HTC One X and One S reviews

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

lithium polymer batteries should last a bit longer... kinda like with the new MacBook Pros and their built in batteries. They say instead of 3 years, its 5 years.

 

[hans007]

whats wrong with the One S? its a good phone and for people who don't want a monstrous 4.7" phone its pretty well sized. its not flagship quality, but still a high end phone

i wish htc didnt feel the need to segment the phones like they are.

that the one S needs to have a qhd screen so that the X will have the 720p one.

why not give the rezound screen to the one S? its 4.3" and it is awesome. this is what happens when you have product managers...

 

[dagamer34]

i wish htc didnt feel the need to segment the phones like they are.

that the one S needs to have a qhd screen so that the X will have the 720p one.

why not give the rezound screen to the one S? its 4.3" and it is awesome. this is what happens when you have product managers...

AMOLED screens reduce the thickness of the phone compared to LCD screens since there's no need for a backlight. But it is disappointing that they went with PenTile qHD, likely some stock left over from last years phones. Kinda wish they went with the WGVA Super AMOLED+ screens Samsung has which are beautiful, but those are all going to their SGS II line right now.

 

[ponyo]

whats wrong with the One S? its a good phone and for people who don't want a monstrous 4.7" phone its pretty well sized. its not flagship quality, but still a high end phone

Nothing. If it doesn't have at least 720p display, I don't care/want it.

 

[Dari]

AMOLED screens reduce the thickness of the phone compared to LCD screens since there's no need for a backlight. But it is disappointing that they went with PenTile qHD, likely some stock left over from last years phones. Kinda wish they went with the WGVA Super AMOLED+ screens Samsung has which are beautiful, but those are all going to their SGS II line right now.

Why do people keep saying those screens are beautiful? They aren't they don't compare to the brightness of a LCD. I prefer more vibrant colors compared to the darkish colors of SAMOLED+ and their yellowish whites. SAMOLED+ is overrated.

 

[kyrax12]

Why do people keep saying those screens are beautiful? They aren't they don't compare to the brightness of a LCD. I prefer more vibrant colors compared to the darkish colors of SAMOLED+ and their yellowish whites. SAMOLED+ is overrated.

I thought the whole point of SAMOLED+ is their vibrant colors.

 

[zerocool84]

I thought the whole point of SAMOLED+ is their vibrant colors.

Their colors are vibrant, most LCD's are undersaturated.

 

[Dari]

I thought the whole point of SAMOLED+ is their vibrant colors.

But they aren't. At least not on the Samsung phones I've seen, most recently the Galaxy not. People say you can make it brighter but I did that and the damn thing was still dark. I was shocked given the praise these screens get.

Their colors are vibrant, most LCD's are undersaturated.

Based on what I've seen LCDs are much more vibrant, especially the SLCDs and those from Sharp. The SAMOLED+ are not vibrant at all.

 

[ilkhan]

Black ATT OneXL vs SGSIII, the damn choice just keep getting harder.

S-LCD is brighter/more-vibrant, the real praise for the SAMOLED comes from the black levels (and thus contrast).

And yeah, if the OneS had a 720p screen, more than 16GB of storage ad/or an mSD slot, and NFC, it'd be just as awesome as the X but in a slimmer smaller package. Without those, fuckit.
(seriously, the S should have been sleek and small(er), the X should have had the mSD slot and removable battery. Its already big enough width and length, an extra 1-2mm of thickness to add both of those shouldn't have been a problem. Let the V handle the cheap phone free and $100 duties, make the S and X $200-300 (32+mSD) as your 3 models.)

 

[kaerflog]

i wish htc didnt feel the need to segment the phones like they are.

that the one S needs to have a qhd screen so that the X will have the 720p one.

why not give the rezound screen to the one S? its 4.3" and it is awesome. this is what happens when you have product managers...

I agree 100%.
Had the One S came with a HD screen, it would have been a no brainer for me.
I like everything about it except for the qHD screen.

 

[Dulanic]

But they aren't. At least not on the Samsung phones I've seen, most recently the Galaxy not. People say you can make it brighter but I did that and the damn thing was still dark. I was shocked given the praise these screens get.


Based on what I've seen LCDs are much more vibrant, especially the SLCDs and those from Sharp. The SAMOLED+ are not vibrant at all.

Dark? Wow I have to turn my brightness to the lowest setting and I still usually use a app to lower it more.

 

[Dari]

Dark? Wow I have to turn my brightness to the lowest setting and I still usually use a app to lower it more.

Based on what I've seen I find that hard to believe...

 

[WelshBloke]

Based on what I've seen I find that hard to believe...

I've used both (SLCD and SAMOLED) and I'd say that SAMOLED was definitely brighter and more vibrant. The SLCD was probably more accurate though. They are both nice but I don't think I'd go back to a SLCD now.

 

[Dari]

I've used both (SLCD and SAMOLED) and I'd say that SAMOLED was definitely brighter and more vibrant. The SLCD was probably more accurate though. They are both nice but I don't think I'd go back to a SLCD now.

I find it strange how different people can have a different opinion on what is and isn't brighter. I don't think it's subjective at all. I've seen both screens. Hell, even my 7 year old PPC6700 is brighter at full brightness compared to the SAMOLED + at full brightness. I've read somewhere that the pixels die on the OLED screens. Perhaps that is why they are dimmer?

 

[Spoooon]

Based on what I've seen I find that hard to believe...

I have the brightness on my Galaxy Nexus at 30%. The only time I adjust that is if I'm outside and it's really bright.

edit: I suppose I'm actually saying that, regardless of the relative brightness, I find it plenty bright for my use. I think the vibrant colors comes from the contrast and lack of being washed out.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I find it strange how different people can have a different opinion on what is and isn't brighter. I don't think it's subjective at all. I've seen both screens. Hell, even my 7 year old PPC6700 is brighter at full brightness compared to the SAMOLED + at full brightness. I've read somewhere that the pixels die on the OLED screens. Perhaps that is why they are dimmer?

Your ancient phone may be brighter than SAMOLED but there is no chance that it has more vibrant colors. I've heard people complain about SAMOLED having to vibrant of colors but I have never heard a single person claim the pistillate before now.

 

[WelshBloke]

I find it strange how different people can have a different opinion on what is and isn't brighter. I don't think it's subjective at all. I've seen both screens. Hell, even my 7 year old PPC6700 is brighter at full brightness compared to the SAMOLED + at full brightness. I've read somewhere that the pixels die on the OLED screens. Perhaps that is why they are dimmer?

I find if I turn up the brightness to full on my SGS2 it can be physically painful to my eyes. I think it's partly to do with the contrast as well as the brightness. If I turn up the SLCD it tends to increase the brightness across the whole screen rather than just the bits that should be brighter. Try both on using white text on a black background to get what I mean.

 

[VashHT]

People should go look at some of the phone reviews Anand has done, most LCD's get a lot brighter than AMOLED, the GS2 is pretty far down the list. With LCD the brightness is mostly due to what kind of backlight they're using though so the panel doesn't really mean much for that.

EDIT: Just too add I've always felt that AMOLED was way over-saturated and it becomes more noticeable as you turn up the brightness. I think some people here are equating that over-saturation to brightness but they're two different things.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

But they aren't. At least not on the Samsung phones I've seen, most recently the Galaxy not. People say you can make it brighter but I did that and the damn thing was still dark. I was shocked given the praise these screens get.


Based on what I've seen LCDs are much more vibrant, especially the SLCDs and those from Sharp. The SAMOLED+ are not vibrant at all.

Its your eyes vs graphs with sensors that calculate the saturation and vibrancy of colors. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the sensors

SAMOLED has a much MUCH greater range of colors it can display at a much higher saturation. People complain about oversaturation, but you can always use a color manager to get it to where you like it

 

[Dari]

Its your eyes vs graphs with sensors that calculate the saturation and vibrancy of colors. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the sensors

SAMOLED has a much MUCH greater range of colors it can display at a much higher saturation. People complain about oversaturation, but you can always use a color manager to get it to where you like it

You trust the sensors and I'll trust my eyes...

 

[NikolaeVarius]

You trust the sensors and I'll trust my eyes...

So you would choose your eyes, which are fallible and can't differentiate brightness from saturation at times,

vs

Anand comparisons using sensors which are fully capable of differentiating the two and show that AMOLED tech has a much much higher range and saturation and at the same time effectively infinite contrast while having a lower brightness because unlike LCD, they can't just shove a flashlight behind the screen.

The lower brightness is probably what you are referring to, but claiming that LCD has better colors and vibrancy than Amoled is lunacy.

 

[micrometers]

I don't really care about the CPU.

The industrial design with the anodized aluminum and the retina-level screen are truly impressive. I wonder though if Android can truly take advantage of these features.

These guys are the apple of the android world.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I don't really care about the CPU.

The industrial design with the anodized aluminum and the retina-level screen are truly impressive. I wonder though if Android can truly take advantage of these features.

These guys are the apple of the android world.

There are plenty of Android Phones out there that already have "retina" displays inclduing the Galaxy Nexus so ICS can clearly take advantage of it.

I'd have to disagree with HTC being the Apple of the Android word though, aside from these devices their products have been pretty underwhelming compared Samsungs. Since the Galaxy S3 will have a quad core Exynos cpu and is rumored to get a 1080p screen to go with it even the One X might seem underwhelming in a few months.

 

[lothar]

I don't really care about the CPU.

The industrial design with the anodized aluminum and the retina-level screen are truly impressive. I wonder though if Android can truly take advantage of these features.

These guys are the apple of the android world.

HTC is the "Apple" of the Android world? Seriously?

 

[dguy6789]

I always felt kind of puzzled when people say things like HTC's recent devices have been pretty bad. Honestly I think the Rezound is waaaaaay better than the Galaxy S2. It's so underrated. I don't understand why it didn't get 100 times the hype it received. First 720P display phone, to date it has the highest pixels per inch of any phone at 342, non pentile, it has a better camera than the iPhone 4S, supports 4G LTE, supports simultaneous voice and data over 3G and 4G on Verizon, removable battery, microSD support, dual core 1.5Ghz Snapdragon S3(it's no Exynos but it's still very fast), comes with a very decent pair of ear buds, HTC has an unlock the boot loader tool that also lets you remove Sense, etc..