Hacker News Reader

Comment by prototypeasap | Hacker News Reader

So, to summarize: perfect size for one handed operation; Physical button is also a fingerprint reader (but i don't see the confirmation everywhere, only on some sites). No 3.5 jack (sigh).

I am still a very content user of 2nd gen SE. Thanks to the controversy with purposeful "slowing down" of aging phones, i was able to get a discounted battery replacement a few years back. So, my phone is holding up very well!

But if it does break - i guess I'll be getting this one instead of 'smallish' Pixel.

View on HN

> vile shenanigans by Apple with slowing down of SEs purposefully

Wasn't this more a poor communication of performance throttling to preserve battery that affected all phones?

And haven't Google/Samsung/others(?) also been caught doing the same thing? I thought just this past week Samsung backpedaled a change to throttle apps for battery performance.

I'm asking more generally because this is my understanding and I'm sure if someone has better info they'll reply, but to me "vile shenanigans" is a bit much. They could have done a better job of communicating a feature with some negative impact, that seems to be a not-uncommon problem for them.

I replaced the screen of my last SE 4 times. Hard to beat when there are $25 replacement kits available. Not the case with the 12 mini I picked up recently - wish I would've held off for this new SE (granted I don't think we'll see cheapo replacement parts any time soon). Really prefer the smaller size and the headphone jack isn't a dealbreaker for me

What's it like in terms of camera app open speed?

I made the mistake of getting a midrange android phone after phones became over 1 grand AUD. Missed so many photos due to the 2 seconds it takes to open.

Ended up getting a $1500 phone again to get the >1 second camera opening speed, like my 5 year old flagship had.

Are apple's cheap phones fast with opening the camera app and then taking a photo?

Not very scientific test, just pressing start stop on the stop watch on Google with one hand and opening the photo app and taking a picture with the other a couple of times. On my iPhone SE 2nd gen, after some practise, I can get .5 to .75 seconds. When including unlocking the phone first, it's closer to 2s.

You don't need to unlock. Swipe right from the edge of the lock screen and you're there.

With that it's a bit over 1 sec. But timing is a bit odd, because it seems it has some delay between screen turning on automatically when picking up the phone and this gesture working. First swipe does nothing, second just moves the screen and bounces back without getting to the camera, third one works.

Now i feel like i could participate in some millennial version of a wild west quick draw shoot out :)

This was a delightfully thorough thread. Thank you!

This updated SE model uses the exact same processor as the iPhone 13 Pro. So, it's fast. Even the old model was fast.

Apple doesn't really sell slow phones at any price point. What you trade off on for their cheaper phones is usually the "everything else" part of the equation.

You want the camera to open fast, and for that reason alone you should consider the iPhone 13, 13 mini, or 12. All of those phones have a dedicated button on the lock screen to open the camera, which I find easier than the swipe gesture on the iPhone SE and all iPhones in that form factor.

What you're missing out on with this SE is:

- For the most part the entire body is the iPhone 8

- It has a far inferior screen, it's the old LCD iPhone 8 screen, and it's the smallest phone screen Apple sells.

- It has older cameras/sensors. You mentioned needing a fast camera, and that means you use your cell phone camera a lot. Maybe that means you also want a good camera, and you'll get better cameras in the rest of Apple's lineup for not much more money in some cases.

- It has the worst battery life of any currently-sold iPhone, though it's been improved from the second generation. The physical battery size is smaller than more current iPhones, and there's no way around that.

- The base model storage level is 64GB.

It's for people who "just need a phone" and want an iPhone, I'd say the kind of people who have less than 2-4 hours of screen-on-time per day.

Still, I do think that someone who can spend a few more bucks should consider the iPhone 13, iPhone 13 mini, or iPhone 12. I'd skip the iPhone 12 mini because the 13 mini gives you extra battery life that I'd say it needs.

With all of those models you're going to get better cameras, better battery life, more screen real estate, OLED screens.

If you're really into taking photos, the iPhone 13 Pro really does have an amazing camera system. I didn't think it would blow away my iPhone 12 mini but it really does. You get what you pay for and the top-end is very good. If you're on a postpaid carrier and don't plan to leave for 2-3 years, you might as well take the subsidy and get a high-end phone.

Get the iPhone Mini, you won't regret it. I've used up 5 of the original SEs. The iPhone Mini's design is perfect and the actual SE in terms of usability. This SE has those round edges again which significantly lessens the grip.

I would love to get a 3.5 jack on an Apple product again

> Physical button is also a fingerprint reader (but i don't see the confirmation everywhere, only on some sites).

Apple's page says it has Touch ID

> iPhone SE features the familiar Home button with Touch ID

reminds me of a feature I loved on my droid x. it had a dedicated physical button that would wake the phone and simultaneously open the camera app. inside the app, it would function as the shutter, so you didn't mess up the shot trying to tap on the screen.

I wish that had carried over to modern devices. I guess it's "too intimidating" to the user to have an extra physical button.

> I wish that had carried over to modern devices. I guess it's "too intimidating" to the user to have an extra physical button.

Physical buttons cost money and can break (which costs money if it happens during the warranty period), also they need i/o and wiring. Android devices are going to have the minimum number of physical buttons (which seems to be three right now), because there's not enough people who will buy a phone with a shutter button over a cheaper phone or a phone with better specs. Windows Phone (RIP) had a requirement for a shutter button, but had to drop it because the cost was too high.

Anyone who describes active voltage and frequency scaling in order to keep the cpu from crashing as “vile shenanigans” outs themselves as a person without worthwhile opinions on the topic.

Ok, yes - i remember them being fined and they did pay for my battery replacement; So, i assumed it was an admission of guilt. But now after some googling, you have a point here; "vile shenanigans' is not a fair description (edited).

The problem is that there was no notification to the user that the CPU was slowed down on purpose because the battery can no longer keep up, misleading them into thinking their device suddenly developed a mysterious fault and/or passive-aggressively annoying them into upgrading.

Your CPU is always, always locked into a closed-loop control system involving temperature and voltage. Always! The user cannot also be in the loop. If you want a turbo button you'll need to accept 486-level performance and battery life.

In practice, the behaviour of that loop is predictable and consistent, so people get used to it and calibrate their expectation of the phone’s performance on it.

The problem is that a couple years down the line when the battery degrades, that feedback loop adjusts and as a result that performance significantly deviates from what it was originally with no obvious way for the user to understand why or tell whether it even actually happened or if they’re just misremembering what the original performance was.

The user can be in the loop in a read-only way. If the control system suddenly makes dramatic & unexpected changes (to accommodate degraded power or thermal performance) the user should be notified so they can rectify the solution (replace the battery in this case). Apple would rather gaslight them into believing their phone is working fine and was just always this slow and it might be time for an upgrade.

Well, if you'd just let people replace the damn phone's batteries by themselves, you won't have to resort to slowing them down in the first place.

No, having a user serviceable battery is not a good reason to assume that a user will replace it. Because 90%+ will not, and did not in the days when it was industry standard.

Crashing the phone instead of throttling is a bad design choice no matter the serviceability of the battery. I had (and professionally supported) devices in the 00s that did this, and they were not good. People didn’t happily replace their battery and move on with their day, like you might imagine. They made support calls because their phone was constantly crashing and they had no idea why. But they made those calls on their office phone because their cell phone crashed when they tried to call me!

Then why not both? Throttle the performance of those who don't want to do it, but let people replace their phone's batteries if they want without throttling its performance.

Because products are designed for a target market, and all engineering decisions have multiple consequences.

It is normal for mass market products to intentionally remove or never include niche features so that they can better appeal to the broader target market.

If you want a niche product, you have to buy a niche product: https://www.samsung.com/us/business/mobile/phones/galaxy-xco...

Why isn't the Galaxy XCover Pro a top selling phone? It has a battery door! The answer is that few buyers care.

> It is normal for mass market products to intentionally remove or never include niche features so that they can better appeal to the broader target market.

Except removable batteries were never a niche feature; most smartphones in the previous generation had removable batteries, and most smartphones today have it too, just glued instead to prevent users from removing them. Apple deliberately denied users that ability to ensure their reliance on its own repair services, and the rest of the industry followed with the same scammy tactic after seeing it getting tolerated by Apple's consumers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com