A smartphone is the ultimate, single-user personal computer. Choosing a device is too intimate for me to use any sort of tabular comparison tool. The device needs to be right for me qualitatively also.
I strongly recommend picking a handful of devices and getting a variety of opinions from reviewers. Then, weigh those opinions against what features are most important to you.
If this is your main computer which most likely it is for most people, it's worthwhile to spend some time on selection.
People get so hostile over such things. I have an iPhone for business. I have a Pixel for my personal use. They're alright. It depends on what you need. Still a smartphone enthusiast.
There's a lot of inertia to overcome here. There's advice online everywhere that Android may not the best platform for tablets. As someone who loved the Nexus 7, until you have a large user base that's using the tablets, it's a tougher sell to developers and to users especially that iPads are cheaper now than they have been in the past.
It's an uphill battle. Google has to pay those taxes for doing such a terrible job of getting into the tablet as its own related but different market from mobile.
Oh, my heart. I remember messaging my now wife with one on Skype. It was so laggy because my phone was super budget but I was amazed what I could do nonetheless.
I can still feel the plastic texture and the delayed vibration following a half second later.
You might be surprised. My father uses a device about that age, but it's a Facebook machine and phone call device. It's fine for the use case if you're not the type to place valuable information on your phone anyways.
I think this is because now the consumer knows what he or she wants. It's hard to build a mobile UI without expectations of consistency.
Back then, Android was more marching to the beat of its own drummer as it were and more dramatically crafting its design language, its visual identify.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but I'm very excited about this feature. I often visit rural areas, and if I got a flat I would love my phone to be useful for letting family know what's going on.
If it helps, I only have a high refresh phone display. I don't notice the difference when I'm using my slower displays because I'm not used to seeing those applications at a higher refresh rate. It doesn't seem to bother my mind.
I only notice it when I'm using another phone at a lower refresh rate.
Precisely this. I didn't notice it much when I started using it, but I switch between phones frequently for software development, and I definitely feel the difference. It's nice, but it's not a life-changing difference. It's just a difference.
Short answer is no. Long answer is no. The problem is their drivers (and hardware) are very young so there's a lot of odd things games can do that hurt performance in unexpected ways.
In practice they are not as good because Intel lacks experience, but I think they're on the right track. Is it worth the money today? Probably not. The risk of coming across a game that doesn't run well is just too high.
I really wanted Intel to be a serious contender for my last GPU purchase but there were too many good, consistently performing options in that price range for it to make a lot of sense.
This is a good point for not choosing too small. I've made a couple of accounts, and it looks like when a servers crosses that 1,000 or 2,000 user mark you start getting much better consistency than the micro instances with only a few hundred users.
I usually find that I have to reload a few times if I'm the first person to try to subscribe to a community. That happens uncomfortably too often if the instance is small. Even then, it can take a days or possibly never to properly federate.
I'm sure these issues will be fixed, but for now, I'd like myself a small instance but not too small so as to avoid issues with consistency.
Good news; a true necessity if eSIM is to be consumer friendly.