Hardware feature table mentions WiFi, but not the LTE modem and radio which is far more important as LTE has to deal with skyscrapers and buildings with stone and steel which conveniently block LTE signals, population density, and spectrum consumption has been dramatically increasing year to year. The unit has the Qualcomm X12 modem but that modem doesn't cover AWS-3 (Band 66) which is a very large swath of spectrum, making the phone already obsolete for dense markets (e.g., large cities).
So, it would be very helpful to see 1) signal improvement, 2) download speed improvement, 3) improvement in voice quality when listening, 4) improvement on voice quality when speaking including background cancellation.
For example, something I rarely saw in iPhone 6s(+) reviews was the addition of a 4th microphone for noise cancellation. I also rarely saw any talk of the H.265 compression (2 x H.264) for FaceTime Video over cell networks in the 6s.
Last Sat, I was in a Starbucks speaking with a friend who was in a different Starbucks. I was on the 7+ he on the 5S. I could hear annoying background noise, he could hear no background noise. These things are critically important, but it seems as if the reviewers are not using these units in real world situations.
I think this is because the people doing the reviews don't really have technical backgrounds. Otherwise, they'd be testing this issues.
In addition, touch screen latency is something that never gets tested but is a huge factor in how the device feels to use. Some phones have terrible latency and its impossible to find out until you own the device.
Absolutely, it's actually incredible how little real-world information there is on latency. The last useful articles I can find are from 2-3 years ago!
Thank you! This is the kind of detail I would have expected from AnandTech. It's a bit disappointing that they'll use the great teardown work provided by iFixit and Chipworks but not capitalize on it by actually analyzing the guts of the phone.
Get off your high horse. They clearly said they are doing a deep dive review and that if you were after details like this you should wait for that review.
> "Today’s review of the iPhone 7 is just that, a review of the phone. Meanwhile we’ll be publishing a deep dive article later this month on A10, Hurricane, A10’s GPU, wide color gamut photography, and the rest of those fine architectural details that we like to dig into."
He said the review is a review of the phone. That includes voice and signal quality. His hardware table doesn't even mention the LTE modem and radio while mentioning the WiFi standards.
Or maybe they are not testing these kind of things, because proper testing of important aspects like signal reception and voice quality would require complicated test setups and expensive equipment.
One could do a "subjective" review by carrying around both a iPhone 6s+ and 7+ on Verizon Network (best case conditions) in NYC or other city with skyscrapers and population density and comparing signal, making voice calls, checking download speeds, etc.
Thank you for bringing this to light. It's extremely frustrating when reviewers focus 90% of their attention on the easily available specs like screen resolution or whether it has the latest wi-fi spec (my landlines at home or work can't even saturate 2.4ghz 802.11n, let alone anything higher)
It is indicative of more challenging situations where it can be a problem hearing people speaking because of background noise. For many, being heard clearly on the phone or hearing people on the phone without background noise is critically important.
Having the general ability to hear and be heard clearly on the phone is indeed critically important. Expecting it to be possible at all times and with zero background noise isn't, and nobody expects this from his/her phone. Nor am I sure what your Starbucks example is indicative of. All it tells us is that iPhone 7 has worse noise cancellation than iPhone 5s, not that iPhone 5s cancels all noise at all times. The existence of "challenging situations where it can be a problem hearing people speaking because of background noise" exists for both phones. Even if the threshold is lower for the iPhone 7, it is unclear how this difference is "critically important".
The iPhone 7(+) has better noise cancellation that the 5S, not the other way around. As noted in the original post, a 4th microphone was added to the 6S to assist with noise cancellation. There may have been improvements in the 7(+) over the 6S, but nobody has done the review to tell us, which is my point.
For some people being heard when there is background noise is not so important. For most, it is critically important for critically important calls which happen from time to time.
Sorry about the 7 - 5S confusion. However you still haven't provided any arguments for why the difference in noise cancellation between 5S and 7 is "critically important". The scenario where it is "critically important" is so contrived that we might as well call everything "critically important", including the color of the iPhone. It's ok to say that noise cancellation is a nice feature to have, but calling it "critically important" is a huge exaggeration.
On several of the tests, Apple has basically lapped the competition with the 6s and 7 both beating the Snapdragon/Exynos-powered devices. In Jetstream and Kraken, which additionally take the JS engine into account, three generations of Apple devices are beating the latest flagship android devices.
Really a phenomenal showing by Apple's CPU and compiler teams, especially considering that everyone uses the same fabs.
Owning the chip design, compilers and OS let you get out lots and lots of extra performance. There is a reason Intel has so many driver and software developers (they are one of the largest employers of software devs out there). Getting a chip working well takes a lot of effort of a lot of people.
Qualcomm is trying to do what apple does here, but they are spread across many more phones, OS versions and the like. They are trying to be more general purpose, which makes them not as great in most cases.
> At the start of this review I said it was important to consider perspective because at the end of the day, I use Android devices. Doing the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus review is important, but also deeply disillusioning. With the iPhone 6s review I showed a number of clear and present issues in Android devices relative to the iPhone, and these issues continue to appear time and time again. More than ever it’s obvious to me that most companies in the Android ecosystem don’t really care about the details as an organization.
I would love to hear more about the disillusioning part. As an Android user I want to stay with them but after playing around with the 7 and reading this review I'm actually much more impressed with this phone than when it initially came out. Especially after the release of the Google Pixel which was very underwhelming to me. I can't believe I'd say this but the iPhone 7 seems to provide a better value than the Pixel.
To be fair, the Pixel is a horrible value, as it doesn't seem to be as significantly better than what it's replacing relative to the significant increase in price.
To me, the difference between a $1000 phone and a $400 is less than $1 per day (I keep my phones for 24 months). A buck a day is something I can afford and am willing to pay it for even a modestly better phone. I would guess a lot of HN readers are in a similar position.
I wish Google would have come out with something much better even if it would have been more expensive than an iPhone.
Certainly there are plenty of people for whom it is significant. You could just as easily say many have their smartphone fully paid for by their employer so it doesn't matter. When I paid for my own smartphone before, I got a Moto G (80% as good as a phone many times as expensive). Now that my employer pays, I got a more expensive phone that I like only marginally better than my former Moto G (and I miss some things about the G). However, plenty of people are not in that situation, and plenty of people notice the $500+ difference.
Yes there are plenty of people that can't afford it, but I was mostly talking to HN readers. $1 per day is something that most of us can afford. Verizon will sell you an iPhone 7 Plus for $32 / month. For sure it's a luxury item, but it's within reach.
If a Moto G is good enough for you, then great! You have sixty five cents per day that you can spend on other things.
$600 is a vacation, or more than a week's pay after taxes for me. Why would I pay $600 extra for a phone that isn't that much better? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Hell, $600 can feed a family of four for several weeks.
If you are deciding between feeding your family or getting a phone, by all means, feed your family.
All I'm saying is if you have a little disposable income ($1 / day) then for many people a better phone is worth the price difference. I think it's especially true when you think about how many hours every day people use their phones. I can get by just fine with a 4-year old PC, but having to use a 4-year old phone would suck.
There is value in looking at amortized price, but keep in mind many people (esp. fans) upgrade more frequently than 24mo. For them the cost differential is much sharper and more frequent.
Also add in the fact that unlike on the Apple side, most of the Android customer base can simply wait a few months or even weeks and get a much better price (see: most LG phones based on my research), or the same specs from a different manufacturer.
Upgrading annually is still within reach for most people, especially if they are enthusiasts. It costs around $2 per day if you want a new phone every year.
Your Android comment is spot on. I'm wary though of comparing specs because that can be misleading. A couple of phones ago I had a OnePlus One which looked marvelous on paper and it ended up being a terrible phone.
Of course it provides a better value, the upshot of this review is that if you sell your smartphone for the exact same price as an iPhone, you automatically lose. I had expected the headline with the Pixel phones to be something like "near iPhone performance for half the price". I can't possibly see how these new google phones are going to be a success at this price.
Pixel and Galaxy are comparable to the 6. iPhone is constantly one generation ahead of its competitors. And let's not forget that Samsung, evidently, had to cut a few corners to pack enough juice into their phone to make it an alternative to the iPhone.
I've always wondered what it is that Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug (also formerly Anandtech) and (now) Chris Ziegler (formerly The Verge) do at Apple (or did if they've moved on). At first I thought they might be involved in PR and media outreach but that doesn't seem to be the case. Now I'd guess maybe they just painstakingly review devices just like they did before except now they do internal only reviews of Apple's prototypes and maybe the competition.
I really don't understand the calls for higher pixel density - there are clear performance costs, and the only use case where it makes a meaningful difference is VR, where I'm more and more skeptical that mobile will be relevant for a while. I've noticed with TV's, tech reviewers have almost unanimously yawned at 4K for normal viewing, and are much more excited about HDR - this just sounds like specs for the sake of specs.
A bit offtopic but I am very disappointed only Apple seems to have a clear plan, and makes continuous progress in careful iterations.
I quit Apple precisely when the iPhone 1 was released due to ideological reasons, as I realised the whole ecosystem would become a walled garden. But I concede they have good products.
I was looking forward to the new Pixel and Pixel XL. Google devices are the only ones that have a sane code/update policy within Android, and thus allow me to run Copperhead OS (which is the only free mobile OS I find realistic to run). However, they are insanely expensive, which IMHO risks making Copperhead a really niche option.
Samsung makes decent hardware, Note fiasco aside, but their Android mods are a joke. Same for most Androids. Jolla is stuck. And fringe options like Pyra are cool but inconvenient on a daily basis...
"I quit Apple precisely when the iPhone 1 was released..."
Just so I understand, since the iPhone was the first phone Apple made, are you saying you stopped using their PCs (and music players?) because they'd made a phone? If you were happy with their other products up to that point, how does the phone change the grand scheme of things? I'd want to hear what your ideology is.
I expected iPhone to be like Newton. But it ended up being a walled garden. I realised trading a bit of my freedom for convenient user interfaces was not a good plan in the long run, so I gave up on Mac and went back to Linux.
I thought Macs would become less open and less important for Apple in the future, with their marked shift to mobile.
I think it was the right decision. Almost a decade later, Macs still lack components I think are key for a developer. For example, they don't ship with a package manager.
I understand Apple's focus on mobile, since that's what brings most earnings, but as a developer freedom is very important to me. Not just from an ideological point of view. Also for convenience reasons. E.g., I cannot imagine going back to floating window managers. Getting a tiling one running on Mac is a bit of a hack. I prefer Arch, Nix and friends.
For example, they don't ship with a package manager.
Strictly speaking they are. Of course, it doesn't help that they put most of the system in one package :) (com.apple.pkg.Essentials).
At any rate, Homebrew and MacPorts are only five minutes away. Even after 22 years of experience with various Linux distributions, I still prefer Homebrew as my package manager. (Mostly because adding your own custom formulae is so easy and new packages are in more quickly than in e.g. Debian.)
Probably for the same reasons my current company is migrating away from anything Microsoft.
Given the past actions, one just doesn't know what the pricing will be in future, and it makes sense to spend money to move to Linux now, instead in x years under deadlines.
I realize this is unrelated to the main topic, but it illustrates human foresight.
The principal problem with abandoning Apple at this point being that you can't get developer grade desktop hardware anywhere outside Apple at a reasonable price.
And if Apple ever goes back to making new laptops, those will probably be head and shoulders better than the competition at the same price, too. We don't know for certain, of course, since it's been two years since Apple has made new MacBook Pros with more than cosmetic adjustments and they may never make new ones ever again. None have been announced, anyway. The price of the two year old version, of course, is the same as it was on original release.
But there's no matching quality and features of the retina iMac for creative work, including software development, even at double or triple the price.
1. For the same price as an iMac, you can buy a 4k display and way, way more powerful CPU, graphics and storage.
2. The superiority of the MacBook Pro is a myth, now more than ever. There are plenty of laptops today with much higher resolution and better color reproduction, and of course, Skylakes and recent GPUs. Dell XPS, Precisions, Surface Books, high-end Thinkpads, ASUS models etc etc.
The missing piece in other laptops, as always, is not raw specs, but build quality, and things like a great trackpad. No one else seems to be able to nail trackpads. I really wish I could buy a different brand of laptop, but I've been spoiled by the MBP's trackpad.
> The principal problem with abandoning Apple at this point being that you can't get developer grade desktop hardware anywhere outside Apple at a reasonable price.
> Given the past actions, one just doesn't know what the pricing will be in future,
There's no reason to worry that Apple will resume charging for OS X updates after so many years of giving them away and after shifting to more frequent but less substantial releases.
Probably, but his point was about that ecosystem (iPhone or all?) becoming a wallet garden, and it did become one (sounds like he was referring to the phone one)
None of Apple's platforms became a walled garden. iOS is more open than it was at first release when there was no SDK and the only sanctioned development method was web apps. OS X/macOS has acquired an optional walled garden app store but has otherwise only become more restricted for security reasons, and those restrictions can be disabled by the user.
None of the predictions of doom have come to pass. Users have come to accept new mobile computing platforms that are less open than the PC platform, but there is no "whole ecosystem" that has transitioned to being a walled garden.
>Edit: I understand this is a driver issue, but it seems there isn't that much difference in hardware in the mobile world.
There are huge differences in the hardware. Go to XDA and try to build a rom for an android device. Bluetooth, wifi, GPS, HAL sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, display drivers, audio hardware, NFC sensor can all have significant differences that need to be sussed out. Most significant of all- the camera.
Arguably the phones with open bootloader have the best Android experience out there (Nexus line), so I'm not sure if Android here is the best counterargument.
They have an open boot loader because Google sells them, and they have the best Android experience for the same reason. The open boot loader doesn't enable that experience.
In fact, I think that somewhat proves my point, it's no coincidence the hardware Google has the most influence over has the best experience.
And it's no coincidence they gave up on just influencing the phones and went as far as manufacturing a phone with the Pixel, all in chase of the perfect experience
Is UX a nightmare on desktop right now? Nearly all desktop/laptop computers can have their OS changed to different one. There is technically nothing stopping mobiles form working in the same way.
> There is technically nothing stopping mobiles form working in the same way.
What about power consumption issues? If you load up Windows on a Mac laptop the battery drain rate is doubled. That's a pretty big user experience issue IMHO.
Is anyone making different decisions based on the headphone jack?
After a steady upgrade cadence since iPhone 1, this is the first time I've postponed my decision, still deciding how to proceed.
Google is making the right moves but I'm not sure how much it can help them. Pixel is an excellent product, but you need a crowbar to pry people out of a well worn and comfortable habits.
In my opinion Pixel is a disappointment. iPhone 7 brought two features that I really like (waterproofing and a faster CPU) but screwed it up by removing the headphone jack. So I was really looking forward to the Pixel. But it has no water resistance, no wireless charging, a poor backplate design, and an uncompetitive starting price. So at this point I'm disappointed in both flagship launches of the year. I don't know what to get to replace my Nexus 5. Maybe I'll get an iPhone 6s, despite the ugly antenna bands.
I think if Apple kept the headphone jack and added wireless charging, they'd have a lot of very happy customers.
Headphone jack doesn't matter to me at all. Headphones work perfectly with the adapter that comes with the 7. The lightning ear pods also work perfectly fine. It's really a non-issue.
> Are you really that often in that situation though?
Yeah, my phone is a business tool, and I'm on the phone frequently. Its useless if I can't be on it on wired headphones while it recharges from long phone calls.
Moved on to wireless (2nd gen Zik Parrots, there are better wireless headphones out there, but I like those and wont buy 3 because the changes are minimal. Waiting for them to put out a Zik 4).
2). Transmitting over bluetooth recompesses and throws away more data
I think in principle Apple could avoid one of these with AirPods if the the iPhone7 streamed .aac/.mp3 as a custom Bluetooth codec, but I haven't heard if they wen that route.
>Don't you pay a double lossy compression penalty?
Yes, in the sense that the results are doubly compressed.
No, in any meaningful sense that I would have an issue with. The headphones have the appropriate BT codecs for high definition audio (the 3 even more so, aptX et al), and the end results have been on par with my wired AT-50x.
You can try double and triple compressing a 320mbps mp3 file and you'd hardly notice any change. Of course such compression algorithms are not omni-potent, but it's close enough.
At a good enough bit rate (256 and especially 320), mp3s are indistinguishable from "CD quality" (which also throws away data in the sense that it quantizes the analog signal, but it doesn't matter there either), and all blind A/B/A tests have shown that.
In headphones that cost less than $1000, and for everyone over 40 that's even more so.
Audiophiles excepted of course, because they have magical unicorn audio senses -- even when they can't use them on a blind test.
1) Your headphones have good codecs, but they are only used if they match an iPhone supported BT codec. For example AptX will not work with iPhone.
2). Yes double compressing .mp3s is not as bad as it sounds, but double compression can be worse with two different codecs. For example I believe iPhone uses SBC codec for Bluetooth, which is pretty different from .mp3/.aac.
I would be interested in knowing if AirPods solve this by doing .mp3 or .aac pass through.
CD quality doesn't throw away data that your ears can hear, thanks to the Nyquist sampling theorem. If your ears can hear better than 20khz I'd be very surprised.
>CD quality doesn't throw away data that your ears can hear, thanks to the Nyquist sampling theorem. If your ears can hear better than 20khz I'd be very surprised.
Yes, Didn't say it throws away data "that our ears can hear" but that it "throws away data", period (which is true). And not just frequencies but also dynamic range.
That said, a high quality mp3 also doesn't throw away data that "our ears can hear", not with absolute physical certainty (as in Nyquist et al), but with psycho-acoustic research level certainty. (I say high quality because lower quality mp3s trade more usable signal for space savings).
> Is anyone making different decisions based on the headphone jack?
Not me. I already use wireless headphones at the gym and while running. The only loss is I cannot charge and listen at the same time which is something I rarely did anyway.
Given how Google abruptly leaves projects behind, the Pixel needs a few releases before I would trust it staying around. Flagship priced Android phones are also a tough market because you can get decent ones at very low prices.
> the Pixel needs a few releases before I would trust it staying around
Genuinely honest: Android's been out there for a long while. Even if the Pixel was the last Pixel ever, why would that be a problem from me as a user? When it's time to replace, I'm going to look at the other Android phones too anyway.
I postponed because what I was hoping for was a new Iphone SE - I just like that form factor better.
Also, if people valued having wireless phones they'd had bluetooth headset already, Apple isn't exactly breaking new grounds here, just removing the options of having passive battery-less sets.
Since I'm locked to the system, I'm stuck with the 5S, for now. The SE was bad value (in Europe) when it came out and it's just getting worse and worse.
Won't affect my decisions come renewal time, I have no beef against the jack but I've come to despise wired headphones so much that the loss of the jack is inconsequential to me.
And even driving my old beater won't cause me any hassles because the FM radio transmitter I bought for the car uses USB for both power and audio. Lots of inexpensive car stereos offer USB and Bluetooth in.
> Apps like WeChat are fairly notorious for holding wakelocks on Android and never really stopping background resource usage
I thought everyone went mad when they said this as I never encountered this issue, but I see it everywhere... The app that drains my Android is always Skype. That is also the app the drains my laptop and the reason I started using the web version but when that is on, Chrome drains my laptop. Wechat seriously does not come close and I use it a lot more...
I am surprised cell phones are still selling for 650 bucks. You can get a Chinese cell phone for 200 dollars which will do 90% of what latest apple or Samsung will do. Maybe it will be a little bit slower, but not 450 dollars slower.
Simple: (1) my iPhone's screen had some discolorization along the edges, I took it to the Apple store last Saturday; two hours later I pick up my iPhone with a new screen at no cost. (2) the day a new iOS is released (typically with security fixes), I can download it.
After trying some cheaper phones and two Android flagships (support was terrible), I realized that a great phone, with good warranty, and quick updates is worth more to me than the price hump.
Same for laptops. Why would I cut on a device that I use every day?
(Apropos laptops: we usually sell our MacBooks after ~3 years, I usually recoup 2/3rd of the cost and have a high-end laptop for 300-400 per three years.)
I'm in West Africa and just bought a fully-functional phone for $20 - that was new price, in the box, no haggling. For another $10 I could have got a much bigger screen and better specs.
It does absolutely everything I can think of a cell phone can do, even has dual sims.
I'm tethering to it off 3G right now.
It's running Android 5.1, and to be honest I have not even tried to upgrade it because it just doesn't matter. It does everything as it is.
When the $200 phone bursts into flames, are you able to sue the Chinese manufacturer for damages? When your $200 phone breaks, do you have to simply buy a new one rather than get it replaced? When there are security holes in your $200 phone, will the cheap skin over Android get patched?
I buy Apple phones for one reason, and that's the fact that my business lives and dies through communication. With my $800 phone, I can walk into any Apple store in the world and get support, a repair, or replacement. When I had a Nexus phone, all I got was runaround and BS from whoever support was contracted out to.
Huh really? I wonder why it's different in Norway? Apple-cerified service providers offer on-the-spot replacements elsewhere in the world (at least in the UK, US and Aus)
Apple in Norway offers IT departments (which manage over 1000 iOS devices) boxes of replacement iPhones so they can swap devices immediately themselves. I would be extremely surprised if this wasn't also available to AASPs http://www.apple.com/no/support/programs/ssa/
Apple-certified retailers aren't the same thing as Apple stores. That said, http://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/ doesn't list any stores in Norway, so I guess you don't really have much choice.
that is a large amount of FUD and baseless too. the majority of the world gets by not having eight hundred dollar phones just fine.
Apple marketing simply has succeeded in convincing you and others that there is no viable alternative which in turn keeps you from accepting such a possibility
> Apple marketing simply has succeeded in convincing you and others that there is no viable alternative which in turn keeps you from accepting such a possibility
Speaking of FUD. Marketing only gets you so far, and at some point you have to have a product. I have tried to switch to Android. First with an HTC One and another time with the Nexus 5 (I also have a Nexus 7). Android definitely wins on open and customization, but on overall system it continually failed. My Nexus 5 would randomly get system processes spinning out of control and if I didn't notice, I would have a dead battery in ~10 minutes. I don't remember which, but there was an Android update that made my Nexus 7 completely unusable.
I went back to the iPhone, and only then fully realized Apple's advantage of controlling the hardware AND software. I think Google is finally recognizing this, and attempting to replicate it with the Pixel.
The majority of the world gets by without air conditioning, personal vehicles, Netflix memberships and all other sorts of luxury items and services. The iPhone is no different, but it's not marketing that Apple's support is better than a random vendor off Alibaba.
For me I'm paying the premium for a number of reasons, mainly Apple's stance on privacy and security. You'll be hard pressed to find the same security and privacy commitment from any manufacturer of Android or other competing devices.
I don't know how you're reading that article, but to me, it sounds like Apple was likely complying with a legal court order for the information. And it really wasn't very much information, seems to be just the IP address that was used to make an iTunes purchase on a particular day. Not particularly privacy-invading, since this is something that falls well within the information that courts can order Apple to turn over.
There are cars for $65000 and for $20000 and they have their audiences. I wouldn't pay $45000 for slightly more powerful engine and slightly better interior, but many people do. Different people have different priorities.
I am surprised [any item] sells for [perceived high price]. You can get [lower quality version of item] for [lower price] which will do [not the same things, and not as well] that a [luxury manufacturer's item] will do.
Between the iOS 6 launch in fall 2012 and December 2012 Google Maps was unavailable on iOS.
"In June 2012, Apple announced that they would replace Google Maps with their own maps service from iOS 6. However, on December 13, 2012, Google announced the availability of Google Maps in the Apple App Store, starting with the iPhone version. Just hours after the Google Maps iOS app was released, it became the top free app in the App Store."
When Apple replaced the first-party Google Maps app with its own Apple Maps, and then Google had to release a new third-party Maps app for iOS quickly.
IIRC there was a migration period when apple and google "divorced" on iOS, and the standalone google apps were in the making. Cannot pinpoint the year by memory.
There's a lot of moaning about the resolution of 326ppi, but does anybody find that to be an actual limitation in practice? Just because other devices get a higher figure doesn't mean you get any practical value from those higher figures.
I came here to ask the same question. What's the point of a higher resolution? 326ppi is already good enough that I don't see individual pixels, so it's hard to imagine why I would want something denser. And speaking as a developer, I'm really glad Apple has stuck with their 2x and 3x scales. I really don't want to have to add 4x versions of all my images too.
I returned my 7+ as it's barely any different to the 6S+, and at £719 here in the UK for the 32GB model it was hard to stomach. £819 for 128GB model is now almost Macbook territory in my mind. I had barely any free space on the 32GB model, and using an adaptor for my headphones was annoying. The camera was good though.
A 64GB 6S+ is a much better proposition to me and will be my daily driver until I find something better. I've not noticed any difference since swapping.
The price points between the 7+ now and the 6S+ last year are virtually identical (I found a reference that suggests the 64GB 6S+ was $849, and the 128GB 7+ is $869 now). Would I be correct in assuming that this price point is now considered too expensive because of Brexit (causing the pound to fall)?
>It’s hard to actually think about the user experience of the headphone jack and to design wireless earbuds that don't have all of the friction points that we've come to expect.
What are the 'friction points' of traditional 3.5mm headphones? The fact that they're wired?
>[The home button] doesn't actually depress so it isn't quite as accurate as something like the Macbook trackpad in replicating the feel of a real button
You guys know that the MacBook trackpads don't actually depress either, right?
Ok, I usually don't do this, but it would be good to understand why I'm being downvoted here.
Therefore it makes sense to talk about design and not downplay its importance with a comment like "Yet some think that's the most important part..."; because one of those "some" was Steve Jobs and I don't think Apple has changed its policy much in that regard.
I'm not judging if he would have released this iPhone 7 or not, I'm just saying what I've said.
I think the reason you were getting eaten alive was because your comment somehow confused the design being similar with that somehow being bad. Steve Jobs was always about refining and, when he found a design he liked, he stuck with it. For nearly the entire iPhone's existence, Jony Ive has been the one that has decided the design of the phone. I would imagine that if he's happy with it, Steve would have been too.
You're totally right with your comment but I think that the context of the other posts made it seem like you were suggesting something you weren't.
So, it would be very helpful to see 1) signal improvement, 2) download speed improvement, 3) improvement in voice quality when listening, 4) improvement on voice quality when speaking including background cancellation.
For example, something I rarely saw in iPhone 6s(+) reviews was the addition of a 4th microphone for noise cancellation. I also rarely saw any talk of the H.265 compression (2 x H.264) for FaceTime Video over cell networks in the 6s.
Last Sat, I was in a Starbucks speaking with a friend who was in a different Starbucks. I was on the 7+ he on the 5S. I could hear annoying background noise, he could hear no background noise. These things are critically important, but it seems as if the reviewers are not using these units in real world situations.
I think this is because the people doing the reviews don't really have technical backgrounds. Otherwise, they'd be testing this issues.
EDIT: The modem specs (for Verizon/Sprint). AT&T, T-mobile use a lesser Intel Modem. https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/modems/x12