only has 4G LTE support. 5G might be useless right now, but you're going to want it during the lifetime of the device.
Battery life is pretty solid. I was a bit worried at first, but eventually things evened out. I never had an issue getting through a full day, and why would I? You'd never guess it by holding this thin, light, and compact device, but it has a 4,000mAh battery.
Performance is fine, but it's worth noting that Google uses a Snapdragon 765G this year, and it's the first time that it strayed away from the Snapdragon 8 series. While anyone who buys it should be happy with performance, the bad news is that the Pixel 4 has much better performance with a Snapdragon 855.
For benchmarks, I used Geekbench 5, AnTuTu, and GFXBench.
You can see that in Geekbench 5, which tests the CPU, the Snapdragon 765G beats the Snapdragon 845 in single-core but loses in multi-core. Back when I reviewed the Pixel 3 XL, Geekbench 5 wasn't out yet. When I ran it now, it got 361 on single-core and 1,722 on multi-core. It also got 229,230 on the latest version of AnTuTu. So sure, maybe the Snapdragon 845 in the Pixel 3 XL doesn't do quite as well in most cases.
The Google Pixel 5 solves my two biggest complaints about the Pixel 4, which to be fair, weren't complaints last year. One is that there's a fingerprint sensor; as I said earlier, any company that made a phone without a fingerprint sensor in 2020 would have to be completely tone-deaf. The other one is that it adds 5G, because as I just mentioned, I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a 4G-only smartphone.
It's not perfect though. There's something about the design that's just not googly. Google still gives the colors quirky names like Just Black and Sorta Sage, but the design is frankly bland. It's also more expensive than it needs to be, making people pay for mmWave when most users don't even have access to it. Also, there really should have been an XL model for people that like a bigger screen and a bigger battery.
But it's a Pixel, so it has all of the good stuff too. The display is much improved, as Google has a bad history with bezels. Surely, we all remember the bathtub notch on the Pixel 3 XL and the big top bezel on the Pixel 4. Now, it's an edge-to-edge display with a hole-punch cut-out, and it finally looks modern.
And of course, you get that Pixel camera, which is always fantastic. Personally, I think the user gains more from having an ultra-wide sensor than they lose by not having the 2x telephoto lens. But still, I'd much rather have all three camera lenses than mmWave support.
The Google Pixel 5 is an excellent device for its price point of $699. If you want to check it out, you can pre-order it here.
The Surface Duo is already $200 off at the Microsoft Store
by João Carrasqueira
Microsoft's highly-anticipated dual-screen Android phone finally released last month, and much to the dismay of some fans, it came with a high $1,399 price tag. That can be a bit hard to swallow considering the phone is using some less than stellar internals, like a Snapdragon 855 chipset without 5G support and just 6GB of RAM.
If you've been holding out for a deal on the Surface Duo, today might be your day. Over on the Microsoft Store, the Surface Duo is on sale for $200 below its usual price, which means it now starts at slightly more reasonable $1,199 for the 128GB model. The 256GB variant is also discounted to by $200, so it costs $1,399.
In addition to the Snapdragon 855 chipset and 6GB of RAM, the specs of the Surface Duo include a 3,577mAh battery and a single 11MP camera that serves as both a rear- and front-facing camera depending on the device's posture. Evidently, it has two 5.6-inch AMOLED screens with Surface Pen support, and they add up to an 8.1-inch display in the typical 3:2 aspect ratio of Surface devices. The Surface Duo is a very thin device, with each half being just 4.8mm thin.
You can buy the Surface Duo from the Microsoft Store here. Best Buy also has a $200 discount on the phone without activation.
Fairphone 3+ review: I love what it stands for, even if it's not a great phone
by João Carrasqueira
Fairphone probably isn’t the first name anyone will think of when thinking of smartphones, but the company based in the Netherlands has actually been around for a while. The first Fairphone was released in 2013, and with the Fairphone 3+, we’re now up to the company’s fourth device.
Given that it’s been seven years since the first one, that doesn’t sound like a lot, and that has a lot to do with the company’s philosophy. As the company’s name suggests, Fairphone’s goal is to be as sustainable, environmentally and otherwise, as possible. Since the Fairphone 2 in 2015, the company has offered modular smartphones, which means you can easily repair and upgrade most of its components yourself, and the Fairphone 3 (and 3+) builds on that idea. Fairphone also aquires its material from responsible sources, including 40% recycled plastics on the Fairphone 3, and it’s the only smartphone company currently using Fairtrade certified gold.
This philosophy is what drew me to the Fairphone 3+. Every year, new smartphones come out with the latest and greatest, and while it’s pretty cool to see how far we can push the performance of these little devices, this sustainable approach is exciting in a whole different way, and I’d say that almost makes it more exciting than reviewing a typical flagship smartphone. The Fairphone 3+ is its own phone, but if you bought a Fairphone 3, you can simply buy the new camera modules and get pretty much the same experience, as the rest of the hardware is almost all the same.
CPU Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, four Kryo 250 Gold (1.8GHz), four Kryo 250 Silver (1.8GHz) GPU Adreno 506 Display 5.65 inches IPS LCD, 2160x1080, 427ppi Body 159.07 x 74.06 x 9.04mm, 185g Camera 48MP main; Front - 16MP Aperture f/1.79; Front - f/2.0 Video capture 4K 30fps, 1080p 120fps; Front - 1080p 30fps Battery 3,040mAh RAM 4GB Storage 64GB Colors Black OS Android 10 Price €469 Day one
Looking at the Fairphone 3+ from the outside, you immediately get the idea that it’s not a regular modern smartphone. The phone is thick considering its mid-range specs and the small-ish 3,040mAh battery. The phone’s design is also all plastic (with 40% of it being recycled, as I mentioned above), and the back cover is removable.
Removing the cover, you start to see what makes this phone special. The battery is also removable, which is increasingly rare, especially in anything that’s not an entry-level phone. But it gets even better. All around the phone, there are 13 screws that you can remove with a Phillips #00 screwdriver, and Fairphone goes as far as including one in the box, giving you all the tools you need to open it up. Once you remove the screws, you can use your bare hands to push out the display, which is its own module, and that gives you access to all the modules in the smartphone.
There’s a total of five modules you can replace. The display module, the top module (containing the front-facing camera and a microphone), the camera module (for the rear-camera), the bottom module with the USB Type-C port, and the speaker module. You can also buy a spare battery and back cover. The phone’s motherboard, along with the processor, storage, and RAM, isn’t as easily replaceable, though. You need a Torx T5 screwdriver to access it and Fairphone doesn’t just sell spare motherboards, but if you’ve accidentally disconnected a ribbon cable while replacing a module like I did, you can reconnect it yourself.
I do wonder if Fairphone plans to eventually come up with a new design with an easily replaceable motherboard, maybe even selling hardware upgrades for the same overall design. Of course, things like storage are attached to the motherboard, so either a different interface would have to be used, or there could be an app that backs up the data on your internal storage to a microSD card or the cloud, allowing you to restore all your data after replacing the internals.
Putting the phone back together, the back houses the rear camera and the fingerprint sensor. This is one of the first issues I had with the Fairphone 3+, as the fingerprint sensor just isn't that great. It's very common for my fingerprint to not be recognized multiple times in a row, forcing me instead to enter my PIN.
The right side of the frame has nothing to show aside from a “Designed to open” tagline. On the left side, there’s the power button, volume rocker, the speaker grill, and the tab to help you remove the back cover. The buttons on this phone are acceptable, but I wish they were easier to actuate and a bit more clicky. They’re not terrible to use, but they’re a little too hard to press for my liking. At least the power button is textured, so you have no trouble knowing what you’re pressing.
At the top of the phone, there’s a headphone jack and a microphone.
And at the bottom, the USB Type-C port for charging is slightly off-center, and there’s another microphone.
Despite its unusual thickness and the plastic build, something about the Fairphone 3+ makes it feel quite nice in the hand. The plastic has a sort of roughness to it, which I honestly prefer over smooth plastic.
Display and sound
The display on the Fairphone 3+ is a 5.65-inch Full HD+ LCD panel with an 18:9 aspect ratio, which makes the total resolution 2160x1080. There are fairly large bezels at the top and bottom of the display, which forces the screen to be one of the smaller ones among modern smartphones. In fact, the whole front panel feels quite retro in its looks, but it’s a sacrifice you have to make in order to have the internal modular design.
Despite the arguably outdated look, the display on the Fairphone 3+ actually looks quite nice. Colors are lively and vibrant, and I never really had any problems with how it looks. You don’t get the true blacks of an OLED, but the LCD here does a better job of displaying black than I expected it to, and colors, in general, look pretty good out of the box. It doesn't get exceptionally bright, but I never really had a huge issue with it.
Where the display fell short for me was touch sensitivity. This may be just me, but I've gotten used to almost every phone I use to respond to the back of my hand. This can come in handy if I’m just trying to scroll and my hands are dirty because I’m cooking or something, so I was very disappointed to see that the Fairphone 3+ didn’t respond to it at all. Interestingly, I got an update during the review period, and while it only mentioned the October security patch for Android, it seems a bit better now, but still not ideal.
In terms of sound, after seeing the side placement of the loudspeaker, I got the idea that audio just wasn’t much of a priority, but I was pleasantly surprised by the Fairphone 3+. It’s what I’ve come to expect from a solid single speaker, it gets pretty loud and it doesn’t really sound tinny, though there is a bit of distortion if you go to the highest volumes. The placement makes it so that you’re actually less likely to block the speaker if you’re watching content in landscape orientation, though conversely, it makes it easier to block it in portrait orientation.
Regarding the microphone, I’ve had some complaints while I was on calls. In at least two calls I made using this phone, people on the other side told me they could barely hear me. For a Discord call, I had to end up using headphones to be able to participate, and in another situation, I just had to speak really slowly. Recording video sounds alright to me, though, and the Live Transcribe feature in Android doesn’t have major problems hearing me either.
The cameras on the Fairphone 3+ are pretty much the only thing that’s changed from the Fairphone 3. On the back, there’s a 48MP sensor with a dual-LED flash, while the front makes do with a 16MP camera. Opting for only one camera on the phone is something I’d honestly consider a positive. In the majority of devices, especially those that aren’t flagships, the inclusion of more cameras often boils down to 2MP cameras for either depth sensing or macro photography. It’s a cheap way to add a dumb selling point to a product description, and I’d much prefer if that investment goes into having a better main camera experience, so I had somewhat high hopes for the Fairphone 3+. I also like it because it makes it much easier to test the camera.
Gallery: Fairphone 3+ samples
Looking at the results, the camera is alright, but there are some notable issues. The default photo mode doesn’t do a great job of determining the best white balance setting, especially in indoor environments. It seems like artificial light is a challenge for the phone, and you need to head into Pro mode to get the best results, as you can see in the first two pairs of pictures, where the second in each pair is using Pro mode. That’s not the worst thing in the world, but it certainly makes it less of a point-and-shoot experience.
What makes it worse is that it’s just not fast enough, particularly with the rear camera. I think this might be where you start to see some issues with Fairphone’s choice of processor, because it just takes too long to finalize an image after hitting the shutter button. Disabling HDR seems to alleviate this, but that can come at a pretty big cost in quality for many shots. It usually takes two or three seconds to process a shot, which doesn’t sound like much, but it makes it way easier to get a slightly blurry picture. There's also no night mode of any kind here, which I assume is due to the lackluster performance.
Recording video works fine, but the options you get are pretty weird. It supports 4K recording up to 30 frames per second and it also supports 1080p recording at 120 frames per second, however, it doesn't support 60 frames per second in any of the resolutions, which means if you want more than 30 frames per second, you’re going to get massive file sizes and much worse image quality.
The Fairphone 3+ keeps most of the same internals as the Fairphone 3 from last year, including the Snapdragon 632 and 4GB of RAM. In terms of day-to-day use, I’d say the 4GB of RAM isn't necessarily a weak point, you can still juggle multiple tasks relatively well with that. In fact, the overall experience was pretty smooth most of the time, barring the slow image processing I mentioned above.
Something I noticed that tends to be overlooked in reviews is how slower phones handle wireless connections. Whenever I review a slower phone, there’s some sort of caveat, like Bluetooth audio stuttering or cutting out more than usual. The Fairphone 3+ actually handled Bluetooth very well, even when I connected it to my smartwatch and earbuds at the same time, but Wi-Fi was a different story. Whenever I move out of the range of my 5GHz home Wi-Fi, it just seems to never automatically connect to the 2.4GHz network, even though it’s in range, and I have to do it manually. I’ve also experienced some random reboots on this phone, which isn’t a good sign.
As per my usual procedure, I ran AnTuTu, Geekbench 5, and GFXBench benchmarks to measure the performance of the phone. Starting with AnTuTu, which measures the overall performance:
The score is definitely lower than other similarly priced phones, and that's particularly evident in the GPU section. Next, Geekbench 5 measures CPU performance.
Finally, GFXBench tests the GPU, and you can see that the performance is pretty bad in this area.
I do believe Fairphone made a mistake with its choice of the chipset, and that’s not just this year, but last year as well. See, the Fairphone 2 released in late 2015 with a Snapdragon 801 inside. Truth be told, that chipset was already over a year old when the phone was released, and similarly, the Snapdragon 632 was over a year old when the Fairphone 3 released. The age isn’t necessarily a problem, but the Snapdragon 801 was a flagship processor when it came out, which made it a prime candidate to stay relevant for longer.
The Snapdragon 632 was old and relatively slow when the Fairphone 3 released, and it’s even more so now. Fairphone’s goal is sustainability, but going for a chipset that’s arguably in the lower end of the mid-range makes it harder to warrant using a phone for longer, and it oddly goes against the idea of modular upgrades. For all I know, the Snapdragon 632 might have handled pictures much better on the Fairphone 3 with its 12MP camera, but when you increase the sensor resolution to 48MP, the processing power now feels a bit more inadequate.
As for battery life, the 3,040mAh feels miniscule by modern standards, and it shows. If I go a bit heavier on my YouTube consumption, it’s pretty much impossible for it to last me through the day. With light to moderate usage, it’ll probably be good enough, but I like having the confidence that I can push my phone a little further if I need to.
Even before I started this review, I sort of knew that the title would end up being what it is. I do love what this phone stands for; the idea of a smartphone that’s designed and developed with the goal of being sustainable and responsible is something that’s definitely welcome in a market that relies heavily on frequent upgrade cycles and where upgrades pretty much result in old phones being thrown away completely. Between easy modular upgrades, recycled materials, the use of materials from responsible sources, and even paying living wage bonuses to factory workers, Fairphone seems to be doing great work.
But there are quite a few sacrifices you have to make to contribute to that goal. The €469 price tag is much higher than you’d expect to pay for the specs in this phone, and on top of that, some aspects of the experience fall a little short of what’s desirable. The camera experience has some performance issues, the display isn’t exactly at the top of its class, and the design is decidedly not in line with other modern smartphones.
Perhaps more relevant is how well Fairphone achieves what it set out to do with its smartphones, and I feel like the choice of processor holds it back from being ideal. For the most part, the Fairphone 3+ does a good job of being a “good enough” phone, but after the Fairphone 2 was on the market for four years without a true successor, I worry that the Fairphone 3’s base design doesn’t have the legs to walk that far. It already feels like it’s unable to keep up with the image processing tasks for the rear camera.
Like many other phones, it’s possible to overlook the flaws on the Fairphone 3+, and if you have a big interest in its modularity and the sustainable approach, it can still be worth the price tag. The flaws don’t make it unusable or an outright bad phone, but you really have to be all-in on the company’s philosophy to justify what you have to pay. If that’s the case for you, you can buy the Fairphone 3+ from Fairphone’s website, or opt for last year’s Fairphone 3 if you don’t need the upgraded cameras.
By Namerah S
LG Wing to arrive in the Indian marketplace on October 28
by Namerah Saud Fatmi
A little over a month ago, LG unveiled its latest smartphone featuring a unique form factor - dual swiveling screens. Duly christened the LG Wing, the device is the first model under the South Korean electronics company's Explorer Project. The swiveling phone launched in the US on October 15 through Verizon. So far the LG Wing is only available in Korea and the US.
Today LG India posted a teaser video on its official Twitter handle. It features the LG Wing in different orientations at some points in the 47-second clip.
As the T shape of the device is pretty unique, it is certain that the subject of the teaser is the LG Wing. According to the post, the LG Wing is going to launch in the Indian region pretty soon. This is further confirmed by a report from the Indian Express stating that the Seoul-based company has sent out media invites stating that the dual-screen smartphone will be unveiled on October 28.
As the LG Wing reveal event in India is about a week away, it is likely that the Korean company will share more information about the Indian launch in the days to come. If you are situated in India and interested in purchasing the phone, you can watch our unboxing video to get a good look at the device or wait for the full review.
By Abhay V
Microsoft posts a workaround for the 'Reset this PC' bug plaguing some Windows 10 PCs
by Abhay Venkatesh
Microsoft offers an in-built solution to reset a Windows 10 PC through the Settings app if users choose to do so due to a corrupt build or issues with the operating system. The tool also gives users the choice to keep their files and only reset the OS settings to factory default. However, the feature might not be working as expected for some users running Windows 10 version 2004.
The company today posted a support article acknowledging the issue with the ‘Reset this PC’ feature that causes the tool to fail and prompt an error that reads “There was a problem when resetting your PC. No changes were made". The company also posted a workaround for users who are unable to use the feature and are experiencing the said error.
Here is the workaround as shared by Microsoft:
The workaround involves using the Deployment Image Servicing and Management (DISM) tool to attempt to fix the issue. However, Microsoft does not mention any timelines on when a permanent fix for the problem is expected.
Interestingly, this is not the first time that the problem with the ‘Reset this PC’ feature has been acknowledged. A security update back in February introduced a similar issue and affected Windows 10 versions all the way back to version 1809. The update was then pulled by the company. While today’s documentation only mentions the May 2020 Update, it is not clear if the problem has been fixed for the earlier versions.
Source: Microsoft Support via BleepingComputer