backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by bug77.. on Jul 9 at 8:32 AM

The G3 will cost $199 with a two-year contract

LG’s latest and greatest mobile devices will grace AT&T stores (both brick & mortar and online) starting this week. Both the G3 will be available for pre-order starting tomorrow, with initial availability commencing on Friday. The G Watch will be available online and in-store tomorrow.
 
As a refresher, the G3 smartphone comes with a 5.5” QHD (2560x1440) display, Snapdragon 801 processor, 13MP camera with Laser Auto Focus and Optical Image Stabilization, 802.11ac wireless, and Bluetooth 4.0 LE. The smartphone of course runs the latest version of Android 4.4 KitKat, although we hope that LG will provide timely updates to Android L once it’s available.

LG G3 Smartphone 

The G Watch, on the other hand, runs Google’s new Android Wear operating system. The smartwatch features a 1.65” (280x280) display, Snapdragon 400 processor, 4GB of internal storage, IP67 water/dust resistance, and a 400 mAh battery that’s good for up to a day’s worth of “normal” use.

 LG G Watch
 
The G Watch is priced at $229; while the G3 will set you back $199 with a two-year contract. Those that choose to purchase a G3 using one of AT&T’s Next plans can pay an additional $24.17 on their wireless bill using Next 18 or an additional $29 using Next 12.

Source: AT&T



Comments     Threshold


Just ti rub it in someone's face
By bug77 on 7/8/2014 7:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
In the meantime, Anandtech has confirmed the extra resolution is only perceivable in fringe cases, the display sucks much more battery juice and the contrast is lower than it was on the G2.
It's still a very nice phone, but it could have been better it LG stuck to 1920x1080.

On another note, why do people keep calling resolutions 1080p or 1440p? There's nothing progressive (or interlaced) about physical resolutions.




By atechfan on 7/8/2014 7:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On another note, why do people keep calling resolutions 1080p or 1440p? There's nothing progressive (or interlaced) about physical resolutions.


Leftover terminology from CRT days.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but 1080 was last year's res. QHD will become the new flagship standard, so you'll just have to find a way to deal with that.

Sucks more battery? The G3, like the G2, has won this round of battery runtime soundly.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By bug77 on 7/8/2014 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, please. You said you'll believe it when anandtech tests it. They did. Just read the review and admit you made the wrong assumption(s).


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By retrospooty on 7/8/2014 10:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
I read it and it doesn't look great, but its still good... Better than other 2013 flagships but not better life than the current G2... Still, its a good phone. Best in class screen to bezel ratio, and knock on make it a unique hit.

I am not sold though. Fortunately, my boss is set on getting one day 1, so I will see how his goes in real life tests and then decide.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By bug77 on 7/8/2014 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said, still a nice phone. I'll add "definitely a top-pick of the year" for additional clarity.
In the meantime, I've got my Moto G and couldn't be happier. Well, I could if I had Android L already ;)


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By retrospooty on 7/8/2014 12:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, another good point - one tha tI suspected would happen. Just like the G2, the G3 US models only come in the 32gb storage 3gb RAM variety. So that is another positive. This is really where any high end phone should start in 2014. 16 is just not good enough for a high ender.

http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones/lg-g3.html


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By bug77 on 7/8/2014 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, since KitKat, you can't really move app data to the SD card anymore. The more internal storage, the better. Of course, if you don't install everything under the Sun, music and movies will take most of the space, and those can still be moved.


By retrospooty on 7/8/2014 1:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you can "manage" it, but for a high end phone, you shouldn't have to. That and even though many OEM's charge $100 to go from 16 to 32, it really only costs them a few dollars buying in bulk by the millions. 16gb is just not good enough for a flagship any more. That bar was set in 2013 with the US versions of the G2 and Note3. It shouldn't be backtracked, especially now that 4.4 hampers install to SD.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 11:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me but QHD has NOTHING to do with contrast ratio or the quality of the panel used. What does that have to do with resolution?

Stop trying to re-start an argument you've already lost. Badly.

You must be seriously butthurt to carry that grudge for like a month and try, unsuccessfully, to take people out of context so you can "win".

I read the review. Everything I said was dead on as far as I can remember. Wrong assumptions? Where did I ever say QHD panels would have better contrast?


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By bug77 on 7/8/2014 12:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Excuse me but QHD has NOTHING to do with contrast ratio or the quality of the panel used. What does that have to do with resolution?


Is it that hard to read a review? It's explained in there. It's even got some pictures (hint: it's about less light going through smaller pixels).
Because you've (again) resorted to insult, don't expect further replies.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 1:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just end this by saying the first 1080p TV sets, or smartphone panels, weren't perfect either. That doesn't mean you are correct about QHD.

It's coming like it or not. Stop being a Luddite.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By ritualm on 7/8/2014 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sucks more battery? The G3, like the G2, has won this round of battery runtime soundly.

Wrong.
quote:
While the LG G2 had around 11 hours of battery life on WiFi and was competitive with the Galaxy S5 and One (M8), the G3 is around the iPhone 5s...

That's around 11 hours WiFi browsing with the G2, but a big drop to around 8.5 hours with the G3. Yes, that QHD display is the primary culprit. Say what you want, but there is nothing "winning" about the G3 and battery runtime.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Wait what? You can't do that! You can't compare the G3 to last generations phone on a battery test. The hardware is completely different.

Wtf by your logic I can compare the LG G3 to anything, and it wouldn't be cherry picking.

Anandtech sometimes does things that just don't make sense. Comparing the battery life of the LG G3 to the iPhone and others, is one of them. Putting phones in the test with much smaller screens than the G3 is also biased. OFC huge screen consume more power than the iPhone and others.

It cannot be adequately proven the pixel density is the reason for these numbers. Especially since the phone is so new, any number of software issue probably need to be patched that could affect battery life.

Also they don't mention if that Galaxy S5 had Samsung's new battery saving feature enabled. Judging from these numbers, I think they did. Which calls into question the fairness of this test.

You clearly didn't read too much into these results or cared about all the factors, that they mentioned, which effect it. You're just all about blaming the QHD display.

QHD isn't the problem. LG just didn't implement it properly. They should have used an OLED based screen (which lacks a backlight), not LCD based.

quote:
Say what you want, but there is nothing "winning" about the G3 and battery runtime


It's certainly good enough. Your argument that QHD has ruined the battery life for the end user has been soundly defeated.


RE: Just ti rub it in someone's face
By retrospooty on 7/8/2014 6:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
"That's around 11 hours WiFi browsing with the G2, but a big drop to around 8.5 hours with the G3. Yes, that QHD display is the primary culprit. Say what you want, but there is nothing "winning" about the G3 and battery runtime."

You are also cherry picking results. Yes, it had lower Wifi browsing results than the G2, but the 4G and 3G results have it beating the G2 and the iPhone in both.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8169/the-lg-g3-revie...

Overall, its lower, but it still beats all flagships from last year other than the G2. It's not like it has bad battery life, its just not the best of the pack like the G2 was last year.


By bug77 on 7/9/2014 8:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
Correction: it only beats two branded versions of the G2 and only in the 4G test. Considering the chips are the same (Snapdragon 800 for G3 vs 801 for G2), thus having the same modems, this is probably some carrier app screwing things up. It's strange that the LTE test doesn't use the same reference.


watch uses Snapdragon 800 processor?
By soydios on 7/7/2014 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
you sure? that's a helluva chip for a watch.




By blzd on 7/7/2014 11:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
400 with 3 of the cores disabled.


Contracts for a watch?
By cknobman on 7/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Contracts for a watch?
By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 4:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
That isnt what it says... The G Watch is priced at $229; while the G3 will set you back $199 with a two-year contract.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki