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
Raymond Lin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Hikari Kisugi said:
No i mean is it usable underwater like the samsung is?
Is it waterproof?
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
neil_g said:
you can get a macbook pro for £100 more than the 256gb version :D
Click to expand...

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

Raymond Lin said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you will :D

Raymond Lin said:
Magsafe !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Why did you have to remind me :(

rTWDmuc.gif



Mr_Cool said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Hikari Kisugi said:
No i mean is it usable underwater like the samsung is?
Is it waterproof?
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
Clov!s said:
It's waterproof, I've had it completely submerged under water for 15 minutes and it's been fine.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amp34 said:
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
Click to expand...

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

UberTiger said:
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
Click to expand...

OCUK bring out sarcasm? I wouldn't believe it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Clov!s said:
It's waterproof, I've had it completely submerged under water for 15 minutes and it's been fine.
Click to expand...
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:)
 
TheOracle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom