Apple recently announced that RCS was coming to iMessage in 2024, opening the door to much-improved texting between Android phones and iPhones.

Would you pay for full-fledged iMessage on Android, though? We posed this question to you in a poll a few days ago, and here’s what you told us.

Colleague Rita El-Khoury used the Nothing Phone 2 and came away feeling that monochrome themes aren’t actually boring.

YouTube started testing a three-strikes policy for people using ad blockers earlier this year. The company broadly rolled out this policy late last month, effectively barring viewers from using ad blockers.

That got us wondering what you’ll do now that Google is expanding this policy. We posed this question to readers last week, and here’s what you told us.

YouTube is blocking ad blockers: What will you do?

Results

Almost 2,300 votes were counted in this poll as of writing, and it turns out that a massive 63.1% of respondents say they’ll try ad-blocking methods for as long as they work.

It looks like YouTube isn’t able to adequately block all ad blockers, so we can see why respondents would keep trying different ad-blocking solutions for now.

In second place with 25.7% of the vote were the surveyed readers who said they’d quit YouTube and use an alternative. But there aren’t exactly any major alternatives to YouTube right now, save for the likes of DailyMotion and Vimeo. So I’m personally expecting most of these readers to keep using YouTube in some capacity.

Otherwise, 5.9% of respondents said they’d subscribe to YouTube Premium in the wake of this policy. Finally, 5.28% of surveyed readers said they’d keep watching YouTube for free with ads.

Comments

• Matt Booth: I’ve found another alternative that they can’t detect and still blocks ads. I will not be forced to watch YouTube ads. They were ok to start with but now they’re really egregious and just get in the way.
• christopher woodhead: IF there were only ads at the start of videos then I wouldn’t use Adblock. But when there are ads 2 or 3 times throughout a video then I’m using Adblock.
• Paul: Google have managed to kill every ounce of goodwill I had for them in one fell swoop. I’d like to see the company broken up and I have now taken steps already to start using other companies offerings where possible…. And the adverts which I’ve seen on what I considered to be there within tolerable adverts, I will now start boycotting the advertisers. I don’t do business with people pointing a shotgun at me. They suck, simple as that
• Rashad: If YouTube didn’t have such egregious ads then it wouldn’t necessarily be an issue. The 10 minute ads that can’t be skipped are an issue and the type of ads that are being presented are also an issue. Nothing wrong with a 10 second ad that can’t be skipped or a 30 second ad that can be skipped after a few seconds. The 10 minute unskippable ads and the videos that have multiple ads suck the worst. Also, if I pay for an ad free YouTube I also don’t want to see sponsorship in videos. Just my opinion.
• Mace Moneta: I never used Tiktok until this ad nonsense became egregious. No ads on Tiktok, so I’ll waste some time there. I realized that a lot of what I watched on YouTube were actually ads to begin with (movie trailers, show trailers, product reviews), so putting ads on ads was more than I was willing to tolerate.
• PeteFrmNY: honestly, if you watch a lot of youtube… how did you think that content was able to sustain itself? Ad revenue is the biggest driver of dollars on the platform. I hate ads to I pay for YT Premium. I watch a couple of hours of YT content per day so the value is there for me. I also get YT Music in the subscription price. Is it perfect? No. But if the choice is $15 for spotify and watch ads on YT or $15 for YT Music and no ads in YT, the winner is obvious
• Pfunk: We have the YouTube family plan. Shared with 6 people, it’s reasonable. Plus we share family purchased movies and games. For us, worth it.
• Dave Xcells: There are at least 3 ways to get around it. Nice try YouTube, better luck next time.

Color is one of the first things we notice about a smartphone, way before other factors like performance, cameras, and battery life. But does a phone’s color count as a feature, though?

That’s the question we posed to you last week. There are compelling reasons for and against a phone’s color being a feature, and here’s what you told us.

Is phone color a feature?

Results

Just over 1,200 votes were tallied in this survey, and it turns out that almost 60% of respondents felt that color wasn’t a smartphone feature. A couple of reader comments pointed to phone cases covering up the color as one reason why a phone’s color scheme doesn’t really count as a feature.

Meanwhile, ~27% of surveyed readers said a phone’s color was indeed a feature. At least one reader said color was one factor in their decision to buy a smartphone.

Finally, ~14% of respondents said that it depends on the handset. We can understand this stance, as some phones might only be available in drab colors while models are available in standout color schemes.

Comments

• p3108: A part of the decision making process to upgrade our Pixels was the availability of Hazel and Rose on the 8.
• Farhan Tajuddin: The fact that most people always use a phone case pretty much says it all.
• Jillian Morgan: My biggest issue with colour-as-a-feature is when multiple device variants in a series (the Pixel lineup for example) have their own colour selections. Maybe I want the model B but in colour A, so why do they limit the selection?! Frustrating.
• Cameron Rogers: Don’t almost all of us cover that said color with a phone case anyways? So what’s the point? Alot of phones come with colors that don’t have matching cases. I’m not using my expensive investment without a case just to show off it’s color.

Google recently launched the Pixel 8 phones and we discovered that the long-running Photo Sphere Mode was missing from these devices.

It wasn’t the most important camera mode in the world, but it was still a nifty feature that allowed you to capture 360-degree images. That got us wondering whether readers will miss this feature. We posted a poll to find out.

Will you miss Photo Sphere Mode?

Results

Almost 2,400 votes were counted in this poll, and the winner? Well, 42.9% of respondents said they will miss Photo Sphere even though they only used it now and again.

Photo Sphere wasn’t quite as handy and seamless as something like Night Sight, but it was still practical in a few scenarios. This was pretty useful for capturing 360-degree images to upload to Google Maps, as well as for viewing on a VR headset.

Meanwhile, 27.33% of polled readers said they would miss the mode and that they used it a lot. In other words, roughly 70% of respondents said they’ll miss Photo Sphere regardless of how often they use it.

Otherwise, 24.09% of surveyed readers said they won’t miss this camera mode and that they never used it. Finally, 5.68% of polled readers said they won’t miss Photo Sphere but that they don’t have a Pixel.

Comments

• roaduardo: Funny how they continue to quietly drop features and apps like this. Makes it hard to trust that 7 year update stuff.
• Robert Pearson: Ngl, I actually love this feature. I even use it for panoramas on the 4a since the photosphere quality is still better (even if only some spots are taken. Sad they got rid of it for the new lineup :(
• mike smith: My gut feeling is that they’ve got some AI version that wasn’t quite ready for showtime.
• Mike Noel: I made a few myself but then quickly forgot I’d made them, so not much of a loss for me.
• Joe Carroll: If it got used once a year, I’d be surprised…so while it’s “cool”, it’s not that useful for most people. Not surprised they removed it, but if I had been a heavy user I’d be miffed.
• Ronald: I don’t care. I never use photosphere

The Google Pixel 8 series has arrived, and we recently discovered that the phones lacked hardware-accelerated ray-tracing. This discovery came after our earlier leak pointed to ray-tracing support.

That got us wondering whether readers actually cared about this missing feature. We posted a poll to find out, and here’s what you told us.

Do you care if the Pixel 8 series lacks ray tracing support?

Results

Just over 1,300 votes were counted, and a resounding 76.56% of respondents said they didn’t care about the Pixel 8 series lacking ray tracing support.

It’s not hard to see why many polled readers don’t care about ray tracing on Google’s newest phones. There are very few games that actually support this feature, to begin with. Smartphone screens are pretty small too, so you might not notice these graphical effects anyway.

Meanwhile, ~12% of respondents said they do care but that it’s “not a big deal.” We can understand this position as there is a lack of supported games right now but rival chipsets all support the feature.

Just 5.84% of polled readers said they “care a lot” about the Pixel 8 phones lacking ray tracing capabilities. We’re guessing these readers want ray-tracing support as it’s the latest flagship trend. It’s also possible that these readers want this tech as a form of future-proofing. Google is promising seven years of system updates, after all, so it’s possible ray tracing could be commonplace on mobile games in the Pixel 8’s lifetime.

Finally, 5.61% of respondents said they weren’t sure if they cared about the Pixel 8 phones missing out on ray tracing support.

Comments

• Kiabeta: Why would I EVER need my phone to have Ray Tracing? Seems completely pointless.
• MJ: When I build my new desktop system next year I will care about ray tracing but not on my phone which just do some casual gaming on.
• Maxis: Are RT processors even useful on Android? The vast majority of Android phones do not support it so very few users will actually use games with RT. Why then would developers spend time and money for something that no one will use? As usual, they will do it for iOS now that the newest Pro iPhones all have RT. For Android it will take a couple more years before it becomes common in games.
• Kent Seaton: When it comes to RT support… when would it be used outside of games? Even then, what games would offer RT support? Are we looking at 1% of 1% of 1% type of supported feature? Maybe in a couple years, but then will AI surpass the usefulness of RT? It seems likely to happen.

Google launched the Pixel 8 series phones last week, and we’re seeing price hikes across the board. The US is seeing a $100 price hike for both phones, taking them to $699 and $999 respectively.

However, it turns out that consumers in the likes of Europe and India are seeing steeper increases. Do readers think the phones are overpriced, though? We asked this question last week and here’s how you answered it.

Are the Pixel 8 and 8 Pro overpriced?

Results

Over 1,200 votes were counted in this poll, and the most popular pick was “Yes, I live outside the US,” accounting for 48.42% of the vote. This isn’t a total surprise as several locales see much bigger price increases than the US.

In the UK, the Pixel 8 range is £100 and £150 more expensive than the Pixel 7 series, starting at £699 and £999. Meanwhile, Europeans will pay €799 and €1,099 for the Pixel 8 series — €150 and €200 more expensive than the Pixel 7 line. India also sees a notable price increase for the Pixel 8 range.

It's no surprise to see many non-US readers think the Pixel 8 phones are overpriced.

The second most popular pick was “No,” as 21.97% of respondents felt the Pixel 8 phones weren’t overpriced. You are indeed getting a decent number of features for the price, while the phones still compare favorably to phones from big-name rivals Apple and Samsung.

Meanwhile, 17.16% of polled readers said they were in the US and felt the Pixel 8 phones were indeed overpriced. We can see why some people would vote this way as last year’s phones set a high bar as far as pricing was concerned. So the higher Pixel 8 price is still notable.

Finally, 12.44% of surveyed readers said the phones were “maybe” overpriced. We’re guessing some of these readers are waiting for reviews or want to go hands-on with actual devices before making a decision.

Comments

• Michael Schaap: The € 200 price increase was definitely a reason for me to skip the 8 Pro… Until I saw the preorder deal. A Pixel 8 Pro and a Pixel Watch 2 for € 1099, that’s something I can live with.
• Boris: Google could give the phones out for free, they would still make money out of it for reselling your data.
• rrnyc1: It’s not so much the price increase, but what you get for the money and the insulting trade-in offers. I find the pixels to have very poor value. I’m good with my S23 Ultra. I gave up on pixels a few years ago. I realized I was paying for software not hardware with all those “exclusive” features which eventually, make their way to other phones,
• thinkGadgets.me: In India, shock in even bigger. Pixel 7 was launched for INR 59999 and Pixel 8 is launched at 75999 which is ~26% increase. Pixel 7 Pro was launched for INR 84999 and Pixel 8 Pro is launched at 106999 which is ~25% increase. People are not going to buy Pixel 8 Pro in front of iPhone 15 series. Pixels do not have similar brand value in India as iPhones have.

The Google Pixel Watch is certainly one of the better Wear OS watches out there, but it has one glaring hardware issue. The smartwatch can’t actually be repaired, leaving you in the lurch or forcing you to buy a new watch.

Colleague Adamya Sharma felt that nobody should buy the Pixel Watch 2 unless it can be repaired. We posted a poll in the article to find out whether you’d buy a smartwatch that couldn’t be fixed. Here’s how you answered that question.

Would you buy a smartwatch if you knew it can’t be repaired?

Results

This was a popular poll, with over 3,300 votes counted as of writing. The single most popular pick? Well, it turns out that ~41% of respondents said they wouldn’t buy a smartwatch if it couldn’t be repaired. Instead, these users would look at other brands.

We can see why this was the number one choice, as smartwatches tend to be used for physical activities. So the watch will be more exposed to knocks, bumps, and the elements. Even if you don’t use your watch for activity tracking, a repairable watch would still make life easier in the event of a defect or accidental damage.

Otherwise, ~26% of polled readers said they’d maybe buy a smartwatch if it couldn’t be repaired. We’re guessing that overall durability, the availability of covers, and the feature set would be determining factors here.

Meanwhile, ~24.5% of respondents said they’d still buy a watch if it couldn’t be repaired. Finally, almost 9% of polled readers said they don’t buy smartwatches to begin with.

When we look at these results from another perspective, roughly 50% of respondents said they’d either buy a watch that can’t be repaired or would think about it. Inversely, roughly two-thirds said they wouldn’t buy a watch that couldn’t be repaired or would have to think about it first.

Comments

• Gregor Smith: What are you people doing to your watches? I’ve had mine for almost a year, never worn a case or any protective thing over it, and it’s never received so much as a scratch despite banging into door frames and table edges
• Johne-bike: My Daughter has a Samsung Galaxy Active Watch 2 and came home from school having removed her watch, someone trod on it and the back glass was broken. A replacement Original OEM Back glass was purchased online for peanuts, complete with a new sticker seal and was replaced in minutes at home very easily.
• Chad T. Keogh: I was planning on buying a protective watch band anyway. Plus, even if it was repairable, the cost to repair might outweigh just replacing it with the latest model. Cell phones and smart watches are basically disposable on a 1-2 year cycle anyway it seems.
• Kontrary: If you’re that worried about it you can buy a Spigen Rugged Armor Pro for about $15. But you’d likely need to have a rather rugged lifestyle. It does, unfortunately, totally change the appearance of the watch because it encases the watch. My bigger concern for these watches is the band breaking at the connection point. I don’t think that’s all that likely with the standard Google brand bands, as opposed to aftermarket bands, or the Samsung Watch 5, but it is something to be concerned about. I doubt any insurance covers a watch being lost due to a band breaking.

Google is expected to launch the Pixel Watch 2 this week, and colleague Rita El-Khoury noted that she’s “genuinely excited” about Wear OS for the first time in years.

We wanted to know what you thought about the smartwatch platform’s prospects. Did you still have hope for Wear OS? We posted a poll inside our article and here’s how you answered it.

Do you still have hope for Wear OS?

Results

Over 2,600 votes were counted in this poll, and it turns out that a massive 85% of respondents said they still have hope for Wear OS. We’re guessing that Google’s own foray into wearables along with rejuvenated Wear OS software are the main reasons for this optimism.

Meanwhile, just 8% of polled readers said they didn’t have any hope for Google’s smartwatch platform. We can understand the skepticism as the platform has been a thing for over a decade now but the Apple Watch still rules the roost.

Finally, 7% of surveyed readers said “it depends” when asked if they still had hope for Wear OS. Reader comments suggest that Wear OS still has room for improvement.

Comments

Rafa Cabrera: WearOS and WatchOS need to be reviewed because a smartwatch is not a mini smartphone, we don’t need a calculator, we need health apps and app monitoring as well as resources for things that are better to do on a smartwatch than on a smartphone.

Low SK: One issue I notice is that not everyone needs advanced health function in a watch. My wife uses a LTE watch to keep connected and listen to music on her spec as she went out for stuff like grocery shopping and fetch the kids. She also can review task and schedule on her watch. She can also make payment and open map if needed on the watch. The problem is that LTE watches with Whatsapp support are very limited and some like google watch has almost 0 support in most asian countries. Apple watches are selling well because of the lifestyle they support and not health app that every review is about.

Marty: The Pixel Watch beats the Apple watch for health related info and it beats the Galaxy Watch for smoothness and speed.

jdrch: In fairness to Google, the biggest reason Wear OS stagnated was Qualcomm wearable SoC was ancient and they were unwilling to update it. This condemned all Wear OS watches to being slow, laggy messes. Samsung’s difference is they have their own SoC in Exynos, that allowed them to make performant wearables.

Google Nest device owners have long had the ability to organize their speakers and smart displays into multiple speaker groups. Unfortunately, Google recently removed the ability to add a Nest device to multiple groups as a result of a legal decision (presumably involving Sonos).

That got us wondering whether you used speaker groups in the first place. We posed this question as a poll in our news article last week and here’s what you told us.

Do you use speaker groups on your Nest devices?

Results

This was a popular poll, as almost 5,500 votes were tallied as of writing. It turns out that 60.9% of respondents have several groups for their Nest speakers. We’re sure that the article attracted plenty of people who use multiple speaker groups and who were alarmed by Google’s changes. Nevertheless, it’s still interesting to see how many people use several speaker groups as part of their smart home setup.

Otherwise, 17.1% of respondents use one Nest speaker group, while 16.4% of surveyed readers said they simply didn’t use speaker groups. We’re guessing that both of these camps only have a few Nest devices in their household, reducing the need for multiple speaker groups in the first place.

Finally, 5.5% of polled readers said they didn’t have a Nest device in the first place. Presumably these respondents either don’t have smart speakers or displays or use products from other manufacturers.

Comments

• Loki: Speaker groups haven’t worked properly for me for more than a year now. I gave up on them.
• roaduardo: Difficult to invest in Google products because you expect issues like this to always come up. Either they’re in some legal trouble or they just give up on a project and abandon it.
• markinapub: I guess you could get round this by just using the Home app to add the speakers you want to be playing once you’ve started the music. But it seems a rather petty legal decision.
• Wolfie: Think my speakers are older so no issue I guess but kinda annoying. I have every room as a group and then I have every single speaker in a group called “home” in case I want everything to play
• Tizio: I detest Sonos so much. I left them before Google home was a thing because they hadn’t innovated in years. Then instead of doing anything worthwhile to make their own products relevant again, they spend all their time making everyone else worse.

Most smartphone models on the market lack expandable storage and removable batteries, but the Fairphone 5 notably bucks this trend.

Senior Features Editor Rita El-Khoury recently tried out the Fairphone 5 and realized that she missed microSD expansion and a removable battery in a smartphone. Do you feel the same way, though? We posted a poll inside our opinion article, and here’s what you told us.

Do you miss removable batteries and expandable storage?

Results

A little over 1,200 votes were counted in this poll, and a massive 75.6% of respondents said they indeed missed removable batteries and microSD slots in smartphones. Loads of readers seemed to share this sentiment in the comments too.

Meanwhile, 8.9% of surveyed readers said they only missed expandable storage. This was closely followed by 8% of respondents who only missed removable batteries in their phones.

Otherwise, 3.1% of polled readers said they’d made peace with these features being absent, 2.4% said their smartphone still had both features, and 2% said they never really needed them.

Comments

• Phonecard Mike: I miss both – removeable battery and micro SD slot. I own a Samsung Note 20 Ultra and it has the micro SD slot. I don’t understand why Samsung continues to market micro SD cards and omits the slot in their top tier phones. Sony Xperia 1 IV and V models have the slot.
• veesonic: Yes, I miss both I blame Apple for removing them, other manufacturers saw that they can get away with it and copied Last phone I owned with both was the LG V20. Nothing like going from 0% to 100% in seconds with a spare battery!
• south london teccy: I’d like both removable battery and sd card back! Getting rid of both is just a con to force you onto web based storage solutions and\or force you to buy the more expensive 256gb+ models. What’s the point of increasing photo\video capabilities, and a baseline storage 128gb storage? It’s outrageous!!!
• Tiuri Elvander: My current phone is the Galaxy S20 FE (the first Samsung with a Snapdragon in the EU) , which still has the SD card and I am having trouble deciding what to replace it with. I really want a phone with an SD card slot. There’s the Sony Xperia 5V and the Xperia 1V but they only get 2 years of updates, which is terrible (especially given the price of the 1V). I don’t know other flagship phones that still have the SD card slot.
• Farhan Tajuddin: My last phone with removable battery was the Samsung Galaxy Note 4. I always love removable batteries for the fact that I can easily swap a depleted battery and put in a fully-charged ones in literal seconds without having to wait for the phone to get fully charged up. You can always use a battery charging adapter to charger the depleted battery to full capacity. As for microSD card slot, only Sony has the common sense to keep it on their phones in 2023. Previously, we had LG to choose as well. But since LG’s exit from the smartphone market, my eyes are keep looking at Sony more and more as my next new phone.
• Aravind Dnivara: I don’t use both of the options. But I would always prefer both to be present in the phone. No need to use subscription services to upload photos/videos in the cloud.
• Dummy Up Meathead: Just don’t see it. Everything is in the cloud for me. Don’t care about storage. Can ALWAYS use more battery life, but I do just fine without.

The Google Pixel 8 series is less than a month away from launching, but rumored European prices suggest a huge price hike is on the cards. The standard Pixel 8 could start at €874.25 (up from €649) while the Pixel 8 Pro could set you back €1,235 (up from €849).

We posted a poll early this month, asking you whether you’d still buy the Pixel 8 series if these price hikes were accurate. Well, here are the results.

Would you still buy a Pixel 8 phone if it’s this expensive?

Results

Over 3,200 votes were counted in this poll, and it turns out that a massive 71.7% of respondents won’t buy the Pixel 8 phones if these price increases are accurate.

That’s not a surprise as these hikes would be massive leaps over the competitively priced Pixel 7 range. You also have to imagine that shortcomings like the underpowered and hot Tensor chips are easier to overlook when you’re paying a cheaper price in the first place.

The vast majority of polled readers say they won't buy a Pixel 8 series phone if rumored European prices are accurate.

Meanwhile, 12.5% of surveyed readers say they’d “maybe” buy a Pixel 8 series handset in light of these rumored price increases. Rounding out the top three was “I wasn’t even planning on buying a Pixel,” accounting for 9.3% of the vote.

Finally, only 6.5% of respondents said they’d still buy a Pixel 8 series handset in the event this price hike turns out to be true. These people presumably feel that the Pixel software, camera experience, and update pledge are worth the premium.

It’s worth noting that an earlier leak pointed to a price hike of $50 to $100 (at least for the US). Roughly half of all polled Android Authority readers said they’d still buy the Pixel 8 series for $50 extra in a survey posted earlier this year. Just under a quarter said they’d buy the phones if they were $100 more expensive. So many people aren’t opposed to a more modest price increase.

Comments

• Bikram: If the phone releases with such prices in USA and still sells like P7 series did… I have no hope for humankind. (A little hyperbole, but you get a drift.) Corpos will get another solid proof that they can do whatever they want and consumerism addicted people will still throw money at them.
• Marty: Wow…those prices are gonna leave a lot of people out. With the US economy in ruins, people won’t have spare money to afford such high prices
• Beardednomad: The only way I would pay that much for a Pixel is if it came with a Qualcomm chip and actual 2023 level fast charging.
• berto1014: My P6P is running strong nearly 2 full years later. I am considering an upgrade this year, but certainly not at the full price. I will happily wait until the price has dropped back to reality and pick it up then. But yeah, I’ll run this P6P until it dies if I have to.
• Ben: To me the price does not matter what matters is the upgrade cost. Last year Best buy gave me the pixel 7 with a pixel 6 trade in for only $20 plus tax on $20 so $22. Best buy give me $580 towards the pixel 7. And Best buy is one of the only companies I know that discounts the taxes on the trade-in value. If I only have to pay around $100 this year I would do it since it’s a bigger main camera sensor. Hopefully better chip and also apparently ultrasonic fingerprint. All those things are definitely worth more than the upgrade from the 6-7 was.
• Geoffrey Morrow: I’ve had every Google phone since the Nexus 5 (yes, I know they’re not the best phones, but I like them)… if these prices are correct, it’ll be a very, very hard pass from me. If Google peeps are reading this, those numbers better be a typo because nobody is going to be attending the Pixel 8 party at those door prices.
• Mike: I will buy whatever is cheaper this year either the iphone 15 plus or the pixel 8 pro.
• RH: LOL, if Google does this, I’ll stick with my 7 pro a while, until they find out they aren’t selling, then drop the price. I upgraded from the 6 to the 7 because it was only 200 bucks, but that much of an increase, unless they pay ME move for my 7 pro? Forget it.

We’ve seen some feature-packed Android tablets in the last few years, but the truth is that virtually all of them have been larger slates. Instead, it seems like we’re seeing fewer and fewer small Android tablets, let alone mid-range or premium-tier small Android tabs.

We posted a poll last week asking you whether you missed small Android tablets. Well, the results are in, and here’s how you voted.

Do you miss small Android tablets?

Results

Almost 2,000 votes were counted in this poll, and a clear majority of respondents (60.73%) said they did indeed miss small Android tablets.

Many reader comments praised the Google Nexus 7 as the perfect small tablet, with some readers calling on Google to release a successor.

On the other hand, 26.2% of polled readers said they didn’t miss small Android tablets. At least one reader felt that even a 10-inch tablet wasn’t big enough for them, so we’re guessing at least some people who voted this way share the same opinion.

Finally, 13.07% of respondents said they missed small Android tablets “a little.” This suggests that some users have either moved on to larger slates or simply don’t use tablets anymore.

Comments

• veesonic: Nexus 7 was such a great device, would love something like that again. Although to the point of the article, phone screens are large enough these days to not need that screen size.
• Max Chan: I did not buy any more android tablet since i lost my nexus 7 in the plane, although now i am planning to buy the new pixel tablet, it just because there are no choice for the small screen for these days.
• Rac3r4Life: As much as I loved my Nexus 7, no I don’t miss it. Back then phones were a lot smaller. Now most phones have screens that aren’t that far off the size of the Nexus 7, so I find small android tablets are pretty redundant.
• Chris Laarman: Funny: I consider my 10″ tablets to be on the small side. I would have loved 13″ Android tablets opposite my large iPad Pros.
• waltwright: I loved my old Nexus 7. Right now I’m considering getting a Lenovo Legion Y700 (2023 model) even though it’s currently only released in China. Bring it to the US market, Lenovo!!
• Shiva: I loved my Nexus 7 and enjoyed rooting it and keeping it updated with the latest version of Android! Only thing I missed was Expandable Storage! I finally got a Nokia T10 8″ tablet 512gb and it has Expandable Storage up to 1TB
• ffoxD: i miss small phones. and i miss small tablets. and i miss small computers.
• Steve J: Still use my Nexus 7 2013 daily. It’s ideal for reading the news & YouTube etc. It’s screen is vastly superior to any current 7″ tablet Fire 7″ etc. It has about two years left of Play Store support running Android 6. Hopefully something similar will come along before then.
• JSo: I’ve owned 4 tablets. All 10 inch. So, I think that answers the question. I feel I would just use my phone more if I had a smaller tablet.
• eszklar: Google should consider bringing back a modern-day equivalent of the 2013 Nexus 7, a great small tablet.
• Resuna: Small tablets have *never* been taken seriously, but now with non-mainstream and regional options like the Legion Y700 putting 8-16GB of RAM into 8″ tablets maybe we’ll see Samsung and Google wake up to the market gap. Small tablets are not just for kids. Even Apple’s iPad mini is kind of anemic. 4GB RAM should be considered “adequate entry level” not “premium”.

Qualcomm announced three new Snapdragon chips for gaming handhelds a couple of weeks ago, but an executive reportedly confirmed that it was testing its handheld chips with a translation layer to play Windows games.

The executive also claimed that the company was working on “stuff” that wasn’t Android and not necessarily Windows. Taken together, this strongly suggests that Qualcomm is laying the foundation for a Snapdragon-powered handheld capable of playing Windows games.

That got us wondering whether readers were interested in buying a Snapdragon-powered handheld that could play PC games. We posted a poll and here are the results.

Would you buy a Snapdragon handheld if it ran PC games?

Results

Almost 900 votes were counted in this survey, and 50.4% of respondents said they’d “maybe” buy a Snapdragon handheld that plays PC games if performance was solid.

We can see why people would be open to this, especially as PC-based gaming handhelds like the Steam Deck and ASUS Rog Ally pick up steam (heh). But PC gaming performance is still a big question mark with Snapdragon chips, especially after seeing how Snapdragon-based laptops handled x64 apps and games. So we understand if respondents are intrigued but have reservations.

Meanwhile, 41.1% of surveyed readers said they’d “for sure” buy a Snapdragon-powered handheld that played PC games. This suggests that some users aren’t necessarily looking for a AAA experience when it comes to performance and are happy to run less demanding PC games.

Finally, 8.51% of respondents said they wouldn’t buy a Snapdragon handheld that played PC titles. Presumably, these polled readers prefer something like a Steam Deck, desktop PC, mobile device, or console when it comes to gaming. Or they simply don’t care about gaming in the first place.

Fitness trackers and smartwatches can accumulate some nasty bacteria, as a recent study found. Needless to say, this study therefore revealed the importance of regularly cleaning your wearable.

The saga got us wondering whether readers cleaned their wearables after a workout. We posed this question to you in a standalone poll article last week, and here’s how you answered it.

Do you clean your wearable after a workout?

Results

This was one of our more divisive polls in recent months, although there was a winner. Just under 39% of surveyed readers said they indeed cleaned their wearables after a workout.

In second place, with almost 35% of the vote, was “No, I don’t.” Yep, over a third of respondents said they didn’t wash their wearables after exercising. Finally, 26.62% of surveyed readers said they sometimes cleaned their wearables after a workout.

It was also interesting to note that a couple of readers noted in the comments that they wore their wearables in the shower. That technically counts as cleaning it after a workout, I guess.

Comments

• Tziona Greenberg: I never even thought of cleaning my Fitbit Sense 2 after my workout. I think I will start doing that.
• gwine: Not directly, but I wear it into ths shower after a workout.
• Konrad Uroda-Darłak: Everyday during shower, not online after workout. It’s obvious for me, especially now (summer, hot temperatures).
• Callum: I don’t clean my watch after each workout, but I do make sure to thoroughly clean it at least once a week.
• EeZeEpEe: I clean my phone and watch at least once a day. Both things, get nasty pretty quickly. Even before I had a smartwatch, I cleaned my watches. Probably just good habits being that I work in a hospital.
• Byorself: How about a separate poll that might have a connection to this poll or not. The poll would ask- “Do you wash your hands after using the public restroom? 1-Always, 2-Sometimes, 3-Never.” My anecdotal observations about other users is often answer #3.

It feels like just the other day when we saw the first phones with 48MP cameras hit the market, but the smartphone industry has firmly embraced these ultra-high-resolution camera sensors. Nowadays, it’s not unheard of to find 48MP, 50MP, 64MP, 108MP, or even 200MP cameras on smartphones.

Have these 48MP+ smartphone cameras lived up to the hype, though? That’s the question we posed to you in a standalone poll article last week, and here’s what you said.

Have ultra-high-resolution cameras lived up to the hype?

Results

We posed this question earlier this month, and just over 1,100 votes were counted to date. It turns out that a massive 73.8% of respondents think ultra-high-resolution smartphone cameras haven’t lived up to the hype.

We can understand why some people might vote this way. After all, all high-resolution smartphone cameras shoot at a much lower resolution by default. That’s because many of these cameras have small sensors and tiny pixels, resulting in noisy full-resolution snaps. So these smartphones instead use a technique called pixel-binning to produce a much lower-resolution shot that’s cleaner and brighter than the full-resolution snap. In other words, your phone’s high-resolution camera works best at a much lower resolution.

Meanwhile, 26.18% of polled readers said high-resolution smartphone cameras have indeed lived up to the hype. For what it’s worth, phones like the Galaxy S23 Ultra indeed offer excellent detail when shooting at 200MP in ideal conditions. We’ve also seen several smartphones with 50MP one-inch cameras in 2023, and these sensors can deliver good results at full resolution too.

Xiaomi launched the Mix Fold 3 in China earlier this month, bringing some impressive specs and a slick design. Unfortunately, the phone is restricted to China and won’t see a global release.

We posted a poll inside our announcement article, asking you for your thoughts on the Mix Fold 3. Here’s what you thought of Xiaomi’s new foldable phone.

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3: Hot or not?

Results

Just over 1,000 votes were tallied in this poll, and it’s clear that the vast majority of respondents (85.54%) think the Mix Fold 3 is hot. We can understand why, as the phone offers a thin design (for a foldable), a powerful processor, and a large battery with fast wired/wireless charging. It’s also worth noting that the Mix Fold 3 brings a periscope camera, which is still a rarity on foldable phones.

Meanwhile, 14.46% of polled readers felt that the device wasn’t hot. We’re guessing that factors like limited availability, the lack of an IP rating, and Xiaomi’s MIUI skin influenced these respondents.

Nevertheless, between the Google Pixel Fold, HONOR Magic V series, and the upcoming OnePlus Open, we’ve got a growing variety of large foldable phones in 2023.

The first USB-C products were launched back in 2015, and we’ve seen many manufacturers across various product segments switch to the standard. From smartphones and tablets to power banks and smart home devices, there really is no shortage of gadgets with the port.

Senior Features Editor Rita El-Khoury recently noted that USB-C wasn’t perfect, but that it still made her digital life easier. She added that all her gadgets now charge via the port. We wondered how many readers had completely switched to USB-C as well, posting a poll inside our opinion piece. Here’s how you answered it.

Have you USB-C’ified your digital life or not yet?

Results

Over 2.200 votes were tallied in this poll, and it turns out that 63.31% of respondents said they were “mostly there” when it came to switching their devices and accessories to USB-C. I can totally understand this choice, as I still have a few micro-USB-toting gadgets that otherwise work fine (e.g. a power bank and rechargeable lights), so why toss them just because they use an older charging standard?

Meanwhile, 24.97% of surveyed readers say they’ve completely switched to USB-C. At least one reader noted in the comments that they wouldn’t buy any new tech unless it supports USB-C. It’s easy to see why, as having one charging port to rule them all is very convenient (even if charging standards can vary wildly).

Rounding out the top three was “Not yet, I have USB-C, micro-USB, Lightning, and more,” accounting for 11% of the vote. Finally, less than 1% of respondents said they didn’t have any USB-C gadgets just yet.

Comments

• Beardednomad: I won’t buy any new tech unless it supports USB-C. I travel a lot for work and I definitely don’t miss the days of having to pack 3-4 different chargers. The worst was the proprietary laptop chargers, if I ever forgot to pack that one it was always “fun” trying to find a tech store that sold one that would fit.
• eszklar: Rita: Dat USB-C charging puck for your Pixel/Apple Watch: who makes that? Also: I just bought an Anker Poweline II 3-in-one charger cable with Lightening, USB-C and micro-USB tips because I have all kinds of stuff and haven’t attained USB-C Nirvana – yet.
• Carl Thomas: My mouse is the last major outlier – I have the MX Master which used microUSB; upgrading it in the next 2 weeks though so I picked “yes” in the vote. I’m able to take one charger with me on trips, for my phone, my tablet, and my laptop. Soon, the same cable will be able to charge my fiancees iPhone if the USBC rumors are true.

It seems like just the other day when the best Android phones offered 32GB of internal storage, but the industry has upped the ante in a big way over the years. Now, we’ve seen some flagship devices launching with 256GB of base storage.

Unfortunately, the latest Pixel 8 leaks suggest that the Pixel 8 Pro will stick with 128GB of base storage. Senior Features Editor Rob Triggs bemoaned this decision last week, saying that 128GB wasn’t enough for Google’s Pro model in particular. But do you think this is sufficient storage for a flagship device? We included a poll in our opinion piece, and here’s how you answered it.

Is 128GB of storage enough for a flagship?

Results

More than 1,100 votes were tallied in this survey, and it turns out that over two-thirds of respondents (68.68%) felt that 128GB of storage wasn’t enough for a flagship phone. We can understand this stance, as videos, photos, and games can quickly clog up your storage. In fact, it’s not unheard of to find games that are over 20GB on mobile (e.g. Genshin Impact). 128GB of base storage is particularly disappointing when you’re paying over $800 for a phone.

On the other end of the spectrum, 31.32% of surveyed readers felt that 128GB of storage was sufficient on a flagship phone. These readers were vocal in the comments, with some noting that they made extensive use of cloud storage to reduce the need for more local storage.

Either way, we’re seeing brands like OPPO, Samsung, and Sony offering 256GB of base storage on some of their flagship phones. So we hope this continues to be a trend in 2024.

Comments

• Yukinoshita: I’ve never used up all 128 on my 6 or 7 pro… Heck I think I’ll be fine with 64!
• EdZ: Make effective use of your clouds and limit your phone storage on photographs and videos. 128 is fine. Storing so much data in any device should not be necessary. “If your device gets steamrollered, have you lost anything? If so, learn clouds.”
• Rob A.: I thought by default photos are stored in the cloud via Google Photos??? I have a 7 Pro and and only use about half of my 128 GB of storage. I don’t take tons of pictures but I do certainly make use of the camera. I’d rather see an SD card slot than on-board storage, if anything.
• fearlessferret: It would have been plenty if it had MicroSD. I know that they know that, though.
• Nope!: I’m one of those light users. 128GB has been enough for me since 2017 however I’ll be looking for a higher storage capacity for my next upgrade. Apps, photos and video files aren’t getting any smaller.
• Cory Wilson: I’m using a 128gb pixel 7 pro now and have 40gb free. It’s called Google One cloud storage
• PhoenixWitti: There is nothing “Pro” about a Pixel phone. The moniker is Google’s way of trying to pretend they’re the equal of Samsung and Apple. It’s not the paltry storage on a Pixel that’s the problem; it’s the inflated prices people pay for decidedly amateurish Google products. Just look at the Pixel Fold abomination for $1800. The “Pro” Pixel should be no more than $600.

Google’s Chromecast and the Cast protocol recently celebrated their tenth anniversary, and these are technologies that we practically take for granted today.

The dongle effectively gave basic TVs access to streaming video content and more, while the Cast protocol was what made the magic work. We looked back at the tech late last month, while also asking you whether you still used a Chromecast. Here’s what you told us.

Do you still use a Chromecast?

Results

This was quite a popular poll, as over 2,600 votes were cast. It turns out that a massive 81.2% of respondents indeed still use the Chromecast.

We’re not sure if all these respondents were referring to the basic Chromecast hardware, but we’re guessing that some of them were referring to the Chromecast with Google TV line and/or Cast capabilities in general.

Nevertheless, just 18.8% of surveyed readers said they’re not using a Chromecast. We’re guessing that the prevalence of smart TVs and streaming boxes has significantly reduced the need for both a Chromecast and Cast functionality. I can’t speak for everyone, but I still use Cast capabilities today as some streaming services simply don’t have Android TV apps.

Comments

• Phlebas: I think one of the main benefits of Chromecast and it’s cheap dongle competitors is the ability to extend the life of expensive smart TVs after the television manufacturers drop support for the inbuilt streaming apps. I recently lent my Chromecast to a friend whose eight year old television has become progressively dumber over the last year. He was on the verge of buying a new TV but instead has bought, and is happy with, the latest version of Chromecast.
• Beardednomad: I loved the Chromecast…until I got a Fire Stick and realized just how much more versatile it was. I do love the new Chromecast with Google TV though.
• Montisaquadeis: I have had a crap experience whenever I have tried to use a “chromecast” at all over the past decade. The “remote” will forget its casting and lose all control over what’s playing and what’s playing will be a stuttering mess as well so it’s unusable for me personally
• Patrick: This echoes my experiences with Chromecast. What used to be the backbone of my media setup is now only used to cast the odd app that doesn’t have a counterpart on my smart TV. The entire Home media ecosystem is in shambles.
• Shizuma: I cast frequently, not specifically only to Chromecasts, but in general to Nest speakers and Nvidia Shield TV, though I do still have 3 actively used actual Chromecasts, a regular Chromecast, a Chromecast with Google TV, and my most used one, Chromecast audio. I will say though in general having a Chromecast feature on a streaming box with a UI and remote like the Nvidia Shield is vastly better than the plain Chromecasts from the past, though I do wish they would bring back the Chromecast audio, to me that’s the most useful one and the one I wish I bought more of before the were discontinued.
• Charles Bright: Smart TVs pretty much killed chrome casts.
• Ricky Cash: I refuse to accept the Chromecast with Google TV being a Chromecast. It’s no more a Chromecast than the Nvidia Shield or Onn 2023 is. Chromecast is dead. Long live Chromecast.
• ikjadoon: I would’ve loved Chromecast Audio, but that basically died. Casting got so buggy or slow, so the sleekness was gone. Never had a good queuing system for family / party events. Tech reliability is like that: once something is not working 1 out of 10 times, it feels much less reliable than the numbers show. I still see a few them used in digital displays at offices or rental spaces, but otherwise, they’re just a few steps before e-waste. I do keep them around, though, in case I find a use.

Today’s smartphones offer much-improved camera zoom quality compared to devices from a decade ago. That’s in large part due to the introduction of telephoto cameras, periscope shooters, new and improved processing techniques, and high-resolution sensors.

Senior Features Editor Rita El-Khoury recently suggested that people use 2x zoom more often. We also asked you which zoom level you used the most, and here’s how you answered that poll.

Which zoom level do you use most on your phone?

Results

This proved to be a popular poll, as over 3,500 votes were counted. The most popular choice? Well, 55.2% of respondents said they mostly stuck to the default 1x zoom level when using their smartphone camera.

This makes complete sense as the primary camera is usually the best camera on your smartphone and it works best at 1x. Plus, shooting at this zoom factor gives you some headroom to crop into the image afterward.

Otherwise, 36.1% of surveyed readers say they mostly use 2x or 3x zoom. Of course, Rita noted that 2x allows for better framing, but it also allows you to get a closer shot of a subject without physically moving closer. Many phones today also offer great image quality at 2x without a dedicated short-range telephoto camera, using super-resolution, multi-frame image processing, and/or image cropping from a high-resolution sensor.

We see a sharp drop-off after 2x to 3x though, as just 5.7% of respondents say they take photos at 4x or higher. That’s understandable as only the best camera phones, which tend to have a tele camera, still have good image quality beyond 3x. Finally, just 2.96% of surveyed readers noted that they didn’t take photos with their phones in the first place.

Comments

• Marco Studenski: I do agree with this, and there are definitely times when I am switching to 2x to take a better photo. But since my 2x is digital crop, I’m also usually just fine with improving the framing of a 1x shot after it’s taken. Most of the time, my 7 Pro is taking fine enough of a shot that cropping a 1x looks the same as 2x with super zoom activated.
• Andy: I have to say I did find myself using the 2x like 90% of the time since I have the Pixel 6 and this phone doesn’t even have the P7 Pro zoom capabilities. I fully agree with everything you said, and btw nice pics!! Great job! I can’t wait to have my Pixel 8 Pro when it launches
• Al: This advice is almost correct. The real answer is to use the focal length that’s appropriate for the scene and pleasing to your own eye. In at least a couple of the examples shown above, I prefer the wider shot. It’s true that, more often, the 2x or 4x will result in better photos. But, when you’re shooting an interior like a small cafe or interesting room/exhibit, or when the sky is really nice and dramatic with good clouds… the wider angle can be nice.
• John Lin: One person’s choice/preference of focal length should not define your own choices, pick the best focal length you feel best fit the scene and stick with it. Taking shots composed for a tighter field of view then taking the same photo from the same location using a wide angle does not necessarily mean a tighter FoV is always better. Composition is key and one should pick whatever focal length they want to compose the shot with. There is no right or wrong answers with photography.
• Toye Gabriel: 1x isn’t wide, depends on the occasion, if I were in a car I wouldn’t use 2x, plus you could actually just…take a step closer . I also appreciate ultra wide shots too, I think it depends on what your capturing and how far the subject is so I don’t think it’s too wide

Android tablets have played second fiddle to iPads for years now, with Apple still being the top player in the tablet space. A major reason for this was that Android simply wasn’t well-optimized for tablets for the longest time.

Features Editor Rita El-Khoury recently opined that Samsung is the reason why the future of Android tablets is bright. But do you think the future of Android slates is bright in the first place? We posed this question to you, and here’s how you answered it.

Do you think the future of Android tablets is bright?

Results

Over 1,100 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out that 59.3% of respondents think that the future of Android tablets is bright.

Meanwhile, 31.7% of surveyed readers reckon the future of Android tablets is “average.” Finally, 9% of respondents reckon the future for Android tablets isn’t bright and Google will abandon it.

Nevertheless, it says a lot that almost a third of respondents feel that the future of Android tablets is merely okay rather than bright. This suggests that Google still has a lot of work to do.

Comments

• splus: Samsung, not Google, is why I’m confident about the future of Android, period!
  Google has been dropping the ball in almost every area of their business, even in Search, let alone Android. From what I can see Samsung is ahead of Google in WearOS as well.
• PointBreak: Samsung never stopped doing tablets and now they’re 10 years ahead pf everyone. Now, Android needs desktop apps like Photoshop.
• Stanley Kubrick: I believe that tablets will continue to find a market simply because you can get one for less than half the cost of a foldable. Two vital things need to happen before the novelty of foldables wears off completely: (1) They must come way down in price! Nearly 2 grand for a phone is unsustainable. (2) They must become way more durable to justify ANY price! Accomplish that and foldables may survive.
• srgonu: I totally agree with this article. Samsung has been very consistent in releasing great tablets and now pushing google in foldable space. I have Tab S7+ purchased in 2020 and it still works like new. Though some folks call Samsung software bloat, I love what they are doing with One UI. It is much productive than pixel or ios and a fun way to interact with devices.
• AS: Google dropped the ball when they sold sketchup, instead of porting it to the nexus 10. I bought the nexus 10, pixel c, and pixel slate, and Google have offered nothing but life support for these until dropping them. Same will happen with the new google tablet because Google can’t be bothered to finish the job. Case in point: Where’s the stylus and keyboard for the new tablet? Should have been available at launch.
• John Freiman: Software update is only one reason why I won’t buy an expensive Android tablet, the other is my deciding factor: If I’m going to use a “tablet” for work – a daily driver, so to speak, it would be a Windows based Surface. The battery life isn’t as good as a high end Android tablet, but it doesn’t compromise and allows me to use ALL the apps I need AND want. Plus, I can expect upgrades for years to come – no worry of product or manufacturer abandonment.
• defunct up: I still think ChromeOS is the better vehicle for tablet development because of the desktop-like experience you get (a WAY more powerful browser experience, developing Steam support, desktop-style creative and productivity apps) and you still get Android app support. We just need more versatile and powerful options that include more (and better) Arm chips and hardware. Aside from that, Samsung is doing great bridging that divide between a powerful tablet experience for multitasking and general tablet media consumption through DeX development.

Spotify Connect is a handy cross-platform feature, allowing you to remotely control listening from one device (such as your phone or watch). This is a feature our own Rita El-Khoury recently praised in an opinion piece, saying it’s the reason why she wouldn’t switch to another music platform.

Do you feel the same way about Spotify Connect, though? We asked this question in Rita’s article, and here’s what you told us.

What do you think of Spotify Connect?

Results

This proved to be a popular poll, with over 5,200 votes counted as of writing. And the most popular pick? Well, 47.1% of respondents said they loved Spotify Connect and it’s one of the reasons they’re sticking with Spotify in the first place.

Meanwhile, 24% of polled readers said the feature is “a nice perk, but not indispensable.” This suggests that while the feature is great, it’s not a priority or main selling point for some polled consumers.

Otherwise, 18.9% of surveyed readers said they simply didn’t use Spotify, and 9.9% said they didn’t have strong feelings about Connect.

Comments

• Peter Bé: I like spotify connect, but it needs some work done. I use it with denon speakers. If you use spotify connect, you can’t use sleep timer. It tells you either to quit spotify connect lr use timer. Just won’t go.
• King Antonius: I loved Spotify connect until it randomly started playing southern rap and zydeco playlists, saying it had been initiated from my laptop which just happened to be turned off and in my backpack next to me. Still use Spotify, never had a reason to keep using Connect after that.
• Alen Babacic: My Marantz AV comes with spotify connect, my BMW has intergrated spotify. There is no other service the intergrates so seamlessly. It’s too good to give up.
• Jared Dyck: Spotify connect should work more like whisper sync on audible.
  I wish you could pick up where you left off on another device even if you paused what you were listening to especially for podcasts. I often start a long podcast in the morning in my car, listen to a bit at work at my desk during the day and then when I get back into the car I lose my spot every time because it continues where I left off on my phone instead of where I most recently finished listening at my desk
• humulos: The seamless experience was a major reason why I didn’t stick with Spotify. I listen to different music while working than I do while driving, and both are different from what I listen to around the house. Not being able to pick up where I left off in the car because I had been listening to something else at work was really annoying.
• Olawale: I actually do share the same sentiments as you. I have a YouTube Premium Subscription presently as well as both Spotify and Apple Music Subscription. I’ve used Tidal and Deezer in the past too. I gravitate more towards Spotify. Everything about it just makes my music listening experience great. Especially with my plethora of mobile devices.
• Mat Jaggard: I absolutely agree. I love the ability to play anywhere and move music around with me. The only slightly annoying part is that the Connect protocol is private so you can’t just use a multi-room system without either a Spotify supported platform (which Spotify have presumably charged for the benefit) or the unsupported librespot library which breaks occasionally.
• Chaldon Pretorius: Spotify Connect is 100% the reason I cannot move away from the service, even as the recent redesigns have annoyed me and I am constantly getting podcasts shoved down my throat. Spotify is not perfect, but Connect is just too good to leave behind.

We recently uncovered evidence that Reddit was working on a contributor program, allowing users to earn cash for their content. This news also comes after the platform made poorly received API changes, effectively killing most third-party clients.

In any event, we wanted to know what you thought of Reddit’s contributor program. We posted a poll inside our news story, and here’s what you told us.

Do you think Reddit’s contributor program is a good idea?

Results

Just over 900 votes were counted in this poll as of writing, and a massive 80.1% of respondents thought Reddit’s contributor program was a bad idea. A couple of comments noted that Reddit already had issues with spam and/or bots, hinting that this program would exacerbate the issue.

A distant second place with 14.3% of the vote was “maybe, depends on the execution.” Finally, only 5.6% of polled readers felt that this was indeed a good idea.

That means just under 20% of respondents think Reddit’s contributor program has potential at the very least. This obviously still leaves the vast majority of surveyed readers who think this is a bad idea waiting to happen.

Comments

• Peter: As if bots posting the same crap over and over again weren’t a problem already, Reddit decides to make it even worse. They’re killing their own platform with every decision they make.
• Wes: This is what we call desperation on reddit’s behalf. They have had their traffic severely cut down since July 1st. They must be getting really nervous about everyone leaving for the fediverse to apps like Lemmy.
• Peter Smith: Given how reddit exists and their userbase and much bot spam, this is a completely ridiculous idea

Samsung is holding its Unpacked event on July 26, and we’re expecting the Galaxy Watch 6 series to debut here as well. Earlier leaks point to the new watches bringing back the rotating bezel, which was missing on the Galaxy Watch 5 line.

Fellow Android Authority member Kaitlyn Cimino really wants to see this feature on the Galaxy Watch 6, but what about you? We posted a poll a few days ago, and here’s how you responded.

Do you want a rotating bezel on the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6?

Results

This was a popular poll, with just over 3,600 votes counted as of writing. And the top pick by an absolute landslide was “yes,” as 92.2% of respondents said they wanted to see a rotating bezel on the Galaxy Watch 6 series. By contrast, just 7.8% of surveyed readers said they didn’t want to see the novel method of navigation on the upcoming smartwatch line.

We can see why many polled readers want the rotating bezel on the Galaxy Watch 6 line, as it’s a unique, satisfyingly tactile way of operating a smartwatch. Kaitlyn also noted in her opinion piece that it’s more accurate than taps, as smartwatch screens and touch targets are tiny.

In saying so, some might feel that a rotating bezel makes for a worse-looking watch. For example, the Pixel Watch brings a sleek, rounded design that’s hard to imagine with a rotating bezel. Nevertheless, it’s clear most of you feel the feature is well worth having, even if it does affect the overall design.

Comments

• JC1008: Love the rotating bezel! I also hope that Samsung figures out the overheating that both my Watch 3 and Watch 4 LTEs get when making calls outdoors. I don’t ever see Apple watches having that issue and it’s frustrating
• Johne-bike: I couldn’t agree more with your article! I love our Galaxy Watch 46mm with excellent Rotating Bezel from 2018, which my Wife uses daily and is still performing superbly even having Google Assistant working faultlessly thanks to a Mod discovered on XDA Developers website. My Galaxy Watch 4 Classic 45mm has been superb since purchasing on launch 2 years ago, and I never contemplated changing to a Watch 5 because of the lack of a rotating bezel.. If this feature had been included on the Watch 5 Pro, I would have likely upgraded.
• Purple Martin: Kaitlyn, I like the way you think. I Want Android, want the rotating bezel, but without Samsung app ecosystem lock-in. Were a decent health-tracker ring currently available (i.e. a better/cheaper Oura or Circular), I might get that plus a Watch 4 Classic (as you say, with rotating bezel—it’s $130 online right now) and just toss the Samsung health apps.

We already know a lot about the Pixel 8 series thanks to leaks and rumors. Pricing was a complete mystery though, but a reliable leaker claimed earlier this week that the Pixel 8 could cost $649 or $699.

We posted a poll in our news article, asking for your thoughts on the apparent Pixel 8 price increase. Well, the results are in, and here’s what you told us.

What do you think of this apparent Pixel 8 price hike?

Results

Almost 900 votes were counted in this poll, and the most popular answer was “I’m fine with $50 more but not $100 more.” 50.3% of respondents chose this option, suggesting that many people feel the Pixel 8 would still be a solid deal at $649.

In second place was “I’m not fine with paying even $50 more,” accounting for 26% of the vote. Finally, 23.7% of polled readers said they were fine with paying $50 more but not $100 more.

Taken together, this means that almost three-quarters of respondents are fine with a $50 price hike at the very least. It also seems like a price hike would be partially offset by a few rumored upgrades, such as an ultrasonic fingerprint scanner, upgraded main camera sensor, and a higher refresh rate.

Then again, it’s clear that the vast majority of you aren’t okay with a $100 price increase. This suggests Google better have plenty more upgrades on offer for the standard Pixel if it’s thinking about a $699 price tag.

Comments

• Grey: Depends on what my Pixel 7 Pro’s trade in value is.
• In Fla: Every Pixel to date has had major problems. A drop in price would be more realistic.
• lysak: It is ok to pay even more, but OLED panel should be with high frequency PWM rate

We’ve recently seen the first phone with 24GB of RAM arrive on the market, offering far more RAM than most people need. But this won’t be the last phone with 24GB of RAM, as the likes of OnePlus are tipped to offer this as well.

That got us wondering how much RAM our readers’ phones have. We posted a poll to find out, and here’s what you told us.

How much RAM does your phone have?

Results

Just over 2,000 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out that 8GB of RAM was the single most popular pick. 31.3% of respondents said they had a phone with 8GB of RAM. This isn’t too surprising as many mid-range and flagship phones offer variants with this much memory, such as the Google Pixel 7, Samsung Galaxy S23, and Galaxy A54.

In second place with 28% of the vote was 12GB of RAM. This is the domain of many flagship phones today, with brands like Samsung, Google, and Xiaomi offering 12GB of memory in their top-flight devices.

Meanwhile, 18% of surveyed readers said their phones had 6GB of RAM. This has effectively become the amount of RAM you’d expect to get in a mid-range phone these days, along with 128GB of storage.

The only other option to get a double-digit percentage of the vote was “3GB to 4GB,” accounting for 11.6%. Otherwise, “1.5GB to 2GB” (1%), 10GB (0.5%), and “1GB or less” (0.4%) brought up the rear.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that almost 60% of polled Android Authority readers have at least 8GB of RAM. This figure jumps to 78% when we include respondents with 6GB of RAM.

Comments

• veesonic: I will have to say that I had to look it up to know, guess its not a key spec that I memorize anymore. 12 gb of ram on my sony xperia 1 iii.
• Glen M Lj: My phone is advertised as 8GB RAM, but with extra 2GB RAM which Honor called RAM Turbo. So it’s 10GB. I voted 8GB though. I did ask them if the so-called RAM Turbo can be turned off in settings assuming it uses storage space, and because I need more storage than the useless, battery draining extended RAM, but according to them, it’s not using the storage space, and it can’t be turned off.
• SyCoREAPER: 12GB and while I generally don’t ever even reach that. The fact that phones are reaching towards needing this much RAM when apps have no reason to other lazy programming, it’s time for Google to revaluate app guidelines. Few apps truly make use of large amounts of RAM at a time. All it does is justify price hikes by manufacturers for higher RAM variants.
• bogorad: There’s this old tale of a Rolls-Roys manual that states that BHP is “sufficient” :)

Google launched the Pixel Watch alongside the Pixel 7 series last year, coming after years of rumors and leaks. And we thought the wearable was a solid start in our Pixel Watch review.

Colleague Rita El-Khoury recently noted that all the Pixel Watch updates were hyping her up for the Pixel Watch 2. We asked you whether you were looking forward to the second-generation watch, and here’s what you told us.

Are you looking forward to the Pixel Watch 2?

Results

Almost 2,000 votes were tallied in this survey as of writing, and almost 87% of polled readers said they were indeed looking forward to the Pixel Watch 2.

This result suggests Google laid the foundation for a compelling wearable offering with the original Pixel Watch, and that respondents are intrigued by the possible improvements.

Meanwhile, roughly 10% of polled readers said they weren’t looking forward to Google’s next watch as they have another smartwatch. This figure is likely much higher when we look at the smartwatch market at large, with Apple being the runaway leader in this space, after all. Finally, ~3% of surveyed readers said they simply didn’t care about smartwatches.

YouTube confirmed last week that it was testing a three-strikes policy for people who block ads on the platform. The policy will see video playback temporarily blocked for viewers who repeatedly block ads.

That got us wondering whether Android Authority readers would pony up for YouTube Premium or try other workarounds to avoid ads first. We posed this question last week and here are the results.

Will this policy make you buy YouTube Premium?

Results

This was a massively popular poll, with almost 18,000 votes cast. The most popular pick? Well, 54.9% of respondents said they’d use other workarounds to avoid YouTube ads first. There are indeed other measures you can take, although the YouTube Vanced saga suggests that Google could crack down on some of these approaches too.

Meanwhile, the second most popular choice in this poll was “No, I’ll use other platforms,” accounting for 35.3% of the vote. The biggest issue here is that there aren’t many other quality alternatives to YouTube. And so I do wonder whether even half of these respondents would actually switch to something like DailyMotion.

Otherwise, 6.3% of polled readers said they’d just sit through the ads, while 3.4% of respondents said YouTube’s three-strikes policy will make them buy YouTube Premium.

In other words, roughly 90% of surveyed Android Authority readers said they’d rather use alternative platforms or ad-blocking workarounds than sit through an ad or pay for Premium. In saying so, we didn’t include an “I already have YouTube Premium” option, but this is still an interesting insight into those of you who haven’t splashed out on the service just yet.

Comments

• Jacob E: I subscribe to YouTube premium but I also sometimes watch YT videos on another browser (Opera) not signed in. My reason for doing this is that sometimes I don’t want to mess up my recommendations when I watch a new music video from an artist I haven’t heard before, for example. Opera has a built-in ad blocker that, so far, has worked seamlessly with YouTube. I wonder if this is about to change…
• Fred: I don’t mind ads but the ads have become very intrusive. i’ll watch a couple of ads BEFORE my video but when you start showing me 4 ads and then also interrupting the video to show me more ads, I’m just done. i use an ad blocker ONLY because of website’s behaviors and just won’t miss youtube enough to care
• PhoenixWitti: If they actually implement this, a nice class action is in order. It won’t be too difficult to show that people who pay for no ads are still getting ads.
• Cassidy James Blaede: Another vote for “I already have YouTube Premium.” I haven’t seen ads on YouTube in years, and it’s worth it. Plus YouTube Music!
• Joe Black: I use YouTube Premium as a family plan for me, kids etc., but we all use adblockers on top of it. For example, Sponsor block is an incredible tool for watching videos on YouTube.
• bogorad: Where’s the “I alredy have Youtube Premium” option? :))))

Resident Features Editor Rita El-Khoury noticed that her Pixel 7 Pro shoots photos with lens flare more often than other smartphones. That’s a bit of a downer given the Pixel line’s camera credentials.

Rita outlined the issue in an article last week, and we also used the article to ask whether you’ve suffered from this issue. Well, the results are in, and here’s what you said.

Have you noticed camera lens flare in your phone’s photos?

Results

Over 1,300 votes were cast in this poll, and 39.6% of respondents said they haven’t noticed lens flare on photos they shot on their phones. This suggests that the problem isn’t a given across the board.

Meanwhile, 38.6% of surveyed readers said they noticed this problem specifically on their Pixel phone. That hints at Google’s phones indeed suffering from this issue more than devices from other brands.

On the other hand, 11.4% of respondents said their phone suffered from this issue and that it wasn’t a Pixel handset. We asked these users to respond with their device in the comments, but none actually did. Finally, 10.3% of surveyed readers simply said they didn’t take that many snaps in the first place.

More reading: Tips and tricks for smartphone photographers

In other words, roughly 50% of surveyed readers said they noticed lens flare on their phones, be it a Pixel or other brand.

For what it’s worth, lens flare is almost inevitable in some situations, such as when you’re shooting directly into the sun. But this issue can also occur due to poor-quality lenses. Thankfully, brands like vivo and Samsung both offer improved lenses to reduce glare and lens flare.

Comments

• Kevin Wimberly: I don’t not get those flares, but having been a professional photographer for some time, I’ve learned how to angle shots with the influence of the sun. Even SLR cameras with $3000 lenses get the flares if you do not correct your angle of your shot.
• Wibbly: I get it from time to time on a p6. I think it’s all to to do with the quality of the coatings they use on the glass that covers the lens and on the lens itself. But even professional lenses on DSLRs can do this if the sun shines on them at the wrong angle if especially if they have even a very good UV filter covering them.
• Tomáš Wünsch: Mostly just fog whenever my glass is a bit oily or smudged by something. Google Pixel 4a & 4XL & 5
• mauricio chacon: This issue is ultra dumb on pixels, pixel 3 almost got rid of it, but then came the stupid huge camera visor on the p4 p5 and the p6 being the worst, the p7 should be a lot better than the p6 bit still those huge camera visors are useless

It’s tough to find a phone with a headphone jack in 2023, although the likes of ASUS and Sony still offer this feature on their high-end wares. We also still see this option on some budget phones.

ASUS recently shared user data with us, finding that 36.5% of Zenfone 9 users use the headphone port at least once a month. That got us wondering how many Android Authority readers still use the port. We posed this question a few days ago and here’s how you answered it.

How regularly do you use a phone headphone jack?

Results

Almost 2,800 votes were counted in this poll, and 37.6% of respondents said they used their phone’s headphone jack every day. This was the single biggest pick in our poll.

Aside from the enthusiast nature of our audience, we’re also guessing that the survey and article attracted more proponents of the headphone jack than usual. But it’s still interesting to see this option winning out.

In second place was “my phone doesn’t have a headphone jack,” accruing 34.18% of the vote. We can understand this choice, as the best Android phones from the likes of Samsung, Xiaomi, and OnePlus don’t offer the 3.5mm port. In fact, even cheap phones from these OEMs tend to ditch the option.

Rounding out the podium were the respondents who said they use the 3.5mm port “at least once a month” (21.77%). Finally, 6.41% of surveyed readers said their phone has a headphone jack but they never use it.

When we look at the poll results from another perspective, it shows that almost 60% of surveyed readers use their phone’s 3.5mm port at least once a month.

I’m sure many readers have found themselves talking about a topic, only for the topic to surface as an ad in their web browser or on social media. It’s hard not to think that your phone is listening to you in these cases.

That got us wondering how many people thought their phones were listening to them for ad-related reasons. We posed this question last week, and it’s time to check out the results.

Do you think your phone is listening to you for ad purposes?

Results

We got 1,500 votes in this poll, and it turns out that the vast majority of polled readers (75.2%) think their phone is listening to them for ad-related reasons. This is reflected in our comments section too, as some readers gave examples of talking about something (without searching for it) and then seeing ads related to the subject.

Meanwhile, 16.3% of surveyed readers felt that their phones weren’t listening to them for ad-related purposes. Finally, just 8.5% of respondents said they weren’t sure.

Either way, it’s clear that the vast majority of polled readers aren’t convinced that this is a mere coincidence.

Comments

• coal686: I used to not think so, but I 100% think it does. One time my wife was discussing a specific kind of snack she used to eat as a kid and she had Facebook ads related to it. Another time, I was mentioning to friends how we sometimes take a FL trip and we started getting ads for the town we go to. None of those times involved searches or anything, just talking out loud. And those are just two stories. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve told my wife, “Creepy Google’s been listening again…”
• Kit Baty: Last week I was in Orlando for a volleyball tournament. One of the other dads had his phone drop out of his pocket while on a rollercoaster. He told me all about it, and the cracked screen and he didn’t have insurance, etc. 10 minutes later, T-Mobile texted me about “Accidents Happen…” and how “cracked screens are an unfortunate reality…” and then pitched me on their monthly protection plan. I am convinced that was no accident.
• Farhan Tajuddin: I always know that ad companies always rely on surveillance to generate revenue. After all, the saying “if it’s free, you’re the product” is always apt. That’s why I always try not to give permission all the time and also turn off all data collection on my Google account.
• eszklar: Not particularly. I run GrapheneOS myself. Better granular permission control over apps/services.
• Peter A: It definitely captures multiple languages. A few years ago my wife and were on vacation in Virginia and talked about the mattress at the hotel in Polish. For the next month we both got ads on our phones for mattresses – she in Polish, I in English.
• Wibbly: If the mic and attendant processing was always active, wouldn’t have a terrible impact on battery life?

Xiaomi finally launched the Xiaomi 13 Ultra in global markets last week, and it’s definitely not cheap. The handset comes in at €1,499 (~$1,640) in Europe but brings plenty of premium additions.

Is it worth buying at this price point, though? We posed this question to you in our news story last week, and here’s what you told us.

Would you buy the Xiaomi 13 Ultra at this price?

Results

Just over 1,600 votes were cast in this poll as of writing, and it turns out that almost 55% of respondents wouldn’t buy the Xiaomi 13 Ultra for €1,499. This is understandable, as the phone is a little more expensive than the already pricey Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra in Europe.

Meanwhile, ~26% of surveyed readers said they would buy the phone at this price. The phone packs some impressive camera features, such as a dual-aperture 50MP one-inch main camera and three other 50MP cameras. Toss in a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 processor, QHD+ 120Hz OLED screen, IP68 rating, and fast wired/wireless charging, and there’s plenty to like here.

Finally, 19% of respondents say they’d “maybe” buy the Xiaomi 13 Ultra. Competition is stiff out there, with the Galaxy S23 Ultra probably being the most notable Android rival in global markets. The Samsung phone is a little cheaper, has a dedicated 10x camera, and packs an S Pen slot. But the Xiaomi handset brings a superior main camera on paper and faster wired/wireless charging. So you really have to ask yourself what you value the most in a premium phone.

We’ve seen plenty of Pixel 8 series leaks in the last few months, ranging from camera details to Tensor G3 info and renders. So we’re getting a clearer idea of what the new phones will look like.

We recently asked readers whether they were planning to buy the Pixel 8 phones. Well, the results are in, and here’s what you said.

Are you planning to buy a Pixel 8 series phone?

Results

Just over 1,100 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out ~35% of respondents were planning to buy a Pixel 8 Pro in particular. Our own leaked info via reliable tipster Kamila Wojciechowska points to major camera hardware upgrades, while a leaked video showed a built-in thermometer too. So we’re guessing these features, along with expected perks like a bigger battery and better screen, are enticing readers.

In second place was “Maybe, I’ll wait for more info,” accounting for 27.79% of the vote. We can understand why, as pricing and other features will be key factors. It’s not uncommon for Pixel phones to ship with a few issues either, so we’re guessing some respondents will be waiting for reviews and user feedback.

Almost 85% of respondents are considering a Pixel 8 series phone, at the very least.

Otherwise, ~21% of surveyed readers said they were planning to buy the standard Pixel 8. This phone is still tipped to arrive with an improved main camera and a more powerful processor. We’re also hoping the vanilla model retains the $599 asking price.

Finally, 15.83% of polled readers said they weren’t planning to buy the Pixel 8 series. We’re guessing these readers either recently bought a phone or are planning to buy a phone from a different brand.

Nevertheless, almost 85% of surveyed users are at least open to buying a Pixel 8 series phone. And just over 55% say they’re definitely buying one of these handsets.

Google launched a VPN service for select Google One users back in 2020 but decided to expand the feature to all subscribers earlier this year.

The service isn’t quite as full-featured as the best VPNs on the market, and colleague C Scott Brown noted his disappointment in a recent opinion piece. Nevertheless, we wanted to know whether you used the Google One VPN, and here’s what you told us in a poll.

Do you use Google One’s VPN?

Results

This was a mega-popular poll, with over 7,300 votes tallied as of writing. All four choices got plenty of picks, but there was one winner. Almost a third of all respondents (33.2%) said they used the Google One VPN “very often.” We’re guessing that these users are happy with a no-frills VPN for use on public Wi-Fi and for other privacy-related reasons.

Meanwhile, 26.5% of surveyed readers said they use another VPN service. This is understandable as Google’s service doesn’t offer any location-based options to circumvent geo-restricted content, for one.

Almost 21% of respondents said they “rarely” used Google One VPN, rounding out the top three. Finally, 19.5% of polled readers said they simply didn’t use a VPN service.

Comments

• Perth: I use the Google One benefit/VPN exclusively on my devices. Zero speed issues, few disconnects, and no issue with geo location. If use VPN for breaking geo blockers, then it is true, Google One VPN isn’t for you.
• Lex1020: VPNs are nearly worthless in today’s day and age and certainly aren’t “essential” as you claim. There are still loads of ways you’re being tracked even with a VPN on.
• uz.hou.tx: No issues using Google One’s VPN on the Pixel 7.
• Enrique Romero: If someone wanted just a VPN, why would they buy a combo like Google One anyway. Just get what you need. It seems most are looking to add storage to their account and this is another perk. I’d personally like to see a discount on YouTube TV and YouTube premium instead.
• Chanan Bos: I used to pay for a VPN and it’s nice to get around country limitations on occasion for some articles. Nowadays I use a combination of Google One VPN becuase it comes for free with my 1TB Google Drive package as well as the OpenVPN I set up on my home router (which is free). Google VPN for secure public wifi in a pinch (rarely needed). OpenVPN to have same language experience online as at home (when in vacation) or connect to some local devices on my home network when away. Anyways with EU mobile internet and eSIMs outside EU, mobile internet in most cases is preferable and so I rarely need my VPNs.

NVIDIA hasn’t launched a new Shield TV since 2019’s reboot and Shield TV Tube. Nevertheless, these gadgets remain firm favorites for those who want a feature-packed, well-supported Android TV experience.

We recently wrote about our wish for a new Shield TV model, but we also added a poll asking whether you wanted a new model as well. The results are in, and here’s how you voted.

Do you want NVIDIA to make a new Shield TV?

Results

This was a very popular poll, accruing over 6,600 votes as of writing. And there really was no contest here, with an impressive 96.69% of respondents saying they wanted NVIDIA to release a new Shield TV model.

It’s easy to see why people would want a new Shield TV model. This could build on the older models by offering greater horsepower, support for new streaming/video technologies (e.g. AV1), and HDMI 2.1 support. NVIDIA also delivers exemplary software support, so this would undoubtedly be a key tenet of a future Shield TV model.

Meanwhile, only 3.31% of surveyed readers said they didn’t think NVIDIA needed to release a new streaming gadget. Presumably, these readers are happy with their current Android TV boxes (NVIDIA or otherwise).

Comments

• Marius: Right on spot. The level of support Nvidia showed to Shield is unprecedented, beating even the support manufacturers offer for their phones. Buying Shield instead of a cheap stick or box was (and probably still is) the best decision.
• eszklar: Rita: Agree with everything you’ve said about the Nvidia Shield. I too wish Nvidia would step up and refresh the Pro line. In Europe there is the Nokia Streaming Box 8000 although I’m not sure how it’ll stack up against the Shield TV Pro – can’t get it here in Canada.
• Michael J: I still use my 2017 shield and love that it receives updates. Even though I’m on my third remote (thanks kids) I was able to upgrade to the 2020 spec remote. My shield controller battery barely holds charge but I will get around to replacing the battery eventually too. I’ve been into HTPC since the mid 00’s starting with stuff like XBMC and GeeXbox, and even with smart TV’s, I prefer the shield. Not that I feel the need to upgrade, but if NVidia released a 2023/24 spec shield, I would definitely purchase one in support of the best android TV platform in existence.
• Erzu Seven: There’s nothing wrong with the current one
• Josh L: I’m right there with you, my CC with ATV is a lagfest from hell and I just cannot understand why Google insists on making it present so much content I never asked for to ruin the experience further (I know what the business decision is, but it doesn’t make sense to me unless they are stupid enough to believe pissing your users off is a sound business model). I hear we can install third-party launchers to get rid of the default laggy interface, or is that just wishful thinking on my end?
• tinion: If you’re currently on Netflix 4k, just get the latest shield, downgrade to Netflix 720P but activate DLSS, have close to the same experience, save 15 bucks a month, and it will have paid itself after a year. The old one is still amazing, and I actually enjoy the fact it doesn’t get yearly updates. Sure, a new model with the newest Upscaling Technologies, newest Codecs, and an AI based on ChatGPT would be amazing, and it will come when it’s time. The old models will still be great though, years to come. There is no better device family to power your home entertainment system atm.
• dave p: Been about 5 years since some new hardware. Eager to see what they do and willing to pay for the product if it’s good.

A recent report asserted that almost half of all YouTube viewing in the US now occurs via the TV set. That would make for a major change after mobile and other screens dominated viewing.

We wondered how Android Authority readers primarily watch YouTube, so we posted a poll to find out. Here’s what you told us.

What device do you use the most for YouTube viewing?

Results

Just over 1,100 votes were tallied in this poll, and it turns out that 39.5% of respondents primarily watch YouTube on their smartphones. This shows that mobile is still a massive platform for YouTube, at least among our polled readership.

In second place? It’s still not TVs, as 28.56% of surveyed readers said they primarily watched YouTube on their computers. Rounding out the top three spots with 21% of the vote was indeed “TV.” Finally, 10.94% of respondents said they mainly watched YouTube on their tablets.

Funnily enough, one reader noted in the comments that they mainly watched YouTube on a Nest Hub.

Comments

• Glen M Lj: My laptop. Got larger viewing area than, say a phone. 6.5″ phone screen vs 15″ laptop screen anyone? . I only use the YouTube app on my phone to interact with people in the comments section.
• Konrad Uroda-Darłak: Foldable – so smartphone or tablet? ;P
• Shizuma: Computer, TV, tablet, phone in that order, with like 99.9% being computer and TV.
• Bonedatt: For some reason, YouTube is the only video app that I have dowoaded on my phone. I watch everything else (Hulu, Netflix, HBO Max on either my tablet or TV.
• Farhan Tajuddin: Smartphone all the time. I don’t really watch YouTube often on PC.
• Jeremy E.: I typically only watch media on my Galaxy Tab 7+ because of the large OLED UHD display. Pairing that with the Galaxy Bud Pro’s allows me to be watching something and automatically switch to a phone call on my Samsung phone. YouTube is the only app I know of that allows streaming of UHD content on mobile devices.
• bogorad: Nest Hub v2

It feels like we haven’t seen many improvements and additions to Google Assistant in recent times, especially now that the company’s Bard chatbot is available.

But are you still using Google Assistant after all this time? Have you maybe switched to an alternative? We posed this question last week, and here’s how you answered it.

Do you still use Google Assistant or other voice assistants?

Results

This poll was very popular, with almost 3,500 votes cast as of writing. And it turns out plenty of you are still using Google Assistant, with 63.7% of the vote. Reader comments suggest that Assistant is primarily used for smart home functionality, alarms, and reminders.

Interestingly, 13.86% of respondents said they’ve never used Assistant. At least a couple of comments suggest that language support is the main stumbling block here. But we’re also guessing that some of these polled readers are more comfortable with typing and traditional search functionality than speaking to a voice assistant.

The third-most popular option was “Yes, but less than before,” losing out on second place by a sliver and accounting for 13.5% of the vote. A few comments assert that Assistant has gotten worse over time, hinting at a reason why some people aren’t using it as often anymore.

Meanwhile, 7.2% of surveyed readers say they don’t use Google Assistant anymore, while 1.8% of respondents said they’ve switched to another assistant.

Comments

• Mace Moneta: I use Google Assistant mostly for reminders. I find it kind of annoying for regular use as it seems to produce not-so-useful answers lately.
• Glen M Lj: “Hey Google, wake me up at 6.” An example of when I’m too lazy or too tired to pick up my phone and set the alarm. Isn’t that convenient? So yes, voice assistant is still essential, at least to me.
• tigerberry: I played around with Assistant for a few months, but since I don’t have a smart home, and don’t live in the US or even Western Europe the functions available to me are extremely limited. I tried to use it for simple commands like “wake me up at” or “remind me of X at Y” but annoyingly it always had trouble with my accent (even though it’s not particularly thick), so the already weird feeling of talking to my phone just got really cumbersome, having to talk extra slowly and clearly.
• ShaneN: Google’s assistant started out AMAZiNGLY. But it has languished over time. Commands which once worked – mainly for smart home control – are often broken. “sorry, there’s been a glitch… Try again in a few seconds” is a refrain I hear daily. I have some 10 Google home devices throughout my home… The function which once limited response to the most likely speaker I was talking to is gone and multiple respond all at once with different (or the same) responses.
• Bayumu: I feel like Assistant has gotten dumber with time. Either I am imagining it or they stripped features from it.
• Droogs: I use Google Assistant at least once every day, and several times on some days. I think it’s great.
• Chanan Bos: I still use it all the time. Got a Google home in every room (2 are Nest Displays). But I agree it has become dumber and is sometimes insufferable. I really wish they would improve the “stop” or “shut up” commands as it activates all the time when no one asked. Cant wait for a Bard powered Google assistant. Also to have Bard in Google search and Google sheets/docs. But no, EU is apparently not getting it any time soon…. ffs
• Fredrik Seglem: It helps me remember things, and I use it to switch my lights off and on. I have it on my phone, watch, Chromebook and nest hub, nest mini-speaker etc. Google assistant is the only good bilingual voice assistant, and that from a guy that lives in a country where iphone has every spot at the top 10 best selling phone list
• cile1977: I cannot use it, it’s not available in my language.
• Myself: I (almost) never use any Digital Assistant. I speak Brazilian Portuguese and the assistants are not so good in my language. Because of that, sometimes is easier and faster to do the things yourself than asking the assistants… Plus, I think they are really clunky and robotic.

Google finally launched the Pixel Fold this month, and it looks like a pretty polished foldable phone. Between the free-stop hinge, IPX8 rating, respectable internals, and flexible camera system, there’s a lot to like here.

But are you actually planning to buy Google’s first foldable? That’s what we wanted to know, posting a poll inside a news article last week.

Do you plan to buy the Pixel Fold?

Results

Almost 1,100 votes were cast in this poll, and we got a variety of answers here. The most popular choice was “No, I don’t plan to buy it,” accounting for ~38% of the vote.

We can understand why some of you might not be on board with the Pixel Fold. The $1,800 price tag matches the Galaxy Z Fold 4, but you’re getting a less capable Tensor chipset, and three Android version updates versus four OS updates for Samsung’s foldables. Google’s foldable also doesn’t offer stylus support compared to the Z Fold 3 and 4.

It looks like just over half of all polled readers are thinking about buying the Pixel Fold at the very least.

The second most popular option in this poll was “Yes, I’ve already pre-ordered mine,” with ~24% of the vote. We can see why some respondents chose this option, as the Pixel Fold still brings a cleaner, lighter Android experience, better camera zoom on paper, and a host of Pixel software features. Toss in that IPX8 rating and free-stop hinge, and you’ve got one of the more versatile non-Samsung foldables out there.

Rounding out the top three was “Maybe, I’m thinking about it,” which accrued ~23% of the vote. Otherwise, 9.65% of respondents chose “Yes, but I haven’t pre-ordered yet,” while 5.29% of polled readers said they aren’t buying the foldable because it isn’t available in their market.

In any event, the final results show that just over 55% of respondents are at least thinking about buying a Pixel Fold. But the results of our previous polls suggest that pricing is a stumbling block for many consumers.

The Google Pixel Fold finally launched earlier this month, marking the company’s first foray into the foldable phone arena.

We asked Android Authority readers at the time for their thoughts on the Pixel Fold as well as its $1,799 price tag. Well, the poll results are in, and here’s what you told us.

Pixel Fold: Hot or Not?

Is $1,799 too much for the Pixel Fold?

Results

In our first poll, we simply asked readers whether they thought the Pixel Fold was “hot” or “not.” And it turns out that opinions were deeply divided here. Roughly 52% of the nearly 2,000 voters thought the foldable was hot, compared to ~48% who gave it a thumbs down.

One reader left a comment in this poll article, noting that the device was simply too expensive, particularly in Europe. And speaking of price, our second poll asked whether you thought $1,799 was simply too much for the Fold.

Just over 1,000 votes were cast, and the results show that ~89% of polled readers think the Pixel Fold is simply too expensive at this price point. By comparison, roughly 11% thought the price was fine. Either way, it seems like the asking price is the chief reason why polled readers soured on the Fold in the first place.

Comments

• Egemen Candir: Pre-ordered Pixel 6 Pro user and long time Android user here: Pixel Fold is a f-ugly bezelled f-expensive of a foldable phone that doesn’t open 180 degrees, that has questionable reliability. Make it $1400 and it’d be worth considering. Add the Pixel watch at $1400 and it’ll be a good buy.
• fearlessferret: These are “I know I’m getting an overall inferior product for an absurdly silly price” niche products, so it’s very difficult to form a sound opinion on the actual value, and therefore I do not feel comfortable voting in this poll. On a basic level, you can buy 3 or more phones that have the same SoC for the same price, so if you just want to get work done, then it’s obviously overpriced. But if a niche form factor really means a lot to you, then it could be seen as a great value.
• eszklar: $1799 USD is par for the course for a book-style foldable compared to the Samsung Fold and other Foldables. Is it expensive, yes, but if it can be mitigated by trade-ins then that could work. But this is a Gen. 1 Google product and Samsung has gone through 4 iterations of the Fold and soon 5 with the Fold 5. I do like the OPPO Find N2 style to the Google Fold. Not sold in Canada where I live though, so its a bit moot for me personally.
• Thomas guide: There are many people with more money than brains I’m sure someone will buy this overpriced monstrosity.
• daftrok: Considering Pixel loves to treat their customers as live beta testers, I ain’t touching this product until they are at least 3 or 4 iterations in.
• Shizuma: Yup, it’s too much, but at the same time so is the Z Fold, and between the two I’d vastly prefer the Pixel Fold due to a much better shape than the super tall and skinny profile of the Z Fold and it has proper bezels on the inside to hold onto and put the inner camera so there isn’t the awful compromise of putting it under the screen.

There are tons of web browsers to choose from on your smartphone and computer, ranging from Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge to Opera and Brave.

We thought it would be a good idea to ask you about the web browser you use on your phone and computer. Well, the results are in, and here’s what you said.

What web browser do you use on your phone?

What web browser do you use on your PC?

Results

These polls garnered plenty of attention, with over 2,500 votes cast in each one. The big winner in each poll was (unsurprisingly) Google Chrome, and it wasn’t really close.

The battle for second place was a lot tighter though, as Firefox barely beat Brave in the phone poll and just edged out Microsoft Edge on desktop. Yes, the stalwart open-source web browser still has plenty of fans.

Microsoft Edge and Samsung Internet completed the top five on mobile, while Brave and Vivaldi rounded out the top five on desktop.

Safari and Opera brought up the rear on computers, while Kiwi and Opera were at the bottom of the pile for web browsers on mobile.

Comments

• MyDailyComment: Only use Samsung internet browser on mobile, because … it’s the best browser on a phone. Mobile Chrome can’t even do dark mode right. Neither can Firefox. Those are the only alternatives I tried, then stopped using. Samsung is the best. It was MADE FOR A PHONE. It syncs with a samsung account and has an add on for desktop chrome to sync with that. It’s sad that people use chrome because they think they have to…
• Andy Paunov: Chrome on my phone, Edge on my Windows 11 PC, Firefox on my Windows 7/8.1 (forced to switch).
• Eliaz: Been using Brave on my phone since 2019 coz of its chromium build + powerful ad blocker, I use Chrome on my PC. Tried using Firefox several times on both phone and PC but finally given up.
• Ray Musgrave: Firefox on PC. Firefox and Vivaldi on Android. I might stop using Firefox mobile though because they disabled about:config.
• tommybertsen: I use opera on both android and PC. Occasionally, I use brave on android and chrome on PC , but I use opera 90% of the time.
• Pranav: Edge on my PC and chrome for android
• Shubham: Vivaldi on PC due to good tab management with tab split and stack. Ice raven (Firefox fork) on mobile due to good performance and adblock.
• eszklar: Firefox for PC. Vanadium on Mobile (GrapheneOS default browser).
• Bojan Tomic: Chrome is still the most useful and the most convenient. Everything just synchronizes without any hassle, all your passwords are just there, etc. I don’t see me switching anytime soon. I tried using other browsers on the list, but they’re just years and years behind.

Samsung has offered a desktop mode called Dex since 2017, allowing you to get a PC-like experience when connecting your phone to an external display.

Samsung isn’t the only brand to offer a feature like this, but it certainly popularized the feature on Android. So with that in mind, we asked you whether you used Dex on your Galaxy phone. Here’s what you told us.

Do you use Samsung Dex on your Galaxy phone?

Results

This was a popular poll, with over 3,400 votes counted as of writing. It turns out that there wasn’t a runaway winner here. In saying so, “No, I don’t use Dex” accounted for 35% of the vote.

We’re guessing many people voted for this option because they had a PC already and therefore felt like they didn’t need the PC-like experience Dex provides. It also doesn’t help that Android still isn’t quite as versatile as Windows, MacOS, or Chrome OS when it comes to desktop use.

Otherwise, exactly a third of polled users (33.3%) said they used it often. One reader noted in the comments that a Galaxy phone was effectively their PC for several years thanks to Dex. Another user said that they still used the abandoned Linux on Galaxy project on their old Galaxy Note 8.

Finally, 31.7% of respondents said they used Dex now and again. One reader said they used Dex on their Samsung tablet to force some apps into landscape orientation. Pretty smart. We can also see why some people would occasionally use Dex, as it could be handy if you don’t have a PC on-hand.

Nevertheless, 65% of polled readers use Dex in some capacity then. That’s a pretty notable figure, so we hope Samsung continues to improve the feature.

Comments

• veesonic: Switched to Sony and I gotta say this is one of those cool features I miss. I wish an equivalent would be supported by AOSP. Back in my “in office” days I would use it at work to covertly be on my phone during meetings.
• nickthaskater: It has been my daily PC for the last three years across my S10+, Note 10+ and now my Fold 4. I use a 34″ 3440x1440p Viewsonic VP3481 USB-C monitor with integrated USB hub to which I have connected my custom mechanical keyboard and desktop headphone amp/DAC, along with an MX Master 3 mouse over Bluetooth. There is a community of more than 27,000 users on Reddit over at r/SamsungDeX.
• Farhan Ahmad Tajuddin: Using it from my Note8 and I still loving it, especially when using Linux on DeX. At this point, only Samsung, Huawei, Honor, Motorola, and LG develop a custom Desktop Mode for modern Android phones. I love the fact that I can travel light by leaving my Windows PC behind at home and just bring my phone alongside a lapdock.
• Cliff Mar-Shall: I use it on my tablets for some apps that won’t do landscape .
• eszklar: I personally don’t use DeX since I don’t use Samsung phones/tablets that are DeX-capable (I use Pixel phones). I have tested/played with DeX with a Note8/20 Ultra phone and I have a Samsung DeX Station that I used with the Note8. I do like the idea of having a Desktop experience and I wish Google would enable this in their Pixel phones. In the meantime, I’ll wait for the upcoming Pixel Tablet and Fold to be released.

Credit: Ryan Haines / Android Authority

Phones with high refresh rate screens are very common today, offering smoother scrolling and a more fluid experience in general than phones with a standard refresh rate display.

We wanted to know whether you’d buy a phone without a high refresh rate screen, though. So we posted a poll earlier this week, and here are the results.

Would you buy a phone without a high refresh rate screen?

Results

Just over 1,200 votes were cast in this poll to date, and the most popular pick was “no, I wouldn’t,” accounting for 40.8% of the vote.

It’s easy to see why people wouldn’t buy a phone without a high refresh rate screen. The tech enables a smoother experience, for one. It’s also become an expected feature in the mid-range and flagship segments, so we’re guessing some of these respondents don’t want to feel short-changed.

In second place with 31.44% of the vote is “maybe, depending on price/other features.” This is understandable too, as people might forgive the lack of a high refresh rate screen if the phone is cheap and/or packs plenty of other great features.

Finally, 27.77% of polled Android Authority readers said they would buy a phone without a high refresh rate display. Judging by the comments, many people simply consider it to be a low-priority feature when buying a phone.

Looking at it from another perspective, almost 60% of respondents said they’d at least consider buying a phone without a high refresh rate.

Comments

• Eric Koop: Since I’m not a gamer, I’d rather have the longer battery life. I’d also happily pay less for not having anything above 60Hz
• deltatux: I know I’m probably in the minority here but 60 Hz is perfectly fine. I’ve tried 90 Hz and 120 Hz, yes it’s a bit more buttery but I personally don’t see a huge difference.
• fearlessferret: I’d much rather have 60 FPS and a 1440p or 4k display than 1080p at 120 FPS. I read a lot on my phone, and therefore when I’m reading, I’m not scrolling and I have time to notice if I can see pixels on my thousand dollar 1080p phone. Yes, it still frustrates me that for reading text, a 50 dollar ewaste phone like an LG V20 is vastly superior to many phones that retail for 500+ dollars.
• Tukur49: I hardly play any serious game on phone. Therefore high refresh doesn’t bother me. I’m more concerned about IP ratings, Wireless charging, eSIM provisions.
• EeZeEpEe: No I wouldn’t because high refresh rate screens is the standard for the price range of phones I get. I’ve been using 90 Hz or faster since 2019 so it’s a step backwards for a phone of the same price that I’ve been spending every 2 years to not have 120 Hz or more. And I don’t even game. Just everyday use is noticable going from a 120 Hz to a 60 Hz screen.
• Beardednomad: I have had a high refresh rate in all my phones since about 2020 but it’s not something I really care all that much about. For me it’s one of those features that is nice to have but isn’t a deal breaker. If a phone I like had everything but that it wouldn’t prevent me from getting it.

Credit: Xiaomi

Xiaomi‘s Redmi Note line is right up there as one of the most popular Android phone families ever. We can see why too, as these phones usually bring plenty of features and competitive pricing.

The company recently launched the Redmi Note 12 Turbo in China, and this looks like another great mid-range entry. But what do readers think of this phone? We asked Android Authority readers whether this phone was hot or not, and here’s what you told us.

Redmi Note 12 Turbo: Hot or not?

Results

Almost 1,400 votes were counted in this poll, and it turns out that a massive 93.1% of polled readers thought the Redmi Note 12 Turbo was a hot phone.

We can totally understand why people voted this way, as this is the first phone with the powerful Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2 mid-range processor. Furthermore, the phone starts at ~$291 in China for the base 256GB model, while there’s also a 1TB model for a crazy ~$408. We’re expecting a healthy price increase in the event of a global launch, but even $100 extra would still make for a solid deal.

That leaves only 6.9% of respondents who felt that the phone wasn’t hot. There weren’t any reader comments backing this stance, but we’re guessing that the China-only availability was a downer for some people. It’s also worth noting that Xiaomi’s MIUI skin has more than its fair share of critics.

If there’s any consolation for readers, it’s that at least one report suggests it’ll come to global markets as the Poco F5. So you might be able to get your hands on this phone after all.

Comments

• Beardednomad: It is pretty amazing that this $400 phone offers features that the $900 Pixel 7 Pro doesn’t.
• Patrick Mac: Chinese OEMS suck at software updates but we can all agree that their midrange and budget phones pack a lot of features.
  That price for a phone with the latest Snapdragon 7+ Gen 2, UFS 3.1, OLED with 120Hz refresh rate, Dolby Vision, HDR10+, 1TB storage, OIS, Wifi 6e, Bluetooth 5.3, 5000mAh battery and 67W charging is a bargain. We would like to see big OEMs like Samsung step up their midrange game like this.
• fearlessferret: Finally, a phone where the price is such that I can’t complain about it being 1080p. I wish this came to the USA. I wish it had a teardrop cutout instead of the face-palm worthy punchhole, but otherwise it’s very respectable hardware. 1 TB is the bare minimum for me to consider buying a phone without MicroSD. The star of the show here is the IR Blaster. Very cool to see OEMs bring some hardware diversity back.

My colleague Calvin recently wrote about why he ditched Google and installed the privacy-focused GrapheneOS on his Pixel 6. He explained how the latter is not only feature-full but also allows users to protect themselves from Google’s data-collecting clutches. Calvin found GrapheneOS, available to install only on select Pixel phones, to be a very secure Android experience without compromising on usability.

So we put our polling tool to work and asked our readers if they would consider ditching the Google experience and switching to GrapheneOS on their Pixel devices. Here’s how people voted in our site-wide survey and what they had to say.

Would you consider switching to GrapheneOS?

Results

Our polling numbers show that 45% of the 14,691 users who participated in the survey are considering getting GrapheneOS on their Pixels. It’s surprising that only 24% of the voters said that they are happy with Google’s default experience.

Meanwhile, 22% of the respondents said that they would have considered ditching Google for GrapheneOS if the latter passed the SafetyNet compatibility checks. Because it can’t do so, it cannot support NFC payments and a small number of third-party apps.

Those who already switched to GrapheneOS comprise 8.08% of our survey participants.

Your comments

Mark K.: I wouldn’t use it unless Android Auto worked with it.

Michael: Replacing stock was the first thing I did when getting the Pixel. Since I degoogled my previous phones years ago (mainly used LineageOS without Google) the option to use GrapheneOS was a no brainier for me. Works like a charm!

fearlessferret: I have a Pixel 4 as a work phone, so if that’s supported, then I’ll be strongly considering it now that the official patches are not coming anymore.

Michael Schaap: No, I’m not happy with Google’s experience, and I don’t really trust them with my privacy, but I don’t dare switch to third-party firmware.

Al: Def not giving up my Google NFC pay, I love tapping my phone to pay.

Matija: Why the hell would I buy Pixel phone and then get rid off all the features it offers which is the reason I bought the phone?

Farhan Ahmad Tajuddin Matija: I’d use it on older unsupported Pixel phones.

Credit: Hadlee Simons / Android Authority

A leaker claimed last week that Samsung was working on a third foldable phone form factor for 2023. This would ostensibly be a Tri-Fold foldable phone, with two hinges in the folding screen.

A form factor like this would allow for much larger folding screens, but would you buy something like this? We posed that question in our news story last week, and here’s how you responded.

Would you buy a tri-folding foldable phone?

Results

Over 2,500 votes were cast in this poll, giving us a decent sample size to work with. It turns out that 50.51% of respondents said they would buy a tri-folding foldable phone.

We can understand why some people would be on board with this type of form factor. It would allow for a much bigger folding screen than current Fold-style foldables, which offer 7-inch to 8-inch inner displays. So this would be ideal for those who want a tablet replacement or portable monitor.

Meanwhile, ~26% of surveyed readers said they’d “maybe” buy a tri-folding foldable phone. Finally, 23.44% of polled readers said they wouldn’t buy a device like this.

We can understand the caution, as the Z-shaped design means a significant part of the inner screen is exposed when folded and used as a phone. That opens the door to scratches, as folding screens are made out of plastic. Otherwise, we’d imagine that a device like this would also be thicker and heavier than even the Galaxy Z Fold 4.

Comments

• Shizuma: Buying a tri-fold phone would heavily depend on how they do the fold, as shown in that concept would be a hard pass as that outer screen would get extremely scratched very quickly getting put in pockets/purses, however if it folded so the screen was protected and there was a 2nd glass covered screen for phone use then I would be interested.
• hos in chi minh: It took Samsung three generations to work out the kinks in the Fold line, so while I’d definitely buy in at some point, I’d probably wait and let others pay the early-adopter tax first.
• SyCoREAPER: Going to be too thick to be the replacement I was hoping for though it is exactly what I want, a phone and tablet together. They can’t get the regular Fold thin and that unfortunately has a square aspect ratio, not ideal for media.
• Farhan Ahmad Tajuddin: I can’t help but think that rollable screen makes way more sense than this triple folding screen. LG have shown the complete feasibility of rollable smartphone. All it need is to get additional screen for a truly legit tablet size.

True wireless earbuds are available at a variety of price points, but some of the biggest names in the industry frequently charge $100 and much more for their offerings.

We recently went through the pros and cons of buying cheap earbuds over these more expensive buds, also asking readers whether they’ve bought cheap earbuds before. Well, the results are in and here’s what you told us.

Have you ever bought cheap (under $50) wireless earbuds?

Results

This was an extremely popular poll, accruing over 3,400 votes to date. It turns out that over three-quarters of respondents said they had indeed bought cheap wireless earbuds before. Some reader comments pointed to affordable earbuds from companies like Anker, SoundPeats, and Tozo.

Meanwhile, just under 24% of polled readers said they haven’t bought cheap wireless earbuds before. We can understand why you might opt to pay a little more, as more expensive buds tend to come with features like more codecs, better audio quality, and improved durability (e.g. splash resistance). You might also find active noise cancellation, improved touch controls, and/or app support on premium buds.

Comments

• Tennisfreak: Anker Soundcore bud family is the perfect bang for buck option and spending more is just a waste IMO. Has app, eq, sound great, long battery life, quality build, and I get them on sale for $50 or less. Did a direct comparison to my sisters Bose QC II earbuds and didnt even come close to hearing $250 worth of difference.
• Valdez: $50 is still expensive for wireless earbuds and that is the most I would spend. They are good enough. Audiophiles pretend they have hearing that is beyond human. They really don’t but it’s just for show to justify spending $500 on audiophile buds.
• Tony Talks: Cheap wireless Bluetooth gets me by but I do prefer the more expensive ones for longevity and better durability.
• SyCoREAPER: I’ve been following reviews and sound data of many earbuds and none seem to outperform, significantly enough at least, to replace my Galaxy Buds Plus. For earbuds they sound good but don’t none of them compare to proper headphones.
• aReefer: Check out SoundPeats on Aliexpress. You can get AptX, LDAC and pretty great sound – and basic app support or even wireless charging in some cases – on TWS earbuds that cost less than $50. I have been using them for a few years now and haven’t had a pair die on me yet. My last pair was just stolen – after almost 3 years of frequent usage and in one case, falling into a puddle and still surviving. Don’t expect too much customer support though.
• moew: Should have used tozo nc9, very good and preferred over t6

Credit: Hadlee Simons / Android Authority

Samsung phones have been in the headlines this week after a Redditor’s experiment revealed that Galaxy phones do some questionable things when taking photos of the moon. More specifically, the Redditor found that Galaxy phones added lunar details to a blurry, low-resolution photo of the moon when the Scene Optimizer was enabled.

This saga suggested that Samsung was generating details for its AI-enabled moon snaps rather than enhancing them. But do you care whether your moon snaps are generated by AI? We posted this question earlier this week, and here’s how you answered it.

Do you care if your moon mode shot is generated by AI?

Results

It turns out that the single most popular answer was “No, I just want a great moon image,” accounting for almost 39% of the 1,600 votes cast. This suggests that many polled readers don’t care if there’s tomfoolery afoot as long as they get a nice moon shot.

Meanwhile, almost 34% of polled readers say that some AI-generated details are okay when shooting an image of the moon. Finally, almost 28% of respondents say that any AI generation isn’t okay when snapping pictures of the moon.

When you put it another way, over 70% of respondents seem to think that some AI-generated details are fine at the very least. But it certainly looks like many surveyed readers also feel that there is such a thing as going overboard.

Comments

• Ellio74: At this point we should just take the best moon picture we already have and upload it to every phone then
• ChrisPollard77: I don’t have an issue so much with the technology being used, but more the mostly deceptive MARKETING they put behind the feature. If they did a presentation saying, “Look at this incredible moon shot, taken with the S23 Ultra – artificially enhanced to look like the moon you’re seeing with your eyes,” I’d be okay with that. But they leave out the last part, making it sound like the camera’s optics are what capture the detail, when they are not.
• Fernando RR: Leave my moon shots alone! AI or not, I am the one standing there holding the phone waiting, struggling to stay still and try not to shake. zoom in and out. And saves me a lot of time. VS taking 20+pictures with my DSLR, stack, post process, etc.
  I can also add that NOT every shot works, this morning I could not get the damn moon to look even a little decent. Pictures were still very blur, out of focus. But if AI is really going to do the entire edit, then please do them even when there is a bit of clouds around? Anyways I appreciate the help Samsung. Its not like I’m winning awards from cellphone pictures.
• Mark Hamilton: Sad thing is that any regular camera with 10x optical zoom, and even some with only digital zoom, can already take good pictures of the moon (and capture craters). All you generally have to do is put it on a tripod and adjust the manual settings to avoid overexposure. I could get fairly good shots of the moon on my Galaxy S10, and even captured nice pictures of the stars and milky way by putting my phone on a tripod and adjusting the exposure times. You don’t need a super-expensive flagship phone to do this, and you could get even better results with a cheap camera. Sadly, Samsung has stooped to all-out deception to sell more phones. It’s not okay, and people shouldn’t be happy with this.

Credit: Calvin Wankhede / Android Authority

Microsoft’s Bing search engine gained a supercharged upgrade earlier this year thanks to ChatGPT integration. The new feature means you can enjoy longer, more detailed responses without phrasing your query in a specific way.

Our own Calvin Wankhede recently tried Bing Chat on mobile, which arrives with voice functionality. He declared that he wouldn’t be going back to Google Assistant as a result. We used his article to find out whether readers would switch from Assistant to Bing. Here’s what you told us in this poll.

Would you ditch Google Assistant for Bing?

Results

Over 1,700 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out many of you aren’t as attached to Google Assistant as I thought. 42.1% of surveyed readers said they’d switch from Assistant to Bing Chat right away for their voice assistant needs.

Meanwhile, 29.1% of respondents said they would switch from Assistant to Bing if it comes to smart speakers. In other words, these people clearly like the idea of Bing Chat but need it on more devices.

Finally, 28.7% of polled readers said they’re still happy with Google Assistant. Google’s smart concierge is able to do a few things that Bing Chat can’t, such as controlling smart home gadgets. So we can see why these users would still be happy with the older service.

In other words, just over 70% of respondents are willing to switch from Assistant to Bing in some capacity. This certainly suggests that Microsoft has a hit on its hands. But the company will need to work hard to expand availability and add new features if it hopes to steal Google and Apple’s voice assistant thunder.

Comments

• Ruli Manurung: Come back to me when Bing chat can do any of the following: turn my bedroom lights on/off, unlock the front door, set timers when I’m cooking, and play the J-Pop songs my daughter loves to listen to in the evening. You know the stuff that Assistants are designed to do, i.e. assist :⁠-⁠)
• Gary: I’ve been trying Bing chat for the last few days but always had to revert to Google Assistant. The answers were were better and understood my speech better.
• tigerberry: Meanwhile, I still feel weird talking to my phone. Also, frankly none of these assistants I’ve tried so far understood my accent properly (even though it’s not particularly thick or difficult to understand, it’s just not “US standard”), so they’re useless to me until developers remember that there’s a whole world out there…
• ziziTop top: Way too slow compared to Google Assistant..
• Jamie Rose: If only Microsoft didn’t kill Cortana years ago lol. Chat tech is pretty cool. it’s nowhere near perfect, especially if you are trying to find more granular information. and honestly, Chat is a bit too.. chatty? it’s jarring to talk to an algorithm about your favorite videogames. And the recent limitations on it’s chat algorithms make the chatting not very useful if it decides to quit interacting after 30 seconds like a dog with ADHD. but Google definitely needs to bring this integration into Assistant.

Last week, we asked our readers if they use an app for two-factor authentication. Our question was inspired by Twitter’s recent decision to start charging users for SMS-based 2FA. After almost a week of polling, our readers have spoken. Here’s the method they use the most for two-factor authentication.

Do you use a two-factor authentication app?

Results

From the pie chart above, it’s clear that most of our readers who participated in the poll use an authenticator app. 82.2% of the 2,319 respondents said that they use some app or the other to authenticate their logins online.

Meanwhile, 12% of the voters said that they don’t use an app for two-factor authentication. 5% of the poll participants specifically said that they only rely on SMS-based two-factor authentication.

Your comments

Beardednomad: I just use Google Authenticator. It’s basic but it does everything I need it too.

MagmaFist: I do but I’m always afraid my phone might brick for whatever reason and it will be a pain in the ass to recover the account, maybe impossible. With SMS, it’s not a problem once you have a new phone or reactivate an old one.

Tennisfreak: I have to use multiple authenticator apps for my job. It’s freaking annoying.

superwolfkin: For my job for a while I had to use the MS authenticator specifically and I hated it. just let me pick one auth method and use that. My sisters have to use Duo for school because the school is stupid and they hate it. Of course they’re coming from Zero, but I would have liked to get them on a more fully featured and more flexible authenticator for their first experience.

Jared Stewart: I selfhost vaultwarden and use TOTP where I can

Albin: I dislike nuisance 2FA and reject it where possible, especially as a(nother) creepy identity grab from casual online interactions. I prefer email 2FA since the phone sits on a shelf away from the PC where important transactions are mainly done, but allow SMS if and when absolutely necessary.

Bikram: I hate that most banks and financial institutions (Fidelity etc) use ONLY sms 2FA!

Rick45TX: Yubikey 5(C) NFC whenever possible. The Yubico Authenticator when not.

A few days back, OnePlus launched the Oneplus 11 with 80W fast wired charging. Being a flagship device, one would have expected the phone to carry wireless charging support too. However, it skipped the feature, and the company explained users won’t really miss it because the wired solution is fast enough. So we asked our readers if they are okay giving up on wireless charging if their phones support fast wired charging speeds, even though the former offers more flexibility. Here’s how they voted in our poll.

Can you sacrifice wireless charging on a flagship if it has fast wired charging?

Results

We received over 1,700 votes in our poll, and it seems most of our readers are okay giving up wireless charging on flagship phones if they support ultra fast wired charging speeds.

69% of the respondents said that they would give up wireless charging on a premium phone if it charges fast tethered to a wire. Meanwhile, 31% said they still think flagship phones should support wireless charging.

Your comments

Shizuma: Absolutely, wireless charging is terrible, it’s slow, far more finicky to line up correctly vs plugging in a USB-C cable, realistically can’t actively be charged while being used, and it’s completely wasteful on electricity due to extremely poor efficiency of only 60%. I’d rather them ditch the crappy tech and give us back metal back phones that are actually durable, instead of fragile glass on the back.

Chris Werner Rau: Wireless charging is inefficient, not convenient to use and you can’t use your phone while charging. There’s basically not a single pro argument for it.

B!: Pro argument – you set your phone on the wireless charger when you go to bed & wake up with your phone fully charged. As long as the user knows how to use the wireless charger correctly, it’s more convenient than finding a wire to plug in at night & remove in the morning. The main problem with wireless chargers is user error.

Beardednomad: That depends on which brand you use. Brands like Xiaomi have wireless charging that is faster than Google/Apple/Samsung’s wired charging. Metal has its pros and cons just like any other material, it’s far from a perfect material. Metal phones were known to warp, bend, dent and in some cases even crack. They are also terrible for reception, nearly every metal phone had some plastic bits just so you could get a wifi/bluetooth/LTE signal.

deltatux: I think most of the outrage about lack of wireless charging are from techtubers who got really comfortable with wireless charging. Personally, never invested in the tech and don’t know many who use wireless charging. Having the option to wirelessly charge is nice but not a dealbreaker by any means. One thing I do agree with the techtubers is the inconsistency with OnePlus, why are they sometimes including it in some flagship releases and then cutting it out in later versions.

Andrew: I don’t want to sacrifice wireless charging on my phone, because I sometimes use the reverse wireless charging feature to charge my smartwatch and my headphones. It’s quite useful if they run out of battery and need a quick top up. It doesn’t save the phone manufacturers that much money anyways, and if they needed the extra space they could always just make the phone thicker and get rid of the camera bump. To me that extra space is wasted anyways as I want phones that sit flat on the table and don’t wobble around, so that extra space is taken up by the case.

Tiuri Elvander: I mostly use wireless charging in the car and I don’t want to do without it. It’s too convenient not having to fiddle with cables, just put the phone in the charging mount and that’s it.

Commander Everest: I’ve never used wireless charging and I don’t know anyone who does. It’s obscure and pointless. You have to plug in a wireless charger just like you would a wall charger. Why would you intentionally pick the inferior charging device?

JWB: My phone doesn’t have wiresless charging, but I have two sets of Jabra buds that do. I’ve used the wireless charger function maybe twice in the year I’ve had them. Until wireless charging catches up with the plug version I’m unlikely to use it. It feels a waste of a function, I don’t understand why I’d use it above a wire when it’s so slow. If it’s because I have multiple devices all using every single port and plug I have to offer, wireless from my experience, require their own plug. Use it for more than one device and the slow speed for charging will run even slower. Like I said, I don’t see the point. It’s a pointless gimmick that requires more work before it can be used as a selling point.

Earlier this month, Samsung officially launched the brand new Galaxy S23 series. It wasn’t long before word spread that the Galaxy S23 series still doesn’t support Seamless Updates.

What are Seamless Updates? When your phone receives an update — say, a new security patch or even a brand new version of Android — it can go one of two ways. The first is the “normal” way, in which your phone downloads the update, shuts down, installs the update, and then reboots. This can take up to 10 minutes to complete, and your phone is inoperable during that time. The more modern method is known as Seamless Updates. In this scenario, your phone downloads and installs the update all in the background. It takes longer, but you can still use your phone during the whole process, with only a quick reboot needed at the end.

Samsung confirmed that it will eventually support Seamless Updates, but clearly not with the Galaxy S23 series — at least not yet. This got us thinking: do our readers even want Seamless Updates? We assumed they would, but we wanted to know for sure, so we ran a poll. Check out the results below.

Do you prefer conventional updates or Seamless Updates?

Results

These results were very surprising to us. Naturally, we assumed our readers would strongly prefer Seamless Updates. It’s a newer method that allows you to continue using your phone uninterrupted, at least until you get to the necessary reboot. However, it appears that our readers are split right down the middle on this topic.

The biggest difference between the two methods is the amount of time it takes. For example, a Pixel device could take upwards of 30 minutes to download and install an update in the background. Yes, you can use your phone during that process, but that same update could take just five minutes on a Samsung phone. It appears some people prefer to get it over with quickly.

However, people who like rooting their phones also appreciate Seamless Updates for the benefits they bring, so this might be more complicated than that. Likewise, Seamless Updates require something called A/B partitioning, which takes up more space on your internal storage. This might also be a reason to prefer conventional updates.

Regardless, don’t take our word for it. We’ve collected some of your comments on the situation below.

Your comments

PJay Snowden: Seamless is better for rooting…because you can unroot, update…and the patch the other partitions. Not that this would work with Samsung anyway…because rooting disables OTA.

Mac Jackson: Oh no what will I do if I have to give up use of the phone for a few minutes a month for a sec update or 15 minutes for a UI update…the world just ended.

SyCoREAPER: A/B is a waste of space and traditional works perfectly fine. 5 minutes at most to do an update and if it’s a major version bump, 7 minutes. I’ll keep traditional partitioning. Plus A/B would probably kill ODIN compatibility. Pass.

disqus_d1b9jeAcZN: It’s a pretty minor future to me. Definitely not a must have. Waiting for my phone to update usually isn’t a big deal because I can choose when I want to restart anyway. I’ll just pick a moment when I’m not busy. The rollback option is nice.

chris722: I’m all for seamless updates. Samsung phones already require a ton of memory as it is. Plus it just seems more efficient to me. Extra storage isn’t a deal breaker to me. Like I really want to wait 10 minutes for access to my phone when I could knock that down to 2.

Alfredo Lehar: what is not being discussed enough is that this update mode requires you to dedicate double the storage space for system files. should samsung adopt this update mode, the media would be all over it reporting on how much storage space is “wasted” on system files

The world’s economic situation is not so great right now. Inflation is at an all-time high, and people are buying fewer phones. It’s not something that’s just happened. Most smartphone companies have reported a sales dip in the past quarter or so. Industry leaders like Samsung and Qualcomm are also predicting that consumer demand for smartphones will fall further, at least until the second half of the year. Even if affordability is not an issue, some people may be holding brand new phones from last year or even from 2021, and may not want to invest in a new model.

So we thought of asking our readers if they are planning to buy a new phone this year. Here’s how they voted in our poll.

Are you buying a new smartphone this year?

Results

We received over 3,700 votes in our poll about buying a new smartphone in 2023. It looks like a majority of our readers who participated in the poll (42.43%) don’t plan on buying a new phone this year.

That said, 35.2% of the respondents are still up for buying new phones. Their votes suggest they’ve already decided to upgrade their handsets no matter the demand slump in the market.

There are also those folks who haven’t yet decided if they want a new phone in 2023 or not. Meanwhile, 13% of the voters are on the fence and might pick up a new phone later this year during the holiday season sales.

Your comments

Glenn: My OnePlus 7 Pro is still going strong, and kept up-to-date with LineageOS. If I can get at least five years out of this one, I’ll be happy.

Will: I have an S22U, no need to upgrade. Unless I could trade it in for $50 to an equivalent storage tier and color I want it isn’t worth my time to upgrade either. Even with Samsung’s smart switch it takes like a week to move all my apps, game files, and settings. I really hope for the S24U they focus on speaker improvements, dual front facing speakers would be the dream but even then it would have to be a massive upgrade I am so happy with my current phone 1440p120hz is so perfect.

Bubba Jones: Nopers, this year I am not upgrading. Truly, it has nothing to do with the economy, as with many others here I can well afford any upgrade. My reason for not upgrading is my Note 20 remains strong and without issues. Years ago, I realized after setting up the new phone it was the same as the previous phone. Yes, the new phone was a bit more powerful and had a better camera, an incremental change only. Although, each year household appliance manufacturers upgrade their appliances we do not run out and upgrade to those newer home appliances. When the appliance gives up the ghost then we will spend money. Same with the phone, only because usability issues is when we upgrade our phones. Purchasing a new phone gives one bragging rights for six to eight months only.

Lamar Taylor: Thanks to trade in credits…I usually upgrade my personal phone and business phone every year. Samsung has lowered the trade in values this year and as a result I won’t be upgrading my GS22 Ultra business phone. The GS23 Ultra isn’t much of an upgrade and isn’t worth the extra cost due to a lower trade in value. I will be upgrading my personal phone to the iPhone 15 Max. When it comes to speed, battery life, great cameras, and user experience…the iPhone Max is in a league by itself.

Justbob: I usually like to upgrade every 2 years. My LG Wing is over 2 years old and I still think it’s great. Maybe when LG comes out with something better.

Mike Wilmot: No reason to upgrade Galaxy s22 Ultra

Alessandro87: My POCO F3 with custom rom and 256gb will last till 2028 for sure….

Tim: Still using my galaxy S10 that doesn’t last 12hours without a boost but no way in hell I’m spending 1000 or more on a phone in the next few years. And Samsung are deluding themselves if they thing they will sell many s23 ultras at $2000 at all this year.

Tukur49: Don’t think I need a new phone now. Just upgraded from Google pixel 4a to pixel 5a5G.
The phone is still supported upto android 14,have an excellent 4600mAh battery, and is 5G enabled. The camera takes some superb pics.
What more can I want?

gwine: I voted Not Decided, but, to be very truthful, I cannot see any reason to, unless mine packs it in.

Farhan Ahmad Tajuddin: I’m still happy with the LG V50 and LG Wing 5G that I bought back in July 2022. I still love those two phone for being daringly different from the norm. That said, I’m eyeing the official release of the Sony Xperia 1 Mk5 and also looking at the prospect of buying the vivo X90 Pro when the price have gone down over the time.

Raylan125: I got a pixel 7 Pro just after the new year.
Wouldn’t get a Samsung if they offered it for free, with free unlimited calls and data

Andrei A: Yes, I have pre-ordered the Samsung Galaxy S23+. My current phone is a OnePlus 6T which has been struggling for the past year. It’s definitely time for an upgrade. I’ve tried the iPhone 13 Pro (iOS is a disaster) and the Pixel 7 (was not impressed with the camera and since the phone wasn’t officially launched in my region, it had compatibility issues with network operators), so I ultimately decided to go back to Samsung after many years. Hopefully this won’t be a disappointment

lokalkille: No. I got Pixel 6a last year and I intend to keep it for at least five years. It fulfills my needs, camera is great, there is great software support and a good number of custom ROMs.

emgi2: Nope. My 3-year-old phone can run one or two more years. Not upgrading till there are custom roms. Don’t need new one every single year just to be able to chat or play simple games on better chipset even if this one makes the job.

Google’s Pixel phones generally stand out thanks to the camera experience (among other features), offering great image quality and some handy features.

In saying so, we recently wrote an article calling for more camera-focused accessories for the Pixel line. We also used the article to ask whether you thought the Pixel needed more camera accessories. Here’s what you told us in that poll.

Do you think the Pixel needs camera-focused accessories?

Results

Almost 2,000 votes were counted in this poll, and it turns out that almost two-thirds (64.4%) of respondents indeed want more camera accessories for the Pixel line. Readers supporting this stance in the comments suggested possible add-ons like a telescope attachment for improved astrophotography as well as snap-on lenses.

Meanwhile, over a third of surveyed readers felt that the Pixel series didn’t need camera accessories. Several readers in the comments felt that they might as well carry a DSLR camera instead of an add-on for a Pixel phone. Then again, it’s worth noting that add-ons like camera grips and lenses are much smaller than a typical standalone camera (while add-ons are much cheaper than a camera too).

It’s also worth noting that some readers pointed to other issues with Pixel phones, such as exposure accuracy, photo quality in mixed-lighting, and the dearth of camera controls.

Comments

• Nacelle: There IS a problem with pixel cameras. The low light and flash photos are atrocious. I’m not talking about night photos. Low light before it switches to night is where it’s bad. I have a OnePlus 9pro and it’s low light photos are SO much better
• Heist99: How about exposure control. What good is 30x zoom if the moon is too bright
• Mike Lumaro: I received a shiftcam grip for Christmas. But like everything else, it’s designed for iPhones. So while it works fine, the volume rockers are lower on a pixel than an iPhone, so it grips right on rocker. It’d be nice if companies would just make more universal accessories, then they wouldn’t have to pay Apple For their specific crap.
• Freakin: I’d love to see the Pixel line create some attachment points on their camera bump out for extra lenses and commit to the design for a number of years. That way Google or 3rd parties could commit to making those and both they and consumers would benefit from a useful standard.
• TopherT1: Not so sure about the accessories but more camera controls would be nice. I know they are going for minimal but more control options would be nice.
• ChrisPollard77: Look at the examples of camera-related accessories in your own article to see why there are none for the Pixel. If you make it, it doesn’t mean ANYONE will come. If I’m going to lug around a camera grip for my phone, just in case I might want to use it on the go, I may as well carry around my dSLR “just in case.” The whole point is that you have your phone with you anyway. If anyone has a chance to make this work, it’s either Apple or Samsung. Guess what – they have no interest, for good reason.
• J.R. Buckley: I would love to see expansion of astrophotography to include a Pixel-specific telescope attachment with deep-space and planet-focused shooting modes, with auto image stacking.
• sao_paulo: If I have to carry accessories then I might as well carry a dedicated camera with me
• Albin: Global stats for Pixel market share are hard to find, but reaching around 3% in North America was counted a big jump a couple of years ago. Simply doesn’t repay the cost of development and production of specialized peripherals for any specific models other than for Apple or Samsung. I was lucky Moto supported well-designed and clever “Moto Mod” accessories for the Z series, but has terminated that line.

The first month of 2023 is just about wrapping up, and we’ve already seen a few flagship phones launching. But we’re expecting some high-profile launches next month thanks to the Galaxy S23 series and OnePlus 11.

Nevertheless, we were curious as to what you actually wanted from phones in 2023. Did you want more horsepower or longer endurance? We posed this question to you, and here’s what you told us.

Do you want better performance or longer battery life in 2023?

Results

Just over 1,700 votes were cast in this poll as of writing, and it turns out it wasn’t a close race by any measure. Over 80% of respondents said they wanted longer battery life from smartphones in 2023.

This makes plenty of sense, as the last few generations of flagship phones are still very powerful devices. So even high-end phones from 2020 and 2021 should still offer a smooth everyday experience and great gaming performance.

Meanwhile, just over 15% of surveyed readers said they wanted more horsepower in 2023. One reader noted in the comments that they were happy with their battery life, so performance seemed like the obvious option for them. Another reader felt that better performance was a wise choice because you can always use system settings to eke out more juice, whereas your maximum performance is effectively capped.

It must also be said that many high-end phones in the last couple of years have suffered from poor sustained performance, so there’s still scope for improvements in this regard in 2023.

Comments

• Konrad Uroda-Darłak: Lmao, these days performance is more than enough.
• Mega DP: Even on my Galaxy Note 9, it handles everything I throw at it. The problem has always been battery life.
• Riku_Xander: Higher performance. You can always have options to scale back performance for longer battery life, but whatever your max performance, it’s the max performance.
• fearlessferret: I prefer longer battery life by far. I love the idea of Sony’s phones, and have been planning on getting one for years, but the performance of my LG V40 and even my V20 is so good that what I’d be getting out of a Sony phone would not be worth the 1200 I paid (I bought my V40 brand new for 350).
• eszklar: Both. I want performance tempered by good battery optimization and a bigger battery.
• deltatux: Phones have way more power than what most people need these days. I think it’s safe to say these days I think most people would rather have much longer battery life than more performance.
• NNN: With power cuts still a big deal in my country, it’s always going to be longer battery life. It was never in doubt!
• gwine: I get 2 days of battery life, now. More might be better, but I will take a performance upgrade, first.

Smartphone chargers are capable of some amazing speeds today, with 65W, 80W, 100W, and even 150W speeds on the market. In saying so, not all chargers are equal when it comes to their ports.

Some chargers are equipped with a full-sized USB-A port while others are equipped with USB-C connectivity instead. But do Android Authority readers have USB-C ports on their adapters? We posted this question earlier this week, and here’s how you answered it.

Does your charger have a USB-C port?

Results

Over 3,000 votes were cast in this poll, making it a pretty popular survey. The winner by a country mile was the “yes” camp, as 77% of respondents said they indeed had USB-C ports on their chargers.

It’s worth noting that Samsung and Google don’t offer bundled chargers, but their official chargers are available as a separate purchase and come with USB-C ports. So it’s possible quite a few readers took this route. USB-C chargers also tend to support speedy USB-PD wattages, so we wouldn’t be surprised if some readers bought one of these chargers to top up a variety of gadgets (e.g. laptops and handheld consoles).

Otherwise, just ~23% of surveyed readers said they didn’t have a USB-C port on their charger. We’re surprised this figure is so low, as many mid-range and low-end phones still seem to come with USB-A chargers. Nevertheless, we hope to see more brands switch to USB-C chargers across their product lines in 2023.

Google has offered Chromecast with Google TV streaming gadgets since 2020, giving users an affordable way to get Google’s platform on their own TV sets. News emerged last week that a third model could be on the way, potentially replacing the 4K model.

That got us thinking about how many people actually own a Chromecast with Google TV device. So we posed this question in our news article last week and here’s what you told us.

Do you own a Chromecast with Google TV device?

Results

Just over 1,900 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out we have a runaway winner here. Over three-quarters of respondents said they indeed own a Chromecast with Google TV device.

We’re not sure whether this popularity is in line with the general population, but we can see why people would buy this device. The Chromecast with Google TV starts at just $30, or $50 for a 4K model, making it one of the cheapest streaming gadgets from a major brand.

Otherwise, 13.44% of surveyed readers said they didn’t have a Chromecast with Google TV but had an old Chromecast instead. This makes sense, as the old models were a go-to recommendation for many years if you wanted to simply cast content from your phone to your TV.

Meanwhile, 6.4% of respondents said they had a different streaming device (e.g. Fire TV, NVIDIA Shield TV, or Apple TV), while 3.83% of voters said they used their smart TV instead.

Comments

• eszklar: Would love to see a higher-spec CCwGTV to compete with the NVIDIA Shield myself. But an upgraded 4K CCwGTV with a better SoC and more RAM/Storage is fine too.
• Grey: I would appreciate it if these fancy Google TV devices had a “dummy Chromecast” mode. I don’t want the Google TV features.
• Marty: For the love of God, please make one with a better CPU. It is the most sluggish device I own. The Walmart Onn Android TV box is way smoother. What gives, Google?

Modern smartphones are pretty big, which means there isn’t a lot of space in our pockets for these devices. Then again, women’s clothing tends to miss out on usable pockets in the first place.

Nevertheless, we were curious to find out how you stored your phone in your pocket. So we posted a poll article last week and here’s what you told us.

How do you place your phone inside your pocket?

Results

Over 2,400 votes were cast in this poll, and there was one winner by a country mile. It turns out that 68.1% of respondents (or roughly two-thirds) store their phone upside-down with the screen facing their leg. Some reader comments note that this orientation means you’re holding it exactly how you need to when you retrieve it from your pocket. Some commenters also felt that having the screen face their leg means the display is protected against knocks.

In second place was “right side up, with screen facing my leg,” accounting for 19.55% of the vote. Meanwhile, “upside down, with screen facing outwards” accounted for 7.54% of the vote and third place.

Finally, the least popular orientation on the list was “right side up, with screen facing outwards” (4.81%). We’re not quite sure what the benefit would be here. Then again, some phones have a 3.5mm port at the top, necessitating the right side up approach if you want to use wired earphones.

Comments

• Beardednomad: I rarely pay attention to how it goes in but I would guess right side up with screen facing outwards.
• Tennisfreak: I put my Flip 4 in my pocket however it happens to be oriented in my hand. Its so small and the screen is protected when folded it doesnt matter. Need option for foldables!
• Michael Schaap: Upside down. I used to have the screen facing my leg since that seemed safer, but at one point my phone at the time (either OnePlus 7 Pro or Pixel 6 Pro, don’t remember) often turn on the screen, try to unlock with the fingerprint scanner and fail, leaving the screen on.
• B!: Upside-down, with screen facing my leg.
• Mike: Upside-down, with screen facing my leg. Makes the most sense since when I reach to pull it out, it’s in the right orientation already.
• deltatux: For me, upside down, screen facing leg. It’s just easier to insert and remove from pocket. Plus, screen facing in makes more sense to protect the screen. Rather have the case bump into things than the screen.
• Scott: It’s worth noting that this is effectively a poll of only men, as women often don’t have pockets, and when they do, they are nearly always too small for a phone.
• B. Lusic: The people who put their phone in their pocket with the screen facing out, are living on the edge!
• Nope!: Upside-down + screen facing my leg so when you pull it out of the pocket, you are already holding it as you would when using it. Plus having the screen facing the leg protects the display. If I accidentally hit my leg on a hard surface like the edge of a table, it’s the back of the phone that gets hit and not the display. And since I use a case, then hitting the back of the phone is a non issue.

Power banks are a handy accessory to have for your phone, allowing you to charge your device when you’re traveling or out of the house. But many of today’s phones also offer large batteries and super-fast charging, potentially reducing the need for a power bank in the first place.

We were nevertheless interested in finding out how many readers own a power bank. So we posted a poll earlier this week and here’s what we discovered.

Do you own a power bank for your smartphone?

Results

This was quite a popular poll, with over 4,100 votes cast as of writing. It turns out 48.65% of respondents have a power bank, making it the most popular choice of the lot. Judging by the comments, some respondents bought a power bank for outdoor trips and/or emergencies.

Meanwhile, 30.15% of surveyed readers said they actually had more than one power bank. At least one reader said they had a power bank in each car, while a couple of other readers said they had multiple power banks that were used for other gadgets too (e.g. laptops, smartwatches).

Finally, 21.19% of polled readers said they didn’t have a power bank. In other words, more surveyed readers said they had multiple power banks.

Comments

• Riku_Xander: I literally have never bought a power bank, but I own multiple from having been given them.
• Rognis: They’re useful for more than phones. I have multiple, especially since my wife has a heated vest that uses a USB-A connection.
• Joe Black: I have one or two … or maybe actually three, but they are not dedicated for my smartphone, they usually serve as an added battery to my laptops.
• thesecondsight: Even though my Moto G Power 2020 phone has a 5,000 mAh battery and is capable of going 2-3 days on one charge, I thought it would be a good idea to purchase a power bank in case for emergencies. Tornado season can be brutal in my area and my neighborhood often goes several days without electricity when an F1 tornado touches down. You can never have too much power.
• Sophia: Nowadays you can charge your phone everywhere, even planes. Our new car has a wireless charger built in too. Combine that with the all day battery of my phone and there simply is no reason to drag around additional juice.
• mattc: I take one when going away for a few days, especially when hiking, camping or biking, to charge lights, ebook, phone etc.
• Ronson Wagner: I have a bit of an addiction to buying power banks on sale. I currently have 7 of them, ranging from a little cheap one from the Walmart checkout line (about 5000mAh), to the Anker 737 (24,000mAh) that can be charged at and charge other devices with power delivery up to 140 watts. I play Pokemon go quite a bit and it’s invaluable having that backup power when I’m out and about. It also makes camping and overnight stays easier, as I can charge my hearing aids, smartwatch, phone, and tablet from one or two battery banks and I don’t have to worry if there will be outlets available or having to run a cable across a walkway to plug something in. I also have one that I have designated to power my raspberry pi 4 if I want to move it around and not have to plug it in.
• Marty: I have one but since fast charging came along, i dont really use it all. its mostly for emergencies now.
• Filament: Got a Xiaomi Powerbank, with built-in wireless charger. When I bought it my wife don’t understand the need for it. Now she regularly uses it whenever it’s inconvenient to leave the phone on the table to charge.
• EeZeEpEe: I primarily leave one in each car as a backup for just in case. For example, going to a theme park it’s better to have and no need it then need it and not have it. I rarely actually use them though.
• Elias_T: Thought I’ll never own one but due to varying reasons I had to get one of 20k mah last year and so far I feel secured whenever I’m on a long journey.
• KRB: It’s why when I purchased my current device, Moto G Stylus 2020, I made sure it had one of the biggest batteries at the time; rated for two days! In daily use it’ll get me easily a day and a half, but I’ve never been concerned about the need for a power bank. There’s an entire customer base out there that would trade thinness for a bit of heft in their devices if that heft meant it had a LARGE battery.

RISC-V is a rival computing architecture to Arm, and it’s been gaining steam over the last few years. However, it recently got a major boost when Google announced that Android will support this new architecture.

An Android-powered RISC-V smartphone is still a long way off, but we wanted to know whether you’d buy one. We posted the poll last week, and here’s how you answered it.

Would you buy a RISC-V Android phone?

Results

Almost 1,900 votes were tallied in this poll after we posted the accompanying article last week. The most popular pick? Well, 51.37% of respondents said they’d buy a RISC-V phone if it were on par with current Arm-based smartphones.

This is an understandable stance, as we’d imagine that many people don’t care about their phone’s underlying architecture as long as everything works. But RISC-V is also an open-source architecture, meaning we could potentially have a wider variety of processors and cheaper devices too.

Meanwhile, 45.68% of surveyed readers said they’d buy a RISC-V Android phone for sure. This result suggests that there are some people out there who are willing to buy a RISC-V phone even if it’s missing some features compared to an Arm-based Android phone.

Finally, just 2.95% of respondents said they wouldn’t buy a RISC-V Android phone at all. Chips based on the new architecture are still a step or two behind the latest Arm-based silicon, while Arm chips also enjoy more features at this point.

Comments

• jim worrall: Google just gutted ARM’s long term value and gave Qualcomm an incentive to migrate to RISC-V. ARM should not have bullied Qualcomm.
• Rick: I welcome our new reduced instruction set overlords. More specifically, I expect RISC-V to challenge the incumbents in all parts of the computing ecosystem, from low-power to highest performance. And I’m patiently waiting for any of several dev boards I’ve ordered to release and ship.
• disqus_d1b9jeAcZN: I’m glad that Google is taking such a bold stance here, but I don’t really trust Google to commit to anything, especially hardware. Having another architecture that’s widely deployed would finally provide some justification for still compiling to bytecode.

Our very own Andrew Grush spent some time with the highly anticipated Sony PlayStation VR 2 at CES 2023. He checked out everything that’s new with the headset and concluded that it perfects all the faults of the original PSVR. The difference in quality is immediately noticeable, eye-tracking tech is super responsive, haptic feedback ensures you feel everything that hits your head, and the embedded cameras ensure you no longer need an external one like the original headset.

Clearly, there’s a lot to like about the PSVR 2. So we asked our readers if they are going to be buying the new Sony headset. Here’s how gamers voted in our poll.

Will you buy the PSVR 2?

Results

We received over 3,331 votes in our poll about the PSVR 2. An overwhelming number (71%) of the voters said that they would spend $550 to buy the PSVR 2 when it hits the market next month.

22% of the respondents voted to say that they are undecided about the headset, while only 7% said they are sure they aren’t going to get one.

2023 is here, and we’ve already seen the first flagship phones launch from the likes of OnePlus, Vivo, and Xiaomi. These devices will undoubtedly bring some respectable camera credentials to the table, among other selling points.

One of the best things about Android is that you can sideload apps onto your device. In other words, you can install apps from sources other than the Play Store.

In any event, we were curious about the last time readers sideloaded an app on their phones. We posed this question over a week ago and the results are finally in.

When was the last time you sideloaded an app on your phone?

Results

Over 2,800 votes were tallied in this poll to date, and it turns out that the most popular pick was “a week or two ago” (24.35%). We can see why people would sideload apps now and again, as there are several popular apps you can’t get on the Play Store. These apps include third-party YouTube clients, ad-blockers, the full-fledged Cerberus security app, and Fortnite.

Interestingly, those who said they’ve never sideloaded an app before accounted for ~15% of the vote and second place. We’re guessing the Play Store meets the needs of these readers just fine. Otherwise, those who said “today” took third place with 13.68% of the vote.

It’s also interesting to note that almost two-thirds of respondents (~65%) have sideloaded an app in the past year at the very least. This suggests that while it might not be the kind of feature you use everyday (after all, who installs apps daily?), it’s still a key selling point for Android.

Comments

• Resuna: When I upgraded from my Pixel 2 XL to my Pixel 4a and transferred a couple of apps I’d previously sideloaded. Also, calling ‘installing an app in the normal way people have installed apps on personal devices for the past almost 50 years’ “sideloading” is a a bit twee. This should just be a normal thing you can do on any device you actually own. If you can’t, you don’t really own it.
• Jacque G.: I’ve written several apps for personal use that I update and install frequently.
• B!: It’s been a few years. Haven’t had the need in awhile.
• eszklar: Google Play Store, F-droid, Developer’s Web site or GitHub, APKMirror. Whatever app I need and where ever I can find it legitimately.
• roaduardo: It’s a feature that if it were taken away from me I’d resign and just move to iOS permanently.
• Kent Seaton: On the play store there is a version of an application that just flat out sucks in comparison to an older version, which obviously isn’t “available” anymore. I sideload that same app at least once a month as I don’t keep it on my phone and only install it when I know I’m going to need it.
• Abhinav Srivastava: I sideload apps like Blokada, SpotiFlyer and Revanced, so basically apps that corporations consider out of their terms of service.
• thesecondsight: GCAM, AdGuard and NewPipe are just a few apps in which I’ve regularly sideloaded over the years. I’ve also found XDA to be an excellent place for open source apps which aren’t available on the Play Store.
• Pokeguy4: The only sideloaded apps on my phone are Sonic Runners Reloaded and ReVanced. 1 is a fan game/continuation of Sonic Runners, the other is an objective improvement on the og app

Many TVs these days are of the smart variety, and Android TV is one of the most popular smart TV platforms around. However, AA colleague Adamya Sharma lamented her experience with her Sony Bravia W950D Android TV set.

In any event, that got us wondering just how many people have an Android TV set, streaming box, or something different altogether. We posed this question in our opinion piece last week and here’s what you said.

Do you own an Android TV device?

Results

This was a pretty popular poll, accruing over 3,400 votes to date. The winning pick? Well, it turns out that 43.74% of respondents say they’ve got a TV running Google’s platform. We’re not sure if this poll reflects consumers at large given that Android TV boxes/sticks are much cheaper than Android-toting TVs. Then again, Android TV is pretty common on smart TVs these days.

Meanwhile, 26.2% of surveyed readers say they’ve got an Android TV stick or streaming box. As Adamya noted in her opinion piece, dedicated Android TV boxes like the NVIDIA Shield and Chromecast with Google TV get more (and more timely) system updates compared to smart TVs running the platform. So it makes sense to buy these devices over a smart TV if you’re worried about updates and/or price.

Otherwise, almost 17% of polled readers say they don’t have an Android TV device of any kind. We’re guessing at least some of these voters have an Apple TV box or a device with Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Tizen, or LG WebOS. Finally, 13.2% of respondents indicated that they have multiple devices running Android TV in their household.

Comments

• Grey: I do not trust any Smart TV and any Smart TV updates. I have a Roku TCL and I never connect it to the internet. I plug in my Chromecast or any other smart device for that aspect.
• Craig S.: Yeah, I wouldn’t recommend actual Android TV sets when you’re at the mercy of the Android TV OEM themselves to deliver the updates…with Android TV being the wild wild west situation that it is. Hisense doesn’t update much either. Amazon keeps their Fire TV OS builds on their Fire TV’s patched and they continually add new new features, but they never update the entire FireOS Android codebase to a new version of Android. Roku updates their Linux based Roku OS TV’s for years, delivering every few months with updates and usually smaller features. Dunno how well Samsung with Tizen and LG with WebOS do??? Android TV is fine with cheap HDMI sticks/dongles or the Shield that’s been updated for 7 years now, but NOT inside of the actual TV.
• Fried PB+Banana Sandwich: This kind of garbage is why I refuse to buy an expensive TV these days. Quality is no longer linked to price, all you’re getting is a headache’s worth of problems. Just get a basic smart TV, never connect it to the net, and plug in a set top box for all your media needs. Or better yet, get a PC connected so you can stream everything for a decade+.
• icwhatudidthere: This happened with my Sony Android TV also. At least you got 5 years out of it. I got 2 years out of mine. After a series of bad updates and various bugs it finally just hung during an update and never turned on again. Will never buy another Sony TV ever again.
• Arlondiluthel: This is part of the reason that I believe a Chromecast is a better route: take any working display and make it “smart” for under $100. Then, if the “smart” functionally gets EoL’ed, it’s under $100 to replace, as opposed to $1K+ for a new TV. Of course, if the TV itself craps out, you’re up the creek either way.
• darjen: I have a sony x800d in the bedroom… about 7 years old. all of the hdmi inputs died a couple years ago. can’t connect any device without the picture being completely scrambled. i can only assume it’s the motherboard or something. the one thing that still makes it useful is the built in android tv, where you can still use it to watch anything you want. honestly doesn’t matter one bit that the version is old. it still works completely fine with all the streaming apps.
• Masked_Avenger: I had a Sony TV that died after 6 years. The cost of replacing the motherboard was half the original cost. Also have a Panasonic LCD, non smart TV which is probably 12-13 years old and still going. Won’t buy Sony again… Android isn’t the problem the manufacturer is.

Google’s Chrome OS has been available for roughly a decade now, carving out a niche in the enterprise and education space. But it still pales in comparison to Windows and Mac OS when it comes to global market share.

Rita El-Khoury recently waxed lyrical about her experience with Chrome OS in 2022, posting a poll to ask whether you’ve used the platform in the last year. Here’s how you answered that question.

Have you used Chrome OS in the last year?

Results

Just about 1,600 votes were counted as of writing, and it turns out that ~52% of respondents say they use Chrome OS all the time. This was reflected in the comments, with several readers noting that they actively use a Chromebook.

Meanwhile, ~16% of surveyed readers said they used Chrome OS from time to time, while 8% said they rarely used it in the last year. Finally, ~24% of polled readers said they haven’t tried out Chrome OS in the past year. This is understandable, as we’re guessing that these readers are happy with their existing Windows, Mac, or Linux machines.

Nevertheless, as Rita noted in her post, you should probably give Chrome OS a try if you haven’t used it for a few years. Between Android phone integration, annotation/screen capture/screen cast tools, and the ability to run apps from a variety of platforms, there are plenty of recent additions.

Comments

• Adam Johannes: Get a pixelbook go from eBay and you will love it even more! I had a pixel slate,.the keyboard doesn’t last but with the bridge type g, it’s perfect
• ManFredMann: Can you really fall back in love with something that you left previously? Maybe you never stop loving it, but there’s something about something else that is new. That also allows us to go back to the beginning. I’m just hoping that chromos stays as lightweight as it is. I recently installed Chrome OS flex on a second generation i3 all-in-one Dell desktop and the thing flies!
• bluedye17: I had a Chromebook at work, and I’m pretty computer competent, but I literally could not access or download letterhead with Chrome OS. I would invariably end up saving whatever I had written as the letterhead itself, causing problems for everyone. I could not get my head around the whole file system thing. I eventually just asked my work if I could bring a PC in, and they allowed me to do it.
• Beardednomad: I use the Lenovo Duet 5 every day as my main computer. I do have a Microsoft Surface laptop as well but I rarely use it these days. Between Linux, Android and web apps there’s not much you can’t do on a Chromebook.
• eszklar: A friend of mine lent me their 2017 Pixelbook at the beginning of last October when he and his girlfriend went on a three-week vacation to Paris, France. Like you Rita, I was pretty impressed with how far ChromeOS had evolved. Used ChromeOS, Android apps from the Play Store, installed Linux containers and I also tested CrossOver for ChromeOS. Gave the Pixelbook back when my friend returned from his vacation and thought about what Chromebook would I ever get and saw the Framework Chromebook Edition laptop. Expensive, but can install up to 64 GB RAM, the Framework USB-C side modules available are amazing and the machine’s core main-board can be replaced with a “regular” main-board to install Windows or Linux. That’s what I’d go for Rita.

It emerged last week that Samsung has apparently formed a chip development team inside its mobile division. This would be a departure from the norm, as the mobile division currently relies on a sister division for its custom smartphone processors.

This news got us wondering whether readers thought Samsung would be able to develop a Snapdragon-beating mobile chip. We posed this question last week, and the results are finally in.

Do you think Samsung can develop a Snapdragon-beating mobile chip?

Results

This was definitely a popular poll, accruing over 9,100 votes to date. The winning pick? Well, it turns out that almost 56% of respondents think Samsung can indeed develop a Snapdragon-beating mobile chip.

It wouldn’t be the first time Samsung beat Qualcomm. The Exynos 7420 was arguably the best chipset of 2015 while the rival Snapdragon 810 suffered from over-heating issues. Samsung also enjoys a partnership with AMD that could translate into superior graphical performance in the mobile space (although the AMD-powered Exynos 2200 wasn’t amazing). Toss in the recent news of an in-house development team, and it sounds like Samsung could deliver the goods down the line.

Otherwise, 44% of surveyed readers felt that Samsung couldn’t develop a Snapdragon-beating smartphone chip. This is perhaps reflected in the short term by the Galaxy S23 being exclusively powered by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 globally.

It’s also worth noting that Qualcomm has a potential ace up its sleeve with its upcoming Nuvia Oryon custom CPU technology, which it plans to use in lieu of Arm CPUs. Samsung is expected to stick with Arm CPU technology for now. So we could theoretically see a big CPU gap between Samsung and Qualcomm in the next couple of years.

Comments

• eszklar: I’ve always thought Samsung could design Exynos SoCs to be right up there with Snapdragon, but something was missing. Whether they need to bring in outside chip/engineering help, or simply buy an existing company that does design work. Apple has done this with the Ax series of mobile SoCs and the Mx series for tablets/desktops/laptops. Samsung is big enough to do this as well. They can compete with Apple for chip fab time.
• daftrok: Do I think they are CAPABLE of doing so? Yes. WILL they be able to within the next couple years? No.
• Beardednomad: The demise of Exynos has been talked about for months now. Samsung wasn’t happy with the peformance of those chips, there was even talks of them switching to MediaTek or partnering with them for their own chipsets (which this could very well be related to those rumors). Samsung LSI is reportedly ending Exynos alltogether and focusing on smart devices and iot going forward. That could end up being a disaster for Google as the Tensor is heavily Exynos based.
• Daniel Hollibaugh: I think that Samsung is perfectly capable of exceeding Qualcomm, they just need to get the best engineers, give them time to do their best work, and treat money like it doesn’t exist
• Mookie: They have the capabilities but no imagination.

Smartphone charging speeds have increased dramatically in the last few years, but not every brand has hopped aboard the faster charging train though.

That got us thinking about how long it takes for our readers’ phones to fully charge from empty. We posed this question last week and the results are finally in!

How long does it take to fully charge your phone?

Results

Just over 1,500 votes were cast in this poll after it was posted on December 7. The most popular option? Well, 18% of respondents said their phones took over 90 minutes to fully charge.

At least one reader specifically noted that they had a Pixel device, with Google’s phones indeed taking ages to fully charge. So we wouldn’t be surprised if readers who chose this option either have a Pixel or a similarly slow charging handset like the iPhone series.

Related: How fast wired and fast wireless charging works

In second place with 15% of the vote was “51 to 60 minutes,” while “61 to 70 minutes” took third place with ~14% of the vote. Interestingly enough, almost 9% of surveyed readers said they had no idea how long it took for their phones to fully charge. Presumably these readers charge their devices overnight, are content to come back to their phone after a few hours, or don’t charge it from zero.

Either way, it’s clear that a charging time of 30 minutes or less is still a niche feature among our surveyed readers’ phones, accounting for less than 10% of the vote. In fact, 50.8% of polled readers have a phone capable of fully charging in over an hour versus 40.8% having phones that fully charge in 60 minutes or less.

Comments

• Beardednomad: That’s one of the things I love about OnePlus, they not only have real fast charging they also still give you the charger for free unlike Google, Samsung and Apple. My OnePlus 10 Pro takes about 45 minutes from 0-100 but a quick 5-10 minute charge provides enough to last a day.
• Commentor: Switched to Xiaomi 12 pro with 120w ultra fast charging, if the battery is at 20% you are looking at under 10 mins…. once you have this, you cannot go back, plus charger supplied in box, unlike Samsung & IPhone
• Konrad Uroda-Darłak: More than 90 minutes because of intentionally slower charger (to only 85%) :)
• Walter Kowalski: Pixel 6 pro is about 1%/minute. However when it’s warm or cold it can vary.
• Joe Black: I have absolutely no clue :-D I probably never had issues with battery life to make it into a something I have to think about. Even my smartwatch has a battery life in a range, I do not have to think about it, I just plug it for few minutes probably every 14 days, when it is down to something like 50-60% and add some charge.

There are several ways to transfer files between your phone and PC, such as the old wired connection, third-party apps for wireless transfer, Bluetooth, cloud storage, email, and more.

The sheer variety of sharing methods got us thinking about how Android Authority readers transfer files between phone and PC. We posed this question to you earlier this week, and here’s how you answered it.

How do you share files between phone and PC?

Results

Roughly 1,700 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out there was one option that stood out above all else. 38% of polled readers said they stuck with a wired connection as their method of choice for transferring files between PC and phone.

We can see why many people would choose this option, as it’s still the most reliable method and offers top-notch speeds as well. This solution is particularly important for transferring large files such as videos and game files.

Related: The best Android apps to transfer files from Android to PC

Otherwise, the runner-up pick was “I use two or more of these solutions,” accounting for 17.6% of the vote. This makes complete sense, as smaller files might be better suited for some methods (e.g. email) while larger files might require a cable or something similarly fast.

Rounding out the podium was cloud storage (~16%). Otherwise, the “wireless” option also gained plenty of votes (~14%), with Nearby Share, PushBullet and Link To Windows being some popular options in this regard.

Comments

• Ayayo: I message the file to myself on a messaging platform because it’s the easiest with the most straight forward user experience and doesn’t need extra software.
• Shubham: I bought a USB3.0 cable just to copy files from PC to phone and reverse. Its 5times faster than USB 2.0
• HemanthJabalpuri: I use FTP/HTTP Server using MiXplorer in Android and sometimes MTP using wired connection.
• thesecondsight: I’m old school. I use a USB cable.
• veesonic: USB transfers via MTP are terrible. Computuer always seems to freeze and it seems Android is picky about what files it wants to accept. I use SD card reader as its easier. (Consequently this is one reason why my Android device must support SD cards!)
• dunnywastaken: Syncthing, also use it to transfer files to my Steam Deck.
• allhaileris: I use a cable for transferring big data like music folders or videos to the phone. For pushing smaller junk I use Telegram or Pushbullet. You can push files up to 2GB with Telegram. Both run on PC and all my Android devices.
• Lawrence Aubin: I use Microsoft’s Link to Windows mostly, sometimes USB cable and sometimes I send via email.
• Todd Heath: Been using KDE connect for Windows for file transfers over WiFi. It’s really good for being a port from KDE.
• B!: Pop the Type-C adapter in my phone, backup files to SD card, pop the Type-C adapter in the PC, move/copy files to my PC.
• Glen M Lj: Gotta make use the free 15GB Google gave me for file sharing purpose between my phone and my laptop, but that’s limited to smaller files only, because the internet in my region sucks big time. For larger files, I’ll just use a wired connection.

Android and iOS are effectively a duopoly right now, but we’ve seen quite a few challengers come and go over the years. Failed rivals include BlackBerry 10, Windows Phone, WebOS, and more.

Do we still need a third major smartphone platform to take on Apple and Google’s operating systems, though? That’s what we asked last week, and here’s how you answered this poll.

Do you think we need a third smartphone platform?

Results

Just over 3,000 votes were tallied in this poll as of writing, and it turns out that 68.69% of respondents think we do indeed need a third smartphone platform. Judging by the comments, some readers want Linux, Google’s Fuchsia, or Windows as potential third platforms.

Meanwhile, just under a third of polled readers say they don’t think we need a third smartphone platform. At least one reader suggested that we don’t necessarily need a third option if we’ve already got two options that work well enough. Another reader also pointed to apps as a major challenge for any third platform.

Nevertheless, we also wonder how many people would put their money where their mouth is and adopt a phone running a third platform in the first place. After all, we’ve already got alternative (but niche) platforms like Sailfish OS, Ubuntu Touch, and several custom Android ROMs.

Comments

• Beardednomad: I actually loved Windows phones. The software was incredible back in the day especially on lower end hardware. It was one of the most lightweight systems. The problem was always the app gap. And that will be a problem for any third OS going forward. The only real shot is an offshoot of Android or a Linux system that can run Android apps.
• Nick V: Although I wasn’t a Windows Phone user, I always thought the UI was innovative and pleasing. Unfortunately, the App Store was lacking severely for me to switch. I like the idea of the X Phone from Musk, and the thought of satellites to communicate, once Starlink is able to handle the bandwidth.
• Yakubu Tukur: Yes. Window Mobile is the third OS many people need.
• Chandler Cruttenden: I voted yes, however what I would most like to see is Google Fuchsia develop for Pixel phones. It will run the same apps but be much more efficient than Android and be much easier to refine, in the same way iOS is for Apple.
• eszklar: Yes. Third platform would be interesting. There are mobile OSes out there such as Ubuntu Touch, SailfishOS and PostmarketOS, but none of these are mainstream. I enjoyed using Windows Phone back in the day as well. Would like to see a “pure” Linux mobileOS come about like on the Librem 5.
• D’Sar Darkstar: There’s nothing wrong with two platforms that work well. Like you stated, Web OS, Windows phone, BlackBerry… They all failed. If it’s not broke don’t fix it. However, it would be nice if the USA could get some of those cooler phones from China, Korea and Japan and not leave us stuck with limited brands and models while being jealous of other countries better phones. I’m no fan of Samsung or Apple so we need something that brought variety and excitement like HTCand LG did.
• duckofdeath: Android is fine, we just need to get Google off the ecosystem. They’re really going all-in on abusing the control of everything to undermine Android manufacturers to sell their own trash hardware. It’s getting kafkaesque to see all easily swayed tech “writers” swallowing Google’s lies about their own trash vs existing hardware.
• roaduardo: We have enough fragmentation.
• Tetso Anoki: I would really like to see a cell phone with Chrome OS.

Google quietly revealed that the Pixel 7 devices were actually the first 64-bit only Android smartphones. The Tensor G2 processor inside these phones indeed supports 32-bit operations, but the company decided to disable 32-bit support in software.

There are loads of smartphone brands out there, but you might not be able to buy some brands in your neck of the woods. You therefore might be forced to import a device if it’s not available in your market.

I recently wrote about my experience using a Pixel 7 Pro that I had bought while in the US, and we also used the post to ask whether you’ve ever imported a phone before or bought one when overseas. Well, the results are in, and here’s how you voted.

Have you ever imported a phone or bought one when overseas?

Results

Just over 1,700 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out that a massive two-thirds of respondents indeed imported a phone before or bought one while overseas. Of course, we are a smartphone-focused website, so we’ll undoubtedly attract enthusiasts who are more likely to import a device. But it’s still a pretty interesting result.

A couple of comments mention importing a Pixel device, which isn’t a surprise given the subject matter of the article in the first place. However, we wouldn’t be surprised if some respondents also imported phones from the likes of Xiaomi and Huawei in the past.

In any event, 32.6% of surveyed readers noted that they’ve never imported a smartphone before or bought one when traveling internationally. This is understandable, as you’re on your own in terms of after-sales support and repairs.

Movement is a huge challenge for many smartphone cameras, but many devices today tout effective image stabilization tech. Be it software-based electronic stabilization or hardware-based OIS, it’s become easier to get that blur-free night shot or that recorded video with minimal judder.

Still, there are times when a smartphone tripod will be handy. But we wondered whether Android Authority readers actually owned one of these gadgets. So we posted a poll to ask you, and here’s how you voted.

Do you own a mobile tripod for your smartphone?

Results

Just over 1,000 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out that the results were split almost evenly down the middle. In saying so, those who voted “no” won out with 51.15% of the vote.

More photography coverage: These photography tips will help you take your snaps to the next level

Interestingly, none of the reader comments on our poll article reflected this position. Nevertheless, we can see why many people wouldn’t have a mobile tripod, as today’s night modes and Super Steady video modes mean you don’t need a tripod for many situations.

Meanwhile, 48.85% of respondents said they indeed had a tripod for their smartphone. Comments point to uses such as night shots, group pictures, selfies, time lapses, and images of the sun (!). Still, this figure is definitely higher than I expected. There’s no doubt that our enthusiast audience is more likely to own a mobile tripod, but it’s still a pretty interesting result.

Comments

• Paul: Yes, but my wife got it for me though Walmart’s Spark Reviewer program
• Albin: I have a mount and little folder in a amall beltpack (with Moto Mod snap-on battery) and in a backpack a larger Gorlillapod that mounts either a regular camera or the phone. Oddly, I’ve found just attaching the mounting bracket alone provides a better landscape grip than ordinary handholding (though I’ve been tempted by the Adonits with bluetooth shutter).
• duckofdeath: Yes. Used it to take photos of the sun with my S22U. The 100x zoom is good enough to produce clearly visible sunspots. Remember to use a solar filter if you want to try something like that.
• Joe Black: I do have one or two cheap ones, I managed to break a few of them as they have plastic parts holding a screw. But I used them probably only for night shots.
• Michael Schaap: Yes. Not so much for night shots and other long exposures, but to take better group pictures with myself in it. I rarely have it with me, though, when I need it… 
• mattc: Yes, I tend to use it for night time photography, time lapses and the occasional selfies.

There are loads of smartphone brands out there, but the unfortunate fact is that some brands simply aren’t available in your neck of the woods. For example, Google’s Pixel phones aren’t available in Latin America, many Asian markets, or Africa. Meanwhile, the US misses out on many Chinese brands such as Xiaomi, Oppo, and realme.

So with this disparity in mind, we wanted to know which phone brand you really wanted in your country. We posted a poll earlier this week and here’s what you told us.

Which phone brand do you want most in your country?

Results

Almost 1,400 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out there was one runaway winner. Almost 41% of respondents said Google was the phone brand they wanted the most in their country. This is an understandable result, as Pixel phones aren’t available in many countries even with the Pixel 7‘s expanded launch.

Sony was in a distant second place, accounting for 17.61% of the vote. The company had a large footprint six or seven years ago, but scaled back in a big way as part of a rejigged mobile strategy. More specifically, the Xperia brand retreated from Africa, Australia, Canada, India, Latin America, the Middle East, and South East Asia.

Xiaomi took the final podium spot with 11.38% of the vote. The company actually has a broad presence, but it’s missing a major region in North America.

We also saw 6.73% of respondents voting for the “other” option. Judging by reader comments, brands that fit the bill in this regard include Nothing and ASUS.

Comments

• Beardednomad: Xiaomi and/or RealMe in the US would be amazing. Not just for their actual phones but for how much it would transform the US budget/midrange market. The Pixel 6a and Galaxy A53 are the two best midrange phones in the US, both are crap compared to what those two brands offer. There’s a reason Google sells in so few markets.
• Xeritaes: American here, I’d love to see Nothing come to the US. I’ve been thinking about throwing caution (and potentially money) to the wind and buying the Nothing Phone 1 anyway. I’m a sucker for aesthetics.
• thesecondsight: More competition always benefit customers. As an American I’m so sick and tired of Apple and Samsung being the dominant players in the U.S. It’s true that Google, Sony, Nokia, OnePlus and Motorola have carved out a niche market. However we need more heavy hitters like Xiaomi, HONOR, HUAWEI, OPPO and realme. They offer budget-friendly phones with excellent specs.
• Hashim: ASUS and in particular their ROG lineup
• ThatWeirdCarNerd: I would like the Nothing Phone 1 in the US. It would be nice to see some fresh design in the upper-midrange segment.
• NNN: OnePlus in Nigeria. Enough of the Transsion family (Tecno, Infinix and Itel) with their ultra budget offerings. Samsung & Apple on the other cost a kidney leaving the market open for OnePlus to come in. Good thing they have budget offerings too.
• Joe Black: Google and vivo have abysmal supply chain in my country – no official distribution for Google phones and only lower ends vivo. Those two would be nice as IMHO Google makes good products and vivo is probably the best camera phone solution out there.
• Fabiano Forte: I’d like to have Sony back to Brazil…

Dual-SIM support has been available on smartphones since the mid-2010s, allowing people to use two SIM cards in their handset at once. It looks like the proliferation of eSIMs hasn’t dampened support for the feature either.

We posted a poll earlier this week asking whether you had a smartphone with dual SIM support. We considered dual SIM support to be two physical SIMs, a physical SIM and eSIM, or two eSIMs. Well, the results are in and here’s how you answered the survey.

Does your phone support dual SIMs?

Results

Over 1,500 votes were tallied in this poll, and it turns out that 55.3% of respondents have a phone that supports two physical SIMs. That’s a pretty steep figure, but it makes sense in light of the fact that many mid-range phones and some flagship devices offer dual physical SIMs.

Meanwhile, 31.5% of surveyed readers said they had a phone with a physical SIM slot and eSIM support. Rounding out the top three was “no, it doesn’t support dual SIMs,” accounting for 7.9% of the vote. Bringing up the rear was “yes, two eSIMs” (2.7%) and “I don’t know” (2.63%).

In other words, almost 90% of polled readers (89.5%) say they have dual SIM support of some kind. So these readers can take advantage of the second SIM/eSIM for travel, keeping work and personal numbers on the same phone, and more.

Comments

• ptsenter: I have 3 phones – 2 with eSIM and one is dual physical – to be used for travel.
  Galaxy S22 Ultra, USA version, is pretty useless, as it does not allow to use one SIM for voice and messages and another for data. It always bounds all 3 functions to one SIM. Pixel 6a is pretty good. The only issue is data eSIM I’m buying through Airalo or MobiMatter are time-limited: 7 or 30 days. During my travel I never spent more than 3GB per week. It means I always loose 40% of data I paid for. Physical data SIM I bought from vodafone, Italy, is the most versatile. Practically, it does not have time limit and I can use it in UK or France.
• Black Spectrum: My phone has support for dual sim (physical) and a microsd card!
• Enigma: Yes but when the second Sim in I no longer have space for the microSD card and which is very much important to me to have. Recommend strongly microSD card space should be created together or separately….
• Igor Costa: There’s no single SIM phones in my country for ages now.
• Dogeanimupower: Two physical sims and one eSim. But no sd card. Come on Samsung. I would renounce one physical and the esim in a blink of an eye to get that stupid sd card back
• Dai Jiawen: using Xiaomi dual sim phones for 10 years and counting.

It seems like almost every person locks their smartphone, be it with a PIN code or biometric authentication. As for smartwatches, though? We wondered whether Android Authority readers locked their watches, so we posted a poll to find out.

Well, a few days have passed since the poll’s publication on November 17. So how did readers vote? You can check out the results below.

Do you lock your smartwatch?

Results

Almost 1,100 votes were cast in this poll, and it turns out that the results are almost evenly split. 51% of respondents said they didn’t lock their smartwatch, winning by a very small margin over the “yes” camp.

Most of the people who said they locked their smartwatch noted that they did so for mobile payment functionality. Of course, there are other reasons to lock your wearable, such as to protect your private data and in case it gets stolen. But these reasons seemingly pale in comparison to mobile payments.

Meanwhile, 49% of surveyed readers said they didn’t lock their smartwatches. At least one reader noted that unlocking their watch every time they wanted to use it would be annoying.

Comments

• Asher: I have it locked because of mobile payments. Only requires me to unlock when I take it off my wrist to charge
• duckofdeath: There isn’t an option if you want to enable contactless payments. Locked, but only required authentication once a day.
• meh…: I like having Samsung Pay usable, so it’s required.
• Bonedatt: My watch is usually unlocked, but it requires a PIN prior to using Samsung pay for payments.
• Kent Seaton: My not-so-smart watch doesn’t support NFC. It shows if I have a message, or an incoming call, but no details about it. Also it doesn’t unlock my phone… so I see no reason to lock it other than keeping someone from changing the settings. Also, locking the watch can be unlocked easily with a factory reset so locking it as a theft deterrent is moot.
• Konrad Uroda-Darłak: Automatic lock when removed from the hand :)
• bradavon: No. It would be so annoying having to unlock it to use my watch. All they’d get of any worth is some notifications. Used to hate to use Samsung Pay on my watch I’d have to enter a fiddly pin every time. Besides when you’ve likely also got a phone on you and your is quite literally strapped to your arm few thiefs would try.

We haven’t seen many new entrants into the smartphone business within the last few years, and it’s easy to see why. The industry is dominated by a select few, while others are often left to fight for scraps.

Unfortunately, we’ve also seen plenty of dead smartphone brands over the years as a result. But we wondered which dead brand readers would revive if they could do so. We posed this question earlier this week, and here’s what you told us.

Which dead smartphone brand would you resurrect?

Results

We posted this poll on November 14, and it was a very popular one indeed. Over 4,500 votes were cast, and it turns out that the top choice was BlackBerry (40.65%).

BlackBerry itself effectively left the smartphone space in 2016 when it announced that it would outsource hardware development to other players such as TCL. However, TCL in turn stopped making BlackBerry-branded handsets in 2020. These phones nevertheless stood out thanks to the physical keypad and variety of productivity and privacy features.

Opinion: Nokia, BlackBerry, Palm — We should stop trying to revive dead phone brands

In second place was LG with 34.09% of the vote. The Korean brand announced just over a year ago that it would be exiting the smartphone business, bringing an end to a long run of devices. The brand also stood out thanks to its focus on the audio experience, as well as some weird ideas like the LG Wing and second screen case.

Rounding out the podium was our “other” choice with 9.07% of the vote. Readers left comments voting for Microsoft’s Lumia handsets, HTC(essentially a zombie brand at this point), Nextbit (acquired by Razer), and the Nexus line.

Finally, Essential and Palm brought up the rear, accounting for 8.32% and 7.86% of the vote respectively.

Comments

• Phillip Roey: Microsoft/Lumia I really liked the Windows 10 Phone OS and used mine pretty much until it died
• Riku_Xander: LG was always so experimental and I loved it.
• BCP: HTC. It’s a dead brand right now
• Ralph Angelo: The Lumia series. It had such a unique and colorful aesthetic.
• Dion: Nexus. Loved my 5
• Jeff: NextBit
• John Quincy Adams: Simple, Blackberry. I would have chosen HTCbut apparently they’re barely surviving. Blackberry brand with a Pixel skin would be awesome. I miss the keyboard feature. Give it a Pixel camera and Pixel AI….let’s go Google.
• meh…: I still miss my BlackBerry Passport…

Shortly after Google launched the Pixel 6 series, customers started noticing a ton of problems with the phones. They were mostly software-related issues that Google fixed in the due course of time, but it’s safe to say that the Pixel 6 series didn’t have the smoothest of launches. Since it’s been a few weeks after the launch of the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro, we thought of asking people if they’ve witnessed any major issues with Google’s latest flagships. Here’s how users voted in our poll.

Have you had any major issues with your Pixel 7 phone?

Results

We received over 4,800 votes in our poll about possible major issues with the Pixel 7 series. We can only assume in good faith that most of those votes came from actual Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro users. Nevertheless, the results of the poll are totally one-sided, in Google’s favor.

79% of the voters said that they’ve had no major issues with their Pixel 7 series phone. 21% of the participants still responded to say that they’ve had some trouble with the phones.

Also read: Don’t worry, these things are normal on your Pixel 7 phones

Google doesn’t limit the number of accounts you can have on the platform. You can create as many Google accounts as you want and link them to one another. You can even jump from one Google account to another quite effortlessly. So we surveyed Android Authority readers and asked them how many Google accounts they have. Here’s how people voted.

How many Google accounts do you have?

Results

We received just over 2,300 votes in our poll and found that a very tiny fraction of our readers don’t have a Google account. Only 1% of the voters said that they don’t own a single Google account. The rest of the vote was almost equally split between respondents who said that they have one Google account (25.7%), two Google accounts (27.7%), and four or more Google accounts (27.7%). Meanwhile, 17.8% of our readers who participated in the poll said that they have three Google accounts to their name.

What’s clear is that a majority of the poll respondents have more than one Google account. The comments on the poll article shed more light on why people prefer holding multiple accounts with Google.

Your comments

ThatOtherOtherGuy: I only have four, but my three dogs each have their own.

Nick V: As someone who has duties in different organizations, I keep a gmail account for each of them, so that I can maintain order, and if I choose to give up that duty, I can just hand off the email to the next person.

Cat: I use one main account for everything and a secondary account for emails only. Helps me to organize my mails better. If i get a mail on the secondary Google account then i know it’s an important one.

John Oliver Abella: 1 main + 1 backup + 2 extra (extra storage, email, and for multi-game account)

PhaserArray: 11 in my password manager, but there could be a few more with old bad passwords.

Albin: Only one nonsense Gmail account and no commercial relationship with Google, used for Android, siloing Google services, and a few free websites. What Google gets is a stingy grouch disabling whatever he can under its privacy controls I use Firefox and more privacy-protective apps and platforms wherever “real me” credit card identity is important.

It’s safe to say that things at Twitter are a hot mess right now. Amidst the layoffs and uncertainty, Musk’s plans to make verification paid on the social media platform have been met with strong criticism from users and industry watchers alike. Still, Elon isn’t budging from his plan to charge $8 for a Twitter Blue plan that will include the coveted blue check mark.

Just yesterday, the platform tried to introduce a double check mark feature to differentiate between users who pay for the blue tick and those accounts that are officially verified by Twitter. However, hours after the confusing rollout, Musk abruptly killed the feature. What’s happening now is anyone’s guess, but we asked our readers if they are willing to pay for Twitter verification. Here’s what they had. to say.

Will you pay for a blue check mark on Twitter?

Results

We received over 1,750 votes in our poll, and the majority of the respondents (54%) voted to say they won’t pay $8 per month for Twitter verification. It makes sense that people are unwilling to pay for something that once represented a status symbol of sorts and has now been reduced to just another paid social media feature anyone can have. Paid verification also poses a risk of impersonation and opens up the platform for more fake accounts that could do some serious harm.

Meanwhile, 35% of the voters also said that they don’t use Twitter or would stop using the service because of the new paid verification scheme.

Only 7% of the respondents voted to say that they would pay $8 per month for a blue check mark, while 4% think that the amount is too much to pay every month.

Your comments

Joe Black: I do not see a point for me… or 99,99% of other Twitter users.

ThatOtherOtherGuy: Would you pay for two-factor authentication so your account doesn’t get hacked? Would you pay extra for a website to actual secure your personal information so it can be accessed by hackers? Do you get a refund if you are scammed by a verified account? Security is not a revenue stream.

spann37: Eh, I’m already paying for a Twitter Blue subscription. I wouldn’t pay simply to be verified though.

Ozzie Khoo: You forgot the poll option “I am just an average person so obviously I do not need this.”

sala1hut3: I’d definitely pay $8 for verification.

serge bureau: Totally ridiculous, typical Musk stupidity.

Dave64: I’m leaning hard into probably deleting all my social media. Keeping it isn’t worth this level of aggravation, intrusiveness and trolling by a billionaire.

Stanley Kubrick: LOL…Musk is just trying to recoup the 30+ billion he torched when he bought this fiasco of a company! I wouldn’t use it for free and I certainly will not pay for it! How stupid people can truly be!

Peter Tomov: Buy, buy Twitter! I am not paying to read crap! I am already out of Facebook for 2 years and I do not miss it.

Micro-USB ports are very much still a part of our lives, even though USB-C has been around for several years now. To think most devices would have switched to the latter would be wrong, or so proves a poll we recently conducted on Android Authority. We got some interesting results as to which devices people use with micro-USB ports on them. There are some device categories that are clearly behind in adopting USB-C ports. Read on for the results.

Are you still using any devices with micro-USB ports?

Results

Our poll about micro-USB devices gathered over 11,450 votes. We asked people about the micro-USB devices that they are still using, and the accessories space dominated the results. It’s still very common to find micro-USB ports on devices like power banks, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, gaming controllers, etc. 46% of the respondents said that they own an accessory with a micro-USB port.

Meanwhile, some folks are also hanging onto phones with a micro-USB port. 13% of the poll takers said that they are using a smartphone with the age-old standard, which is surprising given most major OEMs have widely adopted USB-C ports across budget, mid-range, and premium handsets.

Elsewhere, 12% of the respondents said that they own and use an e-reader or tablet with a micro-USB port, while 17% said that they have at least two or more of all the micro-USB devices mentioned in the poll.

Only 13% of our readers voted to say they are not using any micro-USB devices whatsoever.

Your comments

fearlessferret: That moment when you remember that tens of millions of PS4s are still in use and those require MicroUSB. Pretending that MicroUSB is incredibly niche in 2022 is too funny. The comments and the poll itself really prove my point quite dramatically. My theory is that a lot of people who think micro-USB is old news are only thinking about smartphones and forgot about other devices.

Chris53: My MX Master 2s mouse, small keyboard for TV and bicycle lights.Everything else uses USB-C or proprietary ports

RichSPK: Headphones, mouse, several rechargeable bike lights.

DarkAngelBaM: micro-USB? I still have devices that are using Mini USB. (Use PS3 Controller for PC, Arduinos, shoot the Mega2560 using a USB Type-B.

Zagreus: Mouse, Mirrorless camera, Kindle, Xbox controller, Raspberry Pi (3B and Zero W). Generally, it’s stuff that doesn’t need an upgrade very often

ttguy: My brand new Nextbase dashcam uses, wait for it…mini USB! But to be fair, it stays connected to its magnetic windshield dock and only the microSD card is used to transfer files to a PC in the event of a crunch.

Reon: I have waited with buying stuff until a USB C version was available. Now we don’t have anything other than USB C in our house.

Shawn: The last device I bought that had microUSB is my motorcycle helmet. The Bluetooth add-ons are custom for the helmet so not much choice. Other than that, just some random stuff like Xbox One controller, old Alexa speaker. Micro-USB definitely seems like it stuck around longer than say miniUSB. USB wasn’t as common back in the days of miniUSB but then again, so many companies dragged their feet moving from microUSB to USB-C.

Billy Jo: On micro-USB, we still have two Bluetooth keyboards, two mechanical keyboards, two Kindles, two power banks, a mouse, a pair of earbuds (their case), half a dozen game controllers, and a few sundries like a cat toy and lamp. I think we’ve phased out all mini-USB except for an HDD enclosure.

Mace Moneta: There’s are likely tens of billions of micro USB devices still in use. It will take a decade for them to age out.

Vinícius Passarella Quennehen: IMO mini-USB is far superior to micro-USB, in terms of durability and ease of use. I still have some devices that use it, like an iPod clone and my ps3 controller as an example, the rest is only USB-C, all the devices that I had that used micro-USB I have had problems with the port. Still, micro-USB will still be around for at least 5 or more years. I really think USB-C is a great default for the future if we can improve it without changing the form factor. Still, if you still have micro-USB devices and they didn’t fail yet, there’s no reason to upgrade it only for the port, apart for the luxury of carrying only one cable around.

Ronson Wagner: I’ve got several devices that still use micro USB. My hearing aid charging case, my Samsung Gear S3 Frontier charger, my Kindle Keyboard, my Xbox Elite controller, and my oldest power bank. This isn’t including a couple old phones I use on occasion or devices that I have that I barely ever use.

Robert Pearson: Both my canon cameras (EOS M, Sl3 aka 250d), Battery chargers for cameras, luckily Neewer started making them with both microUSB and USBC which is super nice for my EOS M, just not my Sl3 yet. Anker power bank has both, Zoom H1n when using USB audio, probably a few other things I’m not thinking of.

John Oliver Abella: I have 2 extra smartphones lying around, 2 Bluetooth headphones, and one powerbank and it’s charging port is micro USB. Some newly released gadgets still use micro USB because it’s cheaper than Type-C

disqus_dSnKYymumi: My Sony XB950’s and a power bank that I have still use micro. Until that headset and power bank either breaks beyond repair or the batteries fail, I’m going to keep using them.

roaduardo: I’ve worked to try and reduce the number of devices I have that still need Micro USB because USB-C makes everything easier. The one device that still has me using Micro USB are my Razer BlackShark V2 Pro headset. I’ve got two, one for backup. I love them and it’s difficult for me to move away from them unless Razer updates this series with USB-C charging.

Kent Seaton: I still have quite a few devices that use micro, even some that still use mini. A couple of the micro devices were purchased just this year and it wasn’t because they were what I was wanting, but that they were the only option out there. I think USB-A and USB-B should be ditched in favor of USB-C across the board.