4 ms·

The funny thing is that PinePhone's problems almost entirely fall on the software side. I think we can all agree that for basic smartphone usage the base PinePh

The funny thing is that PinePhone's problems almost entirely fall on the software side. I think we can all agree that for basic smartphone usage the base PinePhone is plenty overkill. How much processing power do you need to send messages? Take and look at moderate resolution photos? Render an OpenStreetMap tile? If somehow web browsers didn't exist the only downsides left for the Pinephone would maybe be regarding high performance video recording, some ML features and 3D games.

kaba0 4y ago
I’m not so sure. Like, a web browser requires an excessive amount of CPU-power so that alone would necessitate a better CPU. I can only speak about the Pinephone, hopefully the pro is sufficient enough. Like, sure one can make 60fps vector graphics for a smartwatch purely from software rendering running on embedded hardware e.g. https://repository.microej.com/packages/documentation/rt595/2.0.0/ui3_demo/introduction.html https://repository.microej.com/packages/documentation/rt595/... but just look at your typical web app. No embedded will run that and it is pretty much needed for a smartphone.
jarbus 4y ago
As someone who uses a PinePhone, this is hard to say. Web browsing on the device is incredibly slow, just opening the browser can take fifteen seconds. If this could be improved with software optimizations, then it might be overkill, but as it stands, this phone can’t do basic web browsing to any decent standard and still has me reaching for an iPhone
- HidyBush 4y ago
  The state of web browsing on the Pinephone is awful mostly because of the UI. When using the Gnome browser all the websites I visit (which I admit are mostly lightweight like HN) are very pleasantly rendered and fast to scroll and interact with. Personally I believe that web browsing with a smartphone shouldn't really be a thing outside of basic textual content, but that's because I really can't figure how we have collectively concluded that being glued to a minuscule screen is desirable
- fsflover 4y ago
  Try sxmo and you will see how fast and smooth Pinephone can be.

kaba0 4y ago

I’m not so sure. Like, a web browser requires an excessive amount of CPU-power so that alone would necessitate a better CPU. I can only speak about the Pinephone, hopefully the pro is sufficient enough. Like, sure one can make 60fps vector graphics for a smartwatch purely from software rendering running on embedded hardware e.g. https://repository.microej.com/packages/documentation/rt595/2.0.0/ui3_demo/introduction.html https://repository.microej.com/packages/documentation/rt595/... but just look at your typical web app. No embedded will run that and it is pretty much needed for a smartphone.

jarbus 4y ago

As someone who uses a PinePhone, this is hard to say. Web browsing on the device is incredibly slow, just opening the browser can take fifteen seconds. If this could be improved with software optimizations, then it might be overkill, but as it stands, this phone can’t do basic web browsing to any decent standard and still has me reaching for an iPhone

HidyBush 4y ago
The state of web browsing on the Pinephone is awful mostly because of the UI. When using the Gnome browser all the websites I visit (which I admit are mostly lightweight like HN) are very pleasantly rendered and fast to scroll and interact with. Personally I believe that web browsing with a smartphone shouldn't really be a thing outside of basic textual content, but that's because I really can't figure how we have collectively concluded that being glued to a minuscule screen is desirable
fsflover 4y ago
Try sxmo and you will see how fast and smooth Pinephone can be.