Poll: ** The Official iPhone X Thread **

Which iPhone X are you getting?

  • Silver 64GB

    Votes: 35 6.6%
  • Space Grey 64GB

    Votes: 53 10.0%
  • Silver 256GB

    Votes: 31 5.8%
  • Space Grey 256GB

    Votes: 98 18.4%
  • I want one but it's too expensive

    Votes: 125 23.5%
  • I'm not interested

    Votes: 190 35.7%

  • Total voters
    532
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2004
Posts
5,902
Location
Essex
Then this is a 2 handed device. I don't think I can reach from bottom of the screen to swipe up, then immediately swipe from top right corner with 1 hand without adjusting my grip.

I'd argue that even the 6S isn't comfortably usable with one hand. e.g. I can't swipe down from the top of that without juggling it around in the palm of my hand.

No i mean is it usable underwater like the samsung is?
Is it waterproof?

Why would you ever need to do that? None of the Galaxy phones are completely waterproof and in fact iPhones have been shown to beat them in water resistance tests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
Joined
8 Aug 2017
Posts
484
I hope it relies on the iris more than the face. Should see my missus when she wakes up first thing, compared to her face when she's ready to roll - Totally different. She's the target market for this emoji toting piece of crap too, so it won't be a single use case.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Posts
4,413
you can get a macbook pro for £100 more than the 256gb version :D

You can get a Macbook Air brand new from Apple for less!

My iPhone (1) cost me £130 I recall……at the time when you have to sign up to a contract but you do it later on….I jailbreaked it and didn't sign up.

Then iPhone 4 cost me £450.

iPhone 6 cost me £550…..

£999??? I really really can't.

But you will :D

Magsafe !!!!!!!

Why did you have to remind me :(

rTWDmuc.gif


This is my thoughts.

256GB is overkill, 128GB would be the sweet spot and should have been the base storage to help justify that price.

I really thought Apple would go with 128GB and 256GB for the X.

256GB probably cost them about £10 more than a 128GB chip, yet they can charge £150 more than the 64GB chip and they know that a huge percentage of people will go for it. They're making bank off that decision. Simplify the lineup and make it a no brainer for us to drop even more cash as we pretty much have to.

No i mean is it usable underwater like the samsung is?
Is it waterproof?

I've seen a few underwater photos in Apples iPhone 7 ad campaign, I think it's good for a couple of meters. But they still don't give a warranty on water damage :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Posts
4,413
SteveOBHave makes a good point, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone X are pretty much exactly the same phone inside and out. Not sure what there's even to discuss here.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
It's waterproof, I've had it completely submerged under water for 15 minutes and it's been fine.

It's water resistant.

The iPhone 7 (and presumably 8 and X as they are also classed as water resistant on the Apple site) is rated as IP67 (Less than 1m for less than 30mins).

The S7/8 are IP68 rated which means more than 1m, manufacturer specified (which in Samsungs case is 1.5m for less than 30mins).

That means the S7/8 has a grand total of an extra 50 cm of water resistance than the iPhones.

Whoop de do. :p

Water resistant doesn't mean it can't be put under water, it just means it's not waterproof, which is a specific term in its own right.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Mar 2006
Posts
6,605
Location
Sydney Australia
It's water resistant.

The iPhone 7 (and presumably 8 and X as they are not also classed as water resistant on the Apple site) is rated as IP67 (Less than 1m for less than 30mins).

The S7/8 are IP68 rated which means more than 1m, manufacturer specified (which in Samsungs case is 1.5m for less than 30mins).

That means the S7/8 has a grand total of an extra 50 cm of water resistance than the iPhones.

Whoop de do. :p

Also worth noting that this is only in fresh water too. It's a protection feature not an invite to shoot under water.

Sorry, OcUK seems to bring it out in me for some reason...

It's tough deciding when to ensure I include smileys, /s or otherwise :D

OCUK bring out sarcasm? I wouldn't believe it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
16,527
Not sure I like the camera notch on the front. Do you think they could have coloured the sides in with a software patch. I think the software has a sku code so it knows what colour the phone is.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Nov 2014
Posts
1,329
It's waterproof, I've had it completely submerged under water for 15 minutes and it's been fine.
It's water resistant, as the Samsung website states.

Having it under water for 15 minutes doesn't make it waterproof.
Hence why its rated IP68:
"*Galaxy S8 and S8+ are rated IP68, meaning they are both dust and water resistance.
Rating is based on test conditions of submersion in up to 1.5 meters of fresh water for up to 30 minutes."

The same rating the iPhone lineup has...

If it was waterproof you'd be able to leave it under water for as long as you want and it'll be fine, try leaving your S7 under water for a few hours and I dont think you'll be so lucky.

But I guess if your S7 is Waterpoof then the iPhone X definitely is by your definition:)
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2004
Posts
5,902
Location
Essex
Not sure I like the camera notch on the front. Do you think they could have coloured the sides in with a software patch. I think the software has a sku code so it knows what colour the phone is.

The front panel is black on both colours, so why would they do that? They perhaps should limit the screen size when playing video etc though.
 
Back
Top Bottom