Camera comparison: the 12MP iPhone 6s vs the 16MP Galaxy S6, or why megapixels aren't all that matters in a camera


There are many technical specs and features that can be associated with a digital camera – its aperture, focal length, pixel and sensor size, auto-focusing tech, lack or presence of image stabilization, and the list goes on and on. Having these into account, an experienced photographer should be able to determine whether a given camera setup suits their needs. To the average consumer, however, a camera's megapixel count is still the figure that most strongly correlates with image quality. The more megapixels a camera has, the better the images it produces, or at least that's the general assumption consumers still hold on to. But in actuality, the matter is a tad more complicated.

We're not saying that megapixels and their number don't matter. Of course they do. But judging a camera's potential solely by its megapixel count can be misleading. An ideal example of that would be a comparison between the iPhone 6s and the Samsung Galaxy S6. The former has a 12MP camera, while the latter has a 16MP one. That's 33% more pixels packed inside the Galaxy S6's sensor, meaning that its photos should be noticeably more detailed than the iPhone's, right? Well, not necessarily. 



Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/Camera-comparison-the-12MP-iPhone-6s-vs-the-16MP-Galaxy-S6-or-why-megapixels-arent-all-that-matters-in-a-camera_id75362#gi7Z6hM8m34qTDxM.99

PhoneArena writers' thoughts on the Apple iPhone 6s and 6s Plus: here are our impressions

The iPhone 6s and the 6s Plus have been around for more than a month now, and needless to say, they have made their way to many a person's pocket. There is no data exactly how many new iPhone units were shipped during the past month or so, as Apple has not yet disclosed official data, but we suppose that Cupertino could once again shatter its own sales records. 

We, being the techy heads we are, have had more than enough time to get to know the new iPhone 6s and 6s Plus quite well. What's more, each of us has had the chance to give the device a spin and see for himself whether it tick just the right boxes or not. Needless to say, some authors liked it, others didn't, but hardly anyone remained indifferent. 

As each of the writers here at PhoneArena has impressions of the two iOS champs, we decided to sum them up in an article and share with our readers what we really think of the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus. 

Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/PhoneArena-writers-thoughts-on-the-Apple-iPhone-6s-and-6s-Plus-here-are-our-impressions_id75184#wwquhHjz8jgD3Cf6.99

BlackBerry Priv unboxing


Today is finally the day! The Priv by BlackBerry is now officially available, and we’ve been checking one out for some time now. For those of you in the US eager to snag this new gadget, AT&T will be selling it for $249.99 on-contract – or $699 off-contract.

BlackBerry has been going in and out of obscurity for the last several years. At certain points, they were able to generate interest for a short period of time, only to fail in obtaining long term success with its devices. Well, there’s a major shift happening, as the Priv signals the reality of an Android smartphone from the folks over at BlackBerry. Some never believed this would’ve happened, but here it is finally!

The packaging itself is pretty sizable in contrast to the compact offering of other rival phones, so you get the feeling that there’s a lot accompanying the phone in question. Donning a black packaging with an embossed BlackBerry pattern stitched throughout it, very little information regarding the Priv is actually shown – with the obvious print on the front reading “BlackBerry Powered by Android.”

Opening it up, the first thing we come across is the phone itself, covered in plastic of course. Beneath that, the SIM removal tool is held in place with by the cardboard piece holding together all of the phone’s documentation. And lastly, taking out that middle component reveals the wall charger, microUSB cable, and stereo headphones with replaceable tips. For BlackBerry, the included goodies are rather pale in comparison to what came with many BlackBerry phones in the past – such as a slip case or something. Still, the focus here is about the new marriage between Android and BlackBerry.

We’ve been playing around with the Priv for some time now, so expect our in-depth review soon!


Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/BlackBerry-Priv-unboxing_id75513#zyZZCQOglwtSsqHT.99

Is Google inching its way towards building its own Pixel phone?

Since its inception, Google has always technically been a software company. I say technically, because even from the very start before Google was called Google and search was the only product in the portfolio, until now Google engineers build their own servers. But, search and other software products were the only consumer facing products for Google until relatively recently.

Google sidestepped its way into the hardware retail business by having Android manufacturing partners build Nexus devices that were then sold directly through Google. The first hardware product that Google designed and built itself was in the Nexus lineup (albeit remarkedly briefly) -- the Nexus Q. After that, Google also built Google Glass, which was sold, but never made commercially available. Next came the Chromecast, and the Pixel brand that started with two Google-built Chromebook Pixels and will soon be expanding to the Pixel C Android hybrid tablet.

That rounds out the hardware devices that have been designed and sold, even for a limited time or in a limited fashion, by Google itself. The Nest thermostat and smoke detector were sold as Google products, but those devices existed before Google bought the company. That only leaves two hardware products that Google has built, but haven't been released yet -- the Google self-driving car (which appears to only be a Google product until the division can be split off under Alphabet,) the Project Tango tablets, and the modular smartphones from Project Ara

That last one is the one that is very interesting, because although Project Ara technically started under Motorola, Motorola was owned by Google at the time and was one of the only non-patent products kept by Google when it sold Motorola to Lenovo. The story goes that it annoyed Samsung that Google owned its own phone manufacturer, and Google was annoyed that Samsung was making Android unrecognizable with heavy software skins on its products. So, a deal was struck -- Samsung would lighten its software modifications on Android and Google would sell Motorola. 

However, Google didn't completely get out of the phone hardware business completely, because it did keep the Advanced Technology and Projects division of Motorola which was the team behind both Project Tango and Project Ara. They were tablets and phones that might never see commercial release, and may not even have commercial appeal (as with Tango). But, they were engineers and designers who knew how to make mobile hardware, leaving Google with at least a small connection to mobile hardware. 

Of course, since then, Google has designed its own mobile hardware -- the Pixel C -- and that tablet hybrid is expected to come to market soon. This is a move that isn't expected to cause much trouble with Android hardware partners, because no one is selling too many tablets anyway, so that isn't a market where Google could cause much disruption. 

Last week, though, word came out that Google has interest in designing its own processors, which seems to indicate that Google has probably at least had conversations about building a Pixel phone. Google won't be building a Pixel phone any time soon, because that would definitely cause commotion with Android hardware partners, but Google has been inching closer and if Google were actually to design its own chips, that would be a full step towards a Google-made phone. 

Why Google should be thinking about it


There are a couple different ways this could go, but Google wanting to build its own chips for Android makers is a tacit admission that Google needs more control over the hardware side of its ecosystem. This doesn't necessarily mean Google-made devices, but it does mean that no matter how closely Google works with companies like Qualcomm, MediaTek, and Intel, it can't reap the same benefits that Apple does by controlling both the hardware and software side of the platform. This means it is harder for Google to push new hardware features, because not all OEMs will jump on board. So, there will be delays, as there were with Android devices massively adopting NFC and fingerprint sensors. It also means Google can't fine tune and intricately optimize Android for hardware like Apple can. 

On one hand, that's not exactly a big problem, as evidenced by Android's malleability and huge market share. But, it does continue to be a problem in the high-end market where profit margins are much higher, and Apple is not only a major force, but a growing one. Android is still dominating in overall market share, but Android's market share did drop year-over-year between Q2 of 2014 and Q2 of 2015, while iOS rose, and Apple's market share rose year-over-year for Q3. And, Samsung's market share dropped a bit in that same time frame, although it has recovered, but profits from smartphone sales have absolutely tanked recently, which may have a much bigger impact on what Samsung does next. 

According to the latest numbers from July, Samsung was responsible for 15% of the smartphone industry profits in Q1 of 2015, while as recently as late 2013 Samsung just about pulled even with Apple in terms of smartphone profits. However, Apple now accounts for a mind-boggling 92% of smartphone profits. This is especially important, because as you can see in the numbers, Apple and Samsung add up to 107% of the profits in the smartphone market, because they are the only two smartphone manufacturers that are profitable. Everyone else is either breaking even or losing money.

If things keep going as they have been, Apple will soon be making literally all of the profits in the smartphone market. Sure, it's easy to say that Apple has those profits because they charge so much for their products, but frankly that's blind hater reasoning that ignores the reality of the market. Apple can charge that much because people will pay. Whether or not you think Apple devices are worth the cost, plenty of other people do think they are worth it and that shows in the sales. Apple doesn't bother with purpose-built low-end devices (with the pseudo exception of the iPhone 5c) and usually just re-purposes old hardware for those price points, meaning it has far more control and stability in its supply chain and manufacturing costs which leads to profit margins that are pushed to their limit. 

No other company can do that. Manufacturers either have to: sidestep Google to create their own Android environments and hope to attract customers (Xiaomi and Amazon), use Google Apps and Play services and hand over the majority of software profits to Google, or try to go at it alone (Microsoft). Samsung has a potentially viable backup plan with Tizen to be able to fully pivot away from Google if it feels that would be best, and it is unclear what exactly would happen to Android if Samsung were to completely cut and run. 

It's highly unlikely that Samsung would completely ditch Android in one swoop, but Samsung will undoubtedly keep trying to grow Tizen while using Android as its money-maker. Of course, if Samsung stops making money from Android, it's hard to say what the company would do. Though, even if Samsung were able to perform a miracle and hold its ~22% smartphone share after a switch to Tizen, that would still leave more than 60% market share to Android. More likely, if Samsung's market share keeps eroding, it will be dispersed to the next companies on the top-global sellers list -- Apple, Huawei, Lenovo/Motorola, and Xiaomi. That could mean Android would still be okay, but the platform as a whole would likely be better served with Google fully behind the wheel. 

Google's Plan B


Now, as I noted earlier, Google designing chips doesn't necessarily mean that Google will become a full phone maker, and even if Samsung does put all of its efforts into Tizen, Google might not want to get into fully manufacturing phones. Not only would that anger other hardware partners and potentially lead to more companies moving to forks of Android, creating new forks, or switching to other platforms entirely (although things would have to be quite dire for companies to switch to Windows, Tizen, Ubuntu, Sailfish, or Firefox,) but Google being a hardware manufacturer would lead to plenty of other issues, not the least of which is that Google would have to make deals with wireless carriers. Google certainly could make those deals, and has in the past, but Google clearly would like to avoid doing that at all costs. 

If Google can convince hardware manufacturers that there are more profits to be made by using Google-made chips, though. That might be an interesting middle-point. In that scenario, Google would obviously anger other chip makers, but losing chip makers might not be as detrimental as losing hardware manufacturers. Chip makers like Qualcomm, MediaTek, and Intel wouldn't necessarily have anywhere to go. Apple isn't using those chips, and neither is Samsung, so those chip makers might not have much choice but to help manufacture Google's chips, or at least get on board with any open designs that Google releases. 


Is Google inching its way towards building its own Pixel phone?

And, Google could likely convince hardware manufacturers that there would be more profits to be made. First of all, Google could potentially undercut other chip makers on cost (or Alphabet, or whatever division of Alphabet were actually in charge of the chips). Then, of course, Google could also make sure that the chips offer a competitive advantage for Android devices. Google could optimize everything so Android running on its chips would get better battery life, better performance, or unique features. 

That said, undercutting the competition with unique features might lead to a bit of a legal quagmire for Google, which is why I suggested the chips might not come directly from Google, but another Alphabet company. Of course, if Google wants to avoid that trouble all-together, it could simply make its own Pixel phone from top to bottom. It is the least likely option, because Google has been a company that wants its products to be open and widely distributed, and making a Pixel phone would give plenty of manufacturers reason to leave the Google fold. But, it's not an impossible scenario. 

Conclusion


Google will undoubtedly try to find ways to help its hardware partners continue to dominate in market share, and maybe loosen Apple's grip on smartphone profits. But, Google's best hardware partner, Samsung, is not doing terribly well, despite recently making arguably the best devices it has ever made, and none of Google's other partners are well-positioned to take the lead should Samsung leave Android behind. 

Google making its own chips could help things to an extent, but that feels like it might be a stop-gap measure at best. Eventually, a viable third smartphone manufacturer will need to rise up with Samsung to push Apple out of the high-end market, or to take Samsung's spot as the major competitor to Apple in terms of smartphone profits. It is possible that company could be Huawei, Lenovo, or Xiaomi, but if you're an Android fan, wouldn't it be nice to see Google step into the game? That day might be closer than you think.


Apple Watch manufacturer spills the beans, hints at second-gen Apple Watch release window


We haven't doubted that the Apple Watch is merely Cupertino's first crack at conquering the wearable market and is bound to be succeeded by an heir in the foreseeable future. After all, the wearable is one of the more popular smartwatches so far, which means that it is bound to be succeeded by an improved version.

According to Quanta chairman Barry Lam, which is one of Apple's long-time contractors and the current physical manufacturers of the Apple Watch (as well as other Apple devices), the Apple Watch 2 is already in the works. While that is not surprising at all, Barry Lam actually revealed the possible release window of the wearable.

According to the high-ranking executive, the first willing adopters of the second Apple Watch will be able to strap it on their wrists in late Q2 2016, which coincides with our expectations. We suppose that Apple might once again hold an early Spring event dedicated to the gadget, similar to last year's "Spring Forward" one, during which it announced a ton of info regarding the wearable. The initial batch will be rather small, Lam reveals, but Cupertino will be able to meet larger demand for the wearable in Q3 2016, when the mass production of the gadget will speed up.

This rumor is seemingly coming from a rather reputable source, so we have all the reasons to believe that the second generation of the Apple Watch might indeed make its way to the shelves in late Q2 of 2016. What remains to be seen is when exactly Apple will announce its next wearable. 

As we know more, so will you. By the way, what do you expect of the second-gen Apple Watch? Share your wishlists in the comments section!

Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-Watch-manufacturer-spills-the-beans-hints-at-second-gen-Apple-Watch-release-window_id75744#hWya23ZIoA2806X2.99

New, high-end 16MP OmniVision camera boasts 4K video recording at silky-smooth 60FPS


When it comes to mobile photography, we often talk as if the cameras of various smartphones are profoundly different across the maker spectrum. And they usually are — just not on the hardware level. See, there's a pretty high chance that your smartphone is packing a Sony-made Exmor sensor, as the Japanese corporation is the unmatched leader in the field and the preferred partner when talking high-end devices. According to some estimates, Sony accounts for over 40% of all sales. But what about the rest? It's a split between California-based OmniVision (~16%), Samsung (~15%), and other, smaller players.

As a runner-up to the title, OmniVision is likely a name that only dedicated readers among you will have heard of. But that's not for lack of trying on the company's part. In fact, just now, we received word from OmniVision that they have a new, exciting high-end sensor that is already available for sampling. Let's talk specs.

Dubbed the OV16860, we're looking at a relatively large, 1/2.4" sensor with dimensions of 10.5 x 10.5mm and height of 5.8 mm, making it suitable for use in most smartphones. The sensor packs 16 megapixels, meaning a pixel size of 1.3 microns, which is more than quite a few cameras can say, and ensures more light will enter the stack, allowing for better low-light performance and image vibrancy, and less pixel crosstalk (which essentially messes up the color produced by the sensor). There's also support for phase detection auto focus, HDR, and slow-motion video.

Most excitingly, however, the sensor is the first that we know of to be capable of recording 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) video at the whopping 60 frames per second. Since we only know of the just-announced Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 being capable of pushing that kind of information, it might be a while longer until we see this bad boy in a commercially-available smartphone. Still, if for some reason you want silky-smooth, ultra-high definition video, very soon you'll have an extremely affordable alternative, at least in comparison to even consumer class camcorders that currently cost in the thousands of dollars. 

source: PR NewswireWSJ


ARM's future chipset roadmap leaks, powerful 10nm Artemis cores in tow


A spy shot of ARM's mobile processor architecture roadmap has been leaked, and it includes a new powerful CPU core family, codenamed Artemis, which will be done at the next 10nm die shrink. Given that currently 14nm is the bleeding edge, this roadmap ensures we will be witnessing drastic improvements in the power consumption/performance ratio for the foreseeable future. Device chipsets built on the 10nm production process aren't expected before 2017, so there's plenty to look forward to. 

We are also seeing the new low-power Cortex-A35 line fleshed out a bit more. It will take over wearables, or the LITTLE part in big.LITTLE architectures soon, and will be built both on the current 16nm/14nm nodes, as well as on 10nm ones, when the technology becomes available for mass production. In store are new graphics processing units, too, that are still with their codenames Mimir, Egil and Gemini, so it's anyone's guess what the GPU future holds.

source: Benchlife