• HidingCat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s the differences in the aspect ratio. You cannot compare screen sizes based on the diagonal alone when the aspect ratios are different. A 6.0" 20:9 screen is smaller than a 5.7" 16:9 screen. And in terms of width, the 6.5" 20:9 screen is also less wide than the 5.7" 16:9 screen, which can matter for certain things (like typing).

    Also what’s not helping is the curved screen, I find it takes another few mm off in terms of usable screen area, which makes a screen feel smaller than its stated dimensions.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While I realize that there are people for whom having a camera aimed at themselves is really important, I have to say that I have virtually never used the self-facing camera on a phone.

        Honestly, every videoconference I’ve ever done on a computer for work could have really been done just fine with a audio-only call too.

        I’d be pretty comfortable getting a phone that just drops the self-facing camera. Could just use a USB-attached webcam if I ever ran into a very rare situation where I really critically wanted the ability to videoconference on a phone.

        Now, okay, that’s not true for everyone. For some people’s uses, having a self-facing camera is legitimately important. But at least for my own uses, I’d rather just have the extra pixels.

        • HidingCat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My work needs it every now and then, and due to the nature of it (I’m not office-bound all the time), being able to have it on the phone is useful. I’d rather have a front-facing camera than not.