[Android] LG G4 is the anti-Galaxy-S6

Removable and swappable backs in simple-and-practical plastic, in ceramic, or in leather.
Removable and swappable battery.
Sizable 3,000 mAh battery capacity.
32 gb onboard storage with microSD expansion.
Default-Google-layout on-screen buttons.

Seems to me a perfect phone for people who were disappointed by the hardware direction of the Galaxy S6. And while I had some concerns about the durability of a leather back on the Moto X, since the G4's back is removable and swappable, you can just get a new leather back or a different back if it doesn't wear well.

Also relevant:
1440p 5.5" screen
3 gb of RAM
Snapdragon 808
16-megapixel sensor with f/1.8 lens, laser autofocus, RAW support, and color spectrum sensor
Available subsidized on big four American carriers plus US Cellular

Thoughts?

Spoiler

Various hands-on:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/28/hands-on-with-the-leather-backed-lg-g4/
http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/28/lg-g4-preview-fashion-and-firepower-collide-hands-on/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/28/8505589/lg-g4-smartphone-specs-announcement-launch-leather-android

 

Snapdragon 808 is a big bummer. It loses two of the high powered A57 cores and it has an Adreno 418 GPU.

I have the Adreno 420 with my 1440p display and it lags. Adreno 418 is slower.

It will be a performance upgrade from the G3 but it is not in the same performance league as the Exynos-equipped S6.

Its a no sale for me. Looks like I'll keep my Nexus 6 until the Note 5 at this rate.

The 808 moniker is really quite misleading. The Snapdragon 805 is significantly faster because it utilizes 4 Krait 450 cores clocked at 2.7GHz vs the two A57 cores in the 808 clocked at a measly 1.8GHz and the four A53s at 1.4GHz. Its a decidedly midrange chip in every way.

That camera looks incredible too. Too bad.

 

You have high standards I googled some benchmarks and the Adreno 420 at 1440p outperforms the Adreno 320 (in my Moto X) at 1080p.

Between the camera, the 32 gb onboard storage, and the microSD expansion, I'm tempted to upgrade to this from my Moto X (whose camera and whose non-expandable 16 gb storage both irk me, although I otherwise like it). I'll wait for reviews, but I'm thinking about it.

 

The upgrade makes sense in your case. For me it would be a sidegrade and even possibly a downgrade.

The 420 does indeed outperform the 320 but it's still not perfect at QHD resolution. I have noticeable lag in games that played totally fine on my 1080p SD 801 M8 that have noticeable lag on the Nexus 6 but it could also be that the upscaling of the app from native 1080p is what is causing the performance hit. It's actually funny because I decided to try PPSSPP again yesterday, a PSP emulator that dropped mad frames on my M8, and was able to play both DBZ Shin Budakai and Dissidia Final Fantasy without any frames skipping a beat so the graphics muscle in this thing is probably being underutilized by those games that gave me issues. It was as responsive as my desktop actually. Granted the render was set to native while my desktop is like 6x.

The non expandable storage would irk me if it was 16GB, no doubt about that in my mind and I've seen the pics from that phone... Not great. The Nexus 6 has OIS which can be hit or miss at times but generally with proper light takes pretty decent pics.

 

Love my nexus 6

 

Makes two of us. I don't generally get so attached to a phone... I generally change phones every 6 months yet I've had a Jump credit since February and haven't used it.

 

Ah... all those 1440p phones. When will they be doing 4K?

I would hope in a parallel universe they created one with other specs similar but put a 720p screen on it.

 

Why? On a 5.5" screen, pixelation would be clearly visible. I get the argument that "1080p is enough for a phablet," but I think that 1080p is clearly better to the naked eye than 720p at this size. Heck, I could see individual pixels in text on my 720p Galaxy S3, and that was only 4.7".

With my 5.2" 1080p Moto X, on the other hand, I can't see individual pixels at normal usage distances, so anything more pixel-dense would be a waste.

 

Yes, I can see pixels. I can see pixels on a 1440p screen if I don't stretch my arm straight when holding the phone. But that's not a problem.

The high pixel density is not productive at all, it's purely aesthetic. Android UI is vector. With a high density screen everything gets bigger in terms of pixel-count. I'm still looking at the same UI elements. Actually on a typical smart phone the bottleneck of UI density is touch control which isn't very precise. For gaming or movie watching (certain types of movies could be exceptions), the content is usually dynamic so I can't notice the details anyway, and a lower pixel count means chance for better shading in game which is usually noticeable. The only application I can think of that benefits greatly from high density phone screens is phone VR, where 720p is no-no.

Everything else on the typical spec list can make my life with the device easier. Fast processors (and I/O) enable me to run more demanding applications, or at least wait less when running them. High RAM capacity makes it easier to multi-task without worrying about OOM killing or swapping. High storage capacity allows me to carry more data on the go and hopefully eliminate the need for additional storage devices. Bigger (and swappable) battery pack gives more battery life. Better camera takes better pictures which makes phone photography more tolerable/practical. High density screen is the only things that goes in the reverse direction. Beside aesthetic differences it only leads to less energy efficient screen and more loaded GPU, both result in worse battery life.

And if we're going to care about aesthetics of the screen, has any vendor started to worry about colour gamut or deviation yet?

 

Coincidentally, that was a talking point for LG about the new G4.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/133...splay-colour-spectrum-sensor-available-28-may

 

Most IPS have close to srgb gamut nowadays, and the sad truth is srgb is the standard for most media. Eye-popping color is nice for some content, but some review sites will bash it to death. And, at such a small gamut, I think color temp probably contribute more visual difference compare to these "deviations"

My phone max brightness is ~400nit and I haven't had a problem outdoor yet.

 

According to Engadget's review, setting aside camera specs and just looking at the results, the LG G4 takes better photos than either the Galaxy S6 or the iPhone 6, particularly in low-light situations.



http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/07/lg-g4-review/

I think the G4 is the best phone of 2015 so far. Really, really impressed. Kind of want one.

 

More camera tests. This thing's camera is AMAZING.

http://www.cnet.com/news/we-put-the-lg-g4s-camera-to-the-test-in-paris/

 

Definitely some amazing shots and the RAW images are mind blowing.

 

The large battery and microSD card slot are big draws for me, and the fantastic camera puts it in the running for my next phone. Still leaning towards the GS6 though since I love AMOLED displays, and the slightly smaller size is just about perfect. But the G4 does make the choice more difficult...

 

Battery life reports have not been all that fantastic so far. I was reading a review on tmonews the other day and it was said that it's actually rather poor and unoptimized like the 810 devices.



The charge time is not impressive either.

 

Surprising how bad the battery life is given that it's a 3,000 mAh battery.

 

At least it's swappable. Although I have never taken advantage of that option since I always put my phones in cases. As long as it lives longer than the S3, I'm great.

 

Indeed. That's rather disappointing; the review on The Verge had seemed to suggest a better battery life than the GS6. Decisions, decisions...

 

ArsTechica's review had its battery life easily beat the Galaxy S6 and one M9, and also narrowly beat the iPhone 6. Also, battery life was more than 25% better than the G3 under the same testing.

 

Phonearena has the largest pool of battery life tests and they actually calibrate the screens to be the exact same brightness, something most do not do, which is why their battery tests are scalable from device to device.

http://www.phonearena.com/phones/benchmarks

The G4 is the lowest ranking of the 10 flagship devices here

http://www.phonearena.com/news/10-flagship-phones-with-the-best-battery-life-May-2015_id68991

 

Where are they getting these charge times from? My Z3V can get to a full charge in like ~80-90 minutes. I'm using a 2.1A Nexus 7 tablet charger, unofficially the Z3V supports the turbocharging due to it having a 801 SoC. I'm assuming those battery life figures are of average usage with a bright screen.

I poked around with a couple of G3s, I actually find quite a bit of lag in the UI, and the phone ran rather hot, not as hot as the M9 granted.

 

All phones are charged using the chargers that they come with would be my assumption.

Battery life tests are run with the screen calibrated to 200 nits brightness.

No testing methodology will be perfect of course but testing with a specific brightness doing the same tasks is the best you can really get for scalability from one device to the next and is far more accurate than "it was at 20% when I got home from work so it is worse than my old phone that ended at 30%"

As for the G3, it was bad because it was a 1440p display being driven by a Snapdragon 801 - the Adreno 330 was never meant for that resolution.

 

Ah that makes sense. I've just been using my Nexus 7 charger and leaving the factory ones alone cause I often sell/resell electronics, and it's nice to say the original charger has never been used.

I guess battery life at a set brightness makes sense, but I would assume larger phones with much higher resolutions would definitely suffer as a result. Yet again that's why I did not opt for higher than full HD, as the SoC would strain to output to the larger screen and more pixels. I still think 1920x1080 is the best overall usable screen for mainstream normal sized 4.7-5.5" phones, balancing pixel density as well as decent battery life, screen quality.

 

I actually found that my Nexus 7 charger charges my Nexus 6 slower than the Motorola turbo charger as does the HTC turbo charger so I had no choice for this phone but yeah I usually used my HTC charger.

As for the screen... I agree with you that 1080p is ideal for smaller devices but I'd say 5.2" and under. I am really enjoying 1440p on my Nexus 6, especially with the Lollipop cards system. Quite often I don't have to actually switch back to an app to be able to read the text I am looking for which is actually pretty convenient.

 

So I talked with my Korean friend, the G4 is far cheaper than most mainstream Samsung phones, I'm assuming because of the performance figures (it gets creamed by the S6), and it doesn't really have a direct competitor. Even factoring in the removable battery and microSD, I can't see this selling to the masses except for people who want a high quality phablet screen, with mediocre battery life and a good camera (but hey I guess you can swap it out!). I also have alot of friends who have a G3 and are not very satisfied with it.