• This $999 M4 MacBook Air Might Be The Best Reason To Upgrade Your Laptop
    www.yankodesign.com
    Laptop buyers are in a weird spot right now. Windows ultrabooks keep getting pricier without major leaps in performance, and Apples MacBook Pro lineup, while powerful, starts at $1,599. The new M4 MacBook Air lands right in the middle, delivering serious upgrades without the Pros premium price tag. Faster, more efficient, and now capable of supporting dual external displays, this could be the perfect balance of power and portability for most people.Design-wise, the Air keeps its familiar ultra-thin form factor but introduces a new Sky Blue color (joining Midnight, Starlight, and Silver). Its a subtle metallic shade that shifts depending on the lighting. Small touches like color-matched MagSafe charging cables continue to show Apples attention to detail. Even in a crowded field of premium laptops, the Air remains one of the most refined-looking machines out there. But lets be honest: were all here for the M4, arent we?Designer: AppleApples M4 chip is this machines crown jewel. Built on a second-generation 3nm process, it features a 10-core GPU, improved efficiency cores, and an upgraded 16-core Neural Engine capable of 38 trillion operations per second (TOPS) for AI workflows. Real-world tasks feel smoother, whether thats scrubbing through 4K video timelines, batch-editing photos in Lightroom, or working with complex spreadsheets. Compared to the M1 Air, performance is up to twice as fast. For anyone still using an Intel-based Air, the gap is up to 23 times faster in specific tasks like video rendering.Apple claims up to 18 hours of video playback on a charge, translating to ~1516 hours for typical productivity use. The fanless design keeps everything silent, even under load. Whether youre deep into a video editing session or juggling a dozen browser tabs, the laptop stays cool and efficient without any distracting noise.The display remains one of the best in its class. The 13.6-inch and 15.3-inch Liquid Retina screens deliver sharp visuals, up to 500 nits of brightness, and support for a billion colors. Text looks crisp, HDR content pops, and color accuracy makes it great for creative work. Even without mini-LED or ProMotion, its a display that holds its own against higher-end competitors.Previous Air models were limited to a single external monitor, but the M4 version allows two external displays: one 6K (60Hz) via Thunderbolt and one 5K/4K (60Hz/144Hz) via HDMI. For professionals who need a multi-screen setup but dont want to pay for a MacBook Pro, this is a major upgrade. Whether youre coding, video editing, or working in finance, the Air now fits into workflows that previously required pricier hardware.Port selection remains simpletwo Thunderbolt ports, MagSafe for charging, and a 3.5mm headphone jack. Its not overloaded with I/O, but for most users, its enough. Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 ensure solid wireless performance, whether youre connecting to high-speed internet or syncing peripherals.The 12MP Center Stage camera now supports Desk View, which automatically frames both your face and workspace during calls. Video calls on older MacBooks always felt like an afterthought, but this new camera makes remote work and virtual meetings feel much more polished. Apple seems to be acknowledging that people rely on their laptops for communication as much as for work, and the changes here make a real difference.macOS Sequoia enhances the experience with deeper Apple Intelligence integration. AI-powered features like real-time text summarization, image generation, and enhanced Siri capabilities now run more efficiently, thanks to the M4s upgraded 38 TOPS Neural Engine. Apple is betting big on on-device AI, and this MacBook Air is positioned to take full advantage of future macOS updates that will lean even further into machine learning and automation.For anyone considering a MacBook Pro, the M4 Air raises an interesting questiondo you really need the extra power? With a lower $999 starting price (now with 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD base), long battery life, and now real support for multi-display setups, this Air is creeping into Pro territory. Unless your work requires sustained high-performance computing, the M4 Air might be the smarter buy.At $999, this MacBook Air redefines what a mainstream laptop should be. Its fast, efficient, and capable of handling demanding workloads while maintaining the portability that made the Air famous. Whether youre coming from an older Mac, switching from Windows, or just looking for a reliable everyday laptop, this might be the upgrade worth making.The post This $999 M4 MacBook Air Might Be The Best Reason To Upgrade Your Laptop first appeared on Yanko Design.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·19 Views
  • 0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·19 Views
  • Is Unreal Engine 5 still too advanced for PC games?
    www.creativebloq.com
    A game developer suggests UE5 could need a Nvidia RTX 6000 series GPU to run well.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·25 Views
  • Hands-On With GPT-4.5, OpenAIs Most Powerful Model Yet
    www.wired.com
    The release of OpenAIs biggest model ever exposes the tension between building artificial general intelligence and making ChatGPT into a truly useful utility.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·27 Views
  • Revlon One-Step Volumizer Plus Review: Hot Looks for Less
    www.wired.com
    This blow-dry brush performs just as well as its pricey competitors, give or take a little frizz.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·23 Views
  • Apple C1 modem real-world tests: Good enough, but a step slow
    www.macworld.com
    MacworldIn many ways, the Apple C1its first cellular modemis the companys most important product in years. Just as the company broke free from reliance on Intel with its own Mac processors, it is now breaking free from reliance on Qualcomm for cellular connectivity. Ditching Broadcom for its own Wi-Fi and Bluetooth is said to happen this year, too.But the chip was released to little fanfare, with the announcement all but buried in the details of the iPhone 16e. After testing the modem, we know why: its good enough for Apples budget iPhone 16e, but only just. We carried the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16e all over Sacramento, Calif., taking multiple speed tests to compare Apples modem vs. Qualcomms. The results are clear: Apple cant keep up, at least not yet. But speed is not all that matters to a cellular modem.Apple C1 modem: How we testedTo thoroughly test a cellular modem requires taking thousands of measurements all over the world, when connected to various networks in different conditions, in addition to controlled lab conditions. We cant do all of that, but we can schlep around an iPhone 16 and iPhone 16e, taking multiple measurements in multiple locations, until we get enough data to form some conclusions.We used the popular Ookla Speedtest app to test network performance. Since performance is so highly variable, we took three measurements in each location on each phone, one after the other, and averaged the results.Our tests were performed on the Verizon network at multiple locations throughout the Sacramento, CA area, primarily in the afternoon on a day with good weather. We tested indoors and outdoors, in a mix of challenging areas, such as within a grocery store or the locker room of a gym, and easy, high-performance areas such as outside the Golden 1 Center when there was no major event taking place.The C1 does not support mmWave, so we dont expect multi-gigabit speeds, but even more important than occasional Wi-Fi speeds is how well it performs in areas where the connection is weak or saturated. Lets see how the C1 holds up.Apple C1 modem: Downloads and uploadsWith the exception of the test run in my home office (which has poor connectivity with mobile networks), the Qualcomm X71M in the iPhone 16 raced past the Apple C1 in every location. In the supermarket where its hard to get a really good connection, the C1 bombed hard, downloading at only about 10 megabits/s while the Qualcomm modem managed over 200. Remember, this is the average of three successive tests, to reduce the natural variability of cellular performance.Its possible the iPhone 16e wasnt able to lock on to a signal on a band that performs better there, but regardless of the reason, through multiple tests, we simply couldnt get a good connection.FoundryIn the park or Golden 1 Center where the iPhone 16 gets over a gigabit of download speed, were not very concerned by the Apple C1 managing half the performance. Once you can download several hundred megabits per second, youre not going to have a very different experience going fasternot on your smartphone.Upload performance was a lot closer, with the Apple C1 trading wins with the Snapdragon X71M.FoundryIf theres a problem, its with the tests taken inside the gym or out in the nearby shopping center, where the Qualcomm modem was several times faster than Apples. The gym in particular is a very challenging area; its indoors in a large building full of equipment where connectivity is spotty, and dozens of people are all on their phones at once while they work out. We couldnt even get half a megabit of upload performance out of the iPhone 16e there.Apple C1 modem: Overall performanceTaking the speeds from each location and averaging them together, we start to see a general overall picture of how the Apple C1 modem in the iPhone 16e compares to the Qualcomm Snapdragon X71M in the iPhone 16.FoundryYou can say that, at least in our testing in a variety of locations, the Apple C1 delivers about the same overall upload speed as the Qualcomm Snapdragon X71M but about half the download performance.Again, thats all highly dependent on location and conditions, but it was consistent enough to show a clear pattern.Apple C1 modem: Efficiency and reliabilityOf course, download and upload speeds are only part of the picture when it comes to cellular performance. Its just as important that you dont drop calls, and that this very power-hungry component doesnt drain your battery too quickly.We made several spot calls during testing using both phones and noticed no significant difference in call quality. No call ever dropped on either phone. It would take hundreds of calls in lots of locations, all lasting ten minutes or more, to get a really clear picture of whether one modem drops calls more than the other, so consider our tests anecdotal at best.Power efficiency testing also requires some specialized equipment to isolate the power draw of the modem alone, and measure it with different signal strengths. Thats exactly what Chinese YouTuber Geekerwan has done, and they found that indeed, under ideal conditions, the Apple C1 uses about 25 percent less power than the Snapdragon X71M in the iPhone 16, but that power savings grows smaller if the signal is weak.GeekerwanWere talking about a difference of one-fifth of a watt, which can add up over time, but its not really a massive contributor to overall battery life. The iPhone 16e has a higher-capacity battery than any 6.1-inch iPhone before; it holds about 12% more charge than the battery in the iPhone 16, and that seems to be the biggest factor in the iPhone 16es long battery life.The C1 is not good enough for flagship iPhones yetThe iPhone 16e is Apples more affordable iPhone, though at $600 or more it could hardly be considered a budget smartphone. It makes several concessions to shave $200 off the price, and we can consider cellular performance to be one of them.Making a competitive 5G modem is a herculean task, one that was beyond Intels reach (and hence why the company sold its whole modem division to Apple). Theres a reason Apple is years late in bringing a modem to market. That it works and seems to work just fine without any massive obvious flaws, is quite a feat in itself.But it cant keep up with Qualcomms Snapdragon X71M in the iPhone 16, and thats not even Qualcomms best modem, which would be the Snapdragon x80. Its not even the X75, which was found in a lot of phones last year. It appears to be some sort of custom-made-for-Apple variant on the X70, though details are scarce.The Apple C1 is good enough for the companys less expensive model, but if youre spending $800+ on the latest iPhone, or $1,000+ on an iPhone Pro, you expect better than good enough. Without obvious evidence that it drastically improves battery life, which we dont see, it would be a huge disappointment to find the C1 in the iPhone 17 this fall. Thankfully, rumors claim that Apple will indeed stick with Qualcomm for at least another generation.But Apple says this is the first modem of many. The company already has C2 and C3 modems in the pipeline (it would have to, considering the multi-year development and testing process). Those are supposed to get closer to the performance of Qualcomms best modems while improving power efficiency and offering tighter integration with other Apple silicon. The C1 is a great start but Apple still has a long way to go.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·16 Views
  • Android 15 Upgrade Report Card: What the?!
    www.computerworld.com
    Im not gonna lie to you: Writing these Android Upgrade Report Cards isnt always exhilarating.By and large, these reports tend to reinforce the same trends we see time and time again from the same small group of Android device-makers. Even when those trends are somewhat unpredictable in nature, that, too, often feels like a predictable quality.This Android upgrade cycle is decidedly different.With Android 15, officially launched in early September 2024, no one followed their typical upgrade performance patterns. Everything was topsy-turvy. And almost nothing played out in the way wed expect.This exact type of underemphasized variability is exactly why I started doing these Android Upgrade Report Cards way back in the platforms prehistoric ages. From the get-go, weve seen some wild disparity in how well different device-makers support their products after youve finished paying for em and as an average phone-owner or perhaps even business-wide fleet manager, theres no real way to know whats gonna happen six months or a year after you or your employees shell out stacks of dollars for a top-tier device.[Get level-headed knowledge in your inbox with my Android Intelligence newsletter. Three things to know and try every Friday!]Its in part just par for the course with the nature of Android as a platform. The operating system is open source, which means each device-maker can modify it how they want (for better or sometimes for worse). And consequently, that means the responsibility falls on each companys shoulders to process every new incoming Android version and get it out to its customers.While we cant control the level of care and commitment each company puts into that process, we can control our own knowledge about how different device-makers do or dont prioritize post-sales support. That way, you can at least have the context you need to make an educated decision about which phone is right for you or your organization not just for the first few weeks that you own it but for the entire two-year, three-year, or maybe even longer period that youre likely to carry it around.Now that were six months past the launch of Android 15, its time to step back and look at whos making upgrades a priority and whos treating em as an afterthought. Only you can decide how much this info matters to you. (Hint: It oughta matter a lot!). But whether you find post-sales software support to be a top priority or an irrelevant asterisk, as always, you deserve to be armed with all the data that empowers you to make fully informed future buying decisions.Want the full nitty-gritty on how these grades were calculated? You can find a detailed breakdown of the formula and every element taken into account at the end of this article.GoogleJR Raphael, IDGLength of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 43 days (46/50 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 43 days (23/25 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: 43 days (14/15 points)Communication: Good (7/10 points)This almost-always-first section of our Android upgrade analysis is usually the easiest to write because with extremely rare exception, Google always gets each and every latest Android software update to all of its still-supported Pixel devices more or less instantly after the softwares release.This year, as you may have guessed, is one of those rare exceptions. Technically, the company did still lead the pack this go-round, but instead of the typical near-instant rollout, Google took a leisurely month and a half to start sending Android 15 to its self-made Pixel products.Given that its Google were talking about the same company that creates Android this was presumably a deliberate decision and a calculated compromise. Seemingly, the company wanted to get the Android 15 source code out there and available for everyone to work on despite the fact that it wasnt quite ready to send it out to its Pixel devices at that same point. And so one could argue it serviced the greater good for the overall Android ecosystem while taking a hit on its own record.Even so, our grading metric is constant here, no matter what circumstances may surround any specific scenario. So in an unusual occurrence, Google itself is coming in with a notably imperfect A- ranking for this latest Android rollout.For all practical purposes, of course, Googles Android 15 Pixel rollout was when the software first became available for anyone as a regular phone-owner. The fact that the source code came out 43 days earlier doesnt really mean Pixel owners were waiting, since no one else had a working version of that final software yet, either. But technicalities are technicalities, and rules are rules. So Googles grade, despite being at the top of the heap, is a respectable but slightly surprising 90%.That being said, the relative picture is what really matters for anyone who buys Android devices. And, as I remind us all each upgrade cycle, the consistent level of difference in post-sales software support between Google and literally every other Android device-maker out there really is astounding. As youll see reinforced in a moment, Google is the only Android device-maker that makes an unwavering commitment to providing timely and reliable software updates and makes that a formal part of its products promise even with the occasional slightly later-than-expected kickoffs like this one.Also of note, as per its typical standard, all of Googles currently eligible Pixel devices including both models of the regular current-gen Pixel, the newer flagship-tier folding Pixels, and the previous-gen Pixel flagships from one year and two years back started receiving Android 15 at the same exact time.(For the purposes of this analysis, by the way, its the start of a rollout to a flagship phone model in the US that counts, as you can read about in more detail at the bottom of this page.)Its a significant point to note that Google and Google alone treats all of its phones as equals meaning that even if you own a previous-gen device, a two-year-old flagship phone, or even a lower-priced Pixel a model (be it current or an older model), you still get major updates like Android 15 at the same time as the current-gen flagship phone owners. Thats a sharp contrast to the way every other device-maker handles its lineup, and its very much the way things ought to be.And while Googles usual rolling out in waves asterisk always applies to a certain degree with some Pixel owners not receiving the software on that very first day Android 15 made its way to all supported Pixel devices within a reasonable amount of time and without the need for any extra communication beyond the companys initial announcement (though the companys initial announcement of the rollouts starting for Pixel owners in the coming weeks a phrase used by Google so often that its become a bit of a punchline among those of us who watch this space closely could have used a little more specificity, hence the slight ding to the companys communication score).For the standard caveat here: Sure, we could argue that Google has a unique advantage in that its both the manufacturer of the devices and the maker of the software but guess what? Thats part of the Pixel package. And as a person purchasing a phone, the only thing that ultimately matters is the experience you receive.As usual, the results tell you all there is to know: Even when the rollouts arent day-one perfection, Googles phones are without a doubt the most reliable way to receive ongoing updates in a dependably timely manner on Android. Its the only company that makes an explicit guarantee about that as a part of its devices purchasing package, and as were about to reveal with some truly shocking twists its the only one that consistently delivers on such a standard, year after year.OnePlusJR Raphael, IDGLength of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 65 days (43/50 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 110 days (19/25 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: 175 days (9/15 points)Communication: Poor (2/10 points)If you read much tech news or follow many forums, you probably know that the popular narrative around OnePlus tends to be that it does a consistently decent job of providing post-sales software support to its Android devices.I wont beat around the bush: That narrative is flat-out inaccurate and extremely misleading.OnePlus bounces around with its software support more than any other Android device-maker out there. The best we could say is that it provides mediocre support on average, with the occasional pleasant surprise. But when you really dig deeper into the data, the reality is much more nuanced than that.With Android 15, specifically, OnePlus took just over two months to get the software into the hands of folks who paid for its most recent top-of-the-line flagship (at the time of Android 15s release) which, hey, may not be gold-medal brag-worthy but is still reasonably all right.The problem comes when you look at the companys commitment to its older devices flagships from just one to two years back, which waited 110 days and 175 days, respectively, to see their Android 15 updates. Thats inexcusable and unacceptable, and its also pretty typical for OnePlus.If we look at the companys overall grades from the last seven cycles, youll see what I mean:Android 15: 73% CAndroid 14: 69% DAndroid 13: 77% CAndroid 12: 76% CAndroid 11: 60% DAndroid 10: 85% BAndroid 9: 74% CAs usual, what adds insult to injury is the fact that OnePlus is absolutely awful about communicating with its customers. Wade through the official OnePlus forum, and youll find pages upon pages of comments from frustrated phone-owners who are either desperate for any shred of info about when their top-of-the-line device will see its increasingly dated software update or are pulling their hair out because of problems with the rollouts that have started.All in all, its just not a remarkable result though, well, it could always be worse.Motorola (Lenovo)JR Raphael, IDGLength of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 170 days (31/50 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 167 days (16/25 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: Still waiting (0/15 points)Communication: Poor (0/10 points)Well, well, well: Look whos bucking the trends and actually trying for the first time in recent memory!Now, hang on lets not get too excited. Motorola still earns a big fat F for its lackluster Android upgrade efforts with the Android 15 update. Its done so in every analysis Ive performed since 2016. (It scored a D the year before that.) Its last good grade was in 2014 which was the last Android Upgrade Report Card prior to Lenovos acquisition of the company, for anyone keeping track.But for the first time in a long time, Motos actually done something and brought itself up above a single percentage point. And for once, that at least isnt nothing which, if you ask me, is certainly something to celebrate.Motorola managed to eke out an update to its current-gen co-flagship foldable, the 2024 Razr+, in early February of this year. It hasnt sent anything to its non-folding US flagship, the 2024 Edge yet, which brings down its average in that area considerably. But, again: Its still something!A similar story shapes up in the previous-gen flagship category, with the US 2023 Razr+ receiving Android 15 in early February but the US 2023 Edge still waiting. The two-year-old flagships, meanwhile, havent had any activity, and Motorolas communication is as minimal as usual.On top of that, reports indicate all sorts of awful problems with the update seemingly rendering phones more or less unusable in at least some circumstances.All in all, its not much, and it sure doesnt change the fact that its damn-near impossible to recommend Motorola phones because of their subpar post-sales support. But relative to Motos typical zero-effort showing in this arena as of late, its at least an improvement and a sign of a teensy bit of effort from a company wed long ago assumed had given up entirely on caring.SamsungJR Raphael, IDGLength of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: Still waiting (0/50 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: Still waiting (0/25 points)Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: Still waiting (0/15 points)Communication: Poor (0/10 points)One word: Yikes.I dont even know what to say about Samsung with its software support performance for the Android 15 release. Theres simply no excuse for the top-selling US Android phone-maker to have failed to send out a single update to any of its devices now more than six months after a major operating system release and to land at the very bottom of this analysis, after even the most notorious Android upgrade flunkee of em all (hello, Moto!).And were not talkin budget-level products here for Samsung, either. These are devices people have paid many of hundreds, sometimes well over a thousand dollars to own. Theyre positioned as professional, business-caliber devices, too. And no professional business should be okay with using software thats six-plus months out of date, especially when said software includes so many fixes and enhancements around critical areas like privacy, security, and performance.Samsung, too, has managed to gain a reputation in recent years for being a leader in Android update delivery. Much like with OnePlus, this perception is misguided.The data tells you everything you need to know. Here are Samsungs Android Upgrade Report Card results from the past seven Android release cycles:Android 15: 0% FAndroid 14: 81% BAndroid 13: 73% CAndroid 12: 68% D+Android 11: 68% D+Android 10: 68% D+Android 9: 37% FThe companys certainly had some commendable (relative) high points, such as last years 81% result. But thereve been an awful lot of ups and downs and some truly terrible lows in the mix, too. And a seven-year average of 56% is nothing to write home about.Plus, much like OnePlus, Samsung tends to prioritize its most recent, current flagship while making anyone who owns a top-of-the-line phone from even a year ago wait significantly longer anywhere from 60-some-odd days, on the better end of the spectrum, to well over 150 days on many recent cycles. (And thats to say nothing about the companys extremely poky progress with midrange and budget-level devices, which are treated very much as distant second-class citizens when it comes to upgrade deliveries.)The company is also consistently quiet when it comes to any meaningful communication about its progress or when folks can expect to see something, anything, show up on their phones. In fact, the first official peep weve heard at all about a rollout date came this past Tuesday March 4 which was 183 days after Android 15s release and after the six-month window of consideration for this specific analysis. (Long story short, Samsung now says itll start its first Android 15 rollouts sometime in April, which means best-case scenario, certain Galaxy phone owners may have the software seven months late and on the brink of Android 16s arrival.)All in all, its not a great look for anyone but especially not for the company that most average phone buyers associate with Android and frequently turn to without even realizing other options are available.Wait what about everyone else?Does this list seem shorter than you were expecting? Alas, this is our current Android hardware reality, at least here in the States at this moment.One-time Android regular LG is no longer around, as the company bowed out of the phone-making game entirely in 2021. And early Android veteran HTC has been off the grid since 2021s Report Card, given the fact that its barely even putting out new phones anymore certainly not flagship-level devices. If the company ever comes back around and attempts to get in the game again at any point, Ill eagerly add it back into the list for inclusion.And then theres Sony a company a random reader will ask me about on occasion but that just doesnt make sense to include in this list right now. Sony has never had much of a meaningful presence in the US smartphone market (which is a shame, really but thats another story for another time), and in recent years, its role in the US mobile market has dropped from barely anything to virtually nothing.I cant even begin to make head or tails of Sonys convoluted, confusingly named phone lineup anymore, but the company sent out its first Android 15 upgrade in late November and has been chipping away at its list slowly but surely ever since. It certainly wouldnt be topping the list if it were included in this analysis, but itd be another addition to the middle-of-the-pack, C-range section if it had any meaningful US presence.What about the HMD-owned Nokia? That company has a fairly limited presence in the US, but it had generally done a solid job of keeping its phones updated with both major and minor OS releases and with monthly security patches up until 2021, when Googles Android One program started quietly falling apart. These days, HMD/Nokias taking its good sweet time to get current software onto its devices with rollouts just getting going in late December so even if it were included in this analysis, it wouldnt be a remarkable result.Last but not least, theres Nothing the hype-loving small-scale phone-maker from OnePlus founder Carl Pei. Nothing has been doing (ahem) virtually nothing in terms of communicating about its software support progress with its paying customers, but its earliest hint of an incoming Android 14 upgrade happened in mid-December, for its current-gen Nothing Phone 2 models, with its older-gen Nothing Phone 1 following in mid-January. Suffice it to say, its score wouldnt be spectacular if it were significant enough to include in this breakdown.In detail: How these grades were calculatedThis Android Upgrade Report Card follows the same grading system used with last years analysis which features precise and clearly defined standards designed to weigh performance for both current and previous-generation flagship phones along with a companys communication efforts, all in a consistent and completely objective manner.Each manufacturers overall grade is based on the following formula, with final scores being rounded up or down to the nearest full integer:50% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship phone(s)25% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach most immediate previous-gen flagship phone(s)15% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back previous-gen flagship phone(s)10% of grade: Overall communication with customers throughout the upgrade processNotably, 2023s Android 13 analysis marked the first time the formula was expanded to account for flagship phones that are two generations back in addition to the most recent previous-gen models. With the de facto standard support window stretching to a minimum of three years, it made sense to take a broader view and see how different device-makers are actually doing when it comes to supporting those older models as a promise of support alone only means so much. How long it actually takes for those phones to receive updates is equally important. And the scores here now reflect that, extending further into a phones lifespan.Upgrade timing often varies wildly from one country or carrier to the next, so in order to create a consistent standard for scoring, Ive focused this analysis on when Android 15 first reached a flagship model thats readily available in the US either a carrier-connected model or an unlocked version of the phone, if such a product is sold by the manufacturer and readily available to US customers in a public, official, and not opt-in-beta-oriented over-the-air rollout.(To be clear, Im not counting being able to import an international version of a phone from eBay or from some random seller on Amazon as being readily available to US customers. For the purposes of creating a reasonable and consistent standard for this analysis, a phone has to be sold in the US in some official capacity in order to be considered a US model of a device.)By looking at the time to Android 15s first appearance (via an over-the-air rollout) on a device in the US, were measuring how quickly a typical US device-owner could realistically get the software in a normal situation. And since were looking at the first appearance, in any unlocked or carrier-connected phone, were eliminating any carrier-specific delays from the equation and focusing purely on the soonest possible window you could receive an update from any given manufacturer in this country. Were also eliminating the PR-focused silliness of a manufacturer rushing to roll out a small-scale upgrade in somewhere like Lithuania just so they can put out a press release touting that they were FIRST, when the practical implication of such a rollout is basically just a rounding error.I chose to focus on the US specifically because thats where this publication (and this person writing this right now hi!) is based, but this same analysis could be done using any country as its basis, of course, and the results would vary accordingly.All measurements start from the day Android 15 was released into the Android Open Source Project: September 3, 2024, which is when the final raw OS code finished uploading and became available to manufacturers.The following scale determined each manufacturers subscores for upgrade timeliness:1-14 days to first US rollout = A+ (100)15-30 days to first US rollout = A (96)31-45 days to first US rollout = A- (92)46-60 days to first US rollout = B+ (89)61-75 days to first US rollout = B (86)76-90 days to first US rollout = B- (82)91-105 days to first US rollout = C+ (79)106-120 days to first US rollout = C (76)121-135 days to first US rollout = C- (72)136-150 days to first US rollout = D+ (69)151-165 days to first US rollout = D (66)166-180 days to first US rollout = D- (62)More than 180 days to first US rollout (and thus no upgrade activity within the six-month window) = F (0)Theres just one asterisk: If a manufacturer outright abandons any US-relevant models of a device, its score defaults to zero for that specific category. Within that category (be it current or previous-gen flagship), such behavior is an indication that the manufacturer in question could not be trusted to honor its commitment and provide an upgrade. This adjustment allows the score to better reflect that reality. No such adjustments were made this year, though there have been instances where its happened in the past (hello, Moto again!).Last but not least, this analysis focuses on manufacturers selling flagship phones that are relevant and in some way significant to the US market and/or the Android enthusiast community. That, as I alluded to above, is why a company like Sony is no longer part of the primary analysis and why companies like Xiaomi and Huawei are not presently part of this picture, despite their relevance in other parts of the world. Considering the performance of players in a market such as China would certainly be interesting, but itd be a completely different and totally separate analysis, and its beyond the scope of what were considering in this one report.Aside from the companies included here, most players are either still relatively insignificant in the US market or have focused their efforts more on the budget realm in the States so far and thus dont make sense, at least as of now, to include in this specific-sample-oriented and flagship-focused breakdown.Dont let yourself miss a thing: Sign up for my free Android Intelligence newsletter to get next-level knowledge delivered directly to your inbox.
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·15 Views
  • iPhone fold predicted to launch in late 2026 with no Face ID
    appleinsider.com
    Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo says the expected iPhone Fold will lack Face ID, but come with a 7.8-inch crease free display, in late 2026 or early 2027.Render of a possible iPhone Fold - Source AppleInsiderRecent rumors claimed that an initial manufacturing run of a folding iPhone would begin in late 2025, with mass production coming ahead of a launch in the second half of 2026. Analyst Kuo now claims that the launch will not be until late 2026 or early 2027, although he has previously predicted launches starting in 2024.AppleiPhone Rumor Score: Possible Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·23 Views
  • Apple's mmWave C1 modem won't launch until 2026
    appleinsider.com
    A new report from analyst Ming-Chi Kuo claims that it will be 2026 before an updated version of the Apple C1 modem with mmWave will enter mass production.Apple's C1 modem image credit: AppleFor all its power efficiency, the C1 5G modem does lack mmWave support. It's far from a surprise, though, that Apple is working on future versions of the modem, but now Ming-Chi Kuo claims that an mmWave C1 will not be ready for the iPhone 17 range.Apple's C1 modem process technology: Rumor Score: Possible Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·15 Views
  • Preservation groups oppose demolition of famous, historic and renowned Detroit Renaissance Center
    archinect.com
    Preservation Detroit has published a letter of opposition to the potential demolition of the Renaissance Center (RenCen) in Detroit, MI. As Archinect reported last December, General Motors has floated the idea of demolishing the centers five towers if they do not secure public funding to renovate the complex.Preservation Detroits letter calls for the preservation and adaptive reuse of the entire center. Although we understand that only two of the towers are currently under consideration for demolition, we feel that this decision would have an irreversible negative impact on the City, says the letter, which is co-signed by Docomomo_US/MI; the Michigan Historic Preservation Network (MHPN); and the National Organization of Minority Architects, Detroit (NOMA).Together, we urge the City of Detroit to pause and more thoughtfully consider the future of this famous, historic and renowned Detroit structure, the letter adds. One way of ensuring protection of the entire property, incl...
    0 Commentarii ·0 Distribuiri ·29 Views