Verizon & HTC Officially Announce Droid DNA (1 Viewer)

[KeithAP]

http://www.androidcentral.com/verizon-and-htc-officially-announce-droid-dna

• 
  Camera: 8MP, f/2.0, 28mm wide angle lens, smart LTE flash, BSI sensor, autofocus, HTC ImageChip and 1080p HD video recorder; 2.1MP front-facing camera with BSI sensor and 1080p video recorder.
• 
  Display: 5-inch HD 1080p Super LCD 3 screen (1920x1080); 440PPI
• 
  Processor: 1.5GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 APQ8064 and MDM9615m
• 
  OS: Android 4.1 Jelly Bean + HTC Sense 4+
• 
  Memory: 16GB eMMC, (11GB usable storage), 2 GB RAM
• 
  Battery: 2020mAh lithium ion - embedded
• 
  Network Technology: 4G LTE, CDMA, Quad GSM, Quad UMTS
• 
  Wifi: 802.11 a/b/g/n
• 
  Dimensions: 141 x 70.5 x 9.73 mm
• 
  Weight: 138 grams / 4.86 ounces
• 
  Additional features: NFC, HDMI via MHL, HTML5, Bluetooth 4.0 aptX, microUSB, microSIM, headset and speaker amplifiers, 3.5mm 2.55v stereo audio jack, dual microphone noise cancellation, embedded wireless charging, G-sensor, ambient light sensor, digital compass, proximity sensor, gyro sensor.

The battery seems like it might be a little weak but otherwise it looks like a very nice phone. Originally I wanted to move from my iPhone 4 to a Nexus phone but I decided I against that.



DNA vs GN2....hmmm, one thing can be said for the iPhone, it is a lot easier just to decide between different carriers and capacity rather than adding completely different phones to that mix.



-Keith

 

[Hanson]

11GB storage with no SD slot and a sealed 2020mAh battery? The S3 has a 2100 mAh battery, and it only needs to power a 720p pentile screen.

This phone is out of the running for me because it's on Verizon, but other than the screen, there's nothing that's exciting me.

This is incrementally larger than the S3 with a better screen. But it's really not comparable to the Note 2, which still has a much larger screen and a stylus. The battery life will not even come close.

 

[KeithAP]

I understand that the limited storage will deal a breaker for many, for me it is not. The battery is a potential issue but as long as the phone can go a full day of my typical use, I won't have a problem with that either.

While I am still waiting for reviews, from what I have read, it seems the screen is the best on a phone to date in every measure but size. In this case, the slightly smaller size makes the phone a bit easier to handle then the Note 2.

Obviously, the Note 2 is a great phone. Compared to the DNA it has the bigger battery, S Pen and larger screen. I don't see myself being unhappy with either phone at this point. Choice is a nice problem to have.

-Keith

 

[Hanson]

I'm gonna guess the DNA will have similar battery life to the Thunderbolt. You'll be lucky to get 5 hours.

The bigger problem for me is that it's difficult to replace a sealed battery. You're probably going to hit the point where you will need a new battery halfway through your 2 year contract. I've never had a battery keep full charge even close to a year. Even my tablet has degraded in performance.

 

[KeithAP]

The DNA seemed to do okay on a CNET battery test when compared to a Galaxy S3, although I would imagine the Note 2 with its massive battery would do even better.



Quote:

I was surprised by the HTC Droid DNA’s battery performance, as well. Despite the phone’s large screen and swift performance, the handset’s embedded 2,020mAh battery lasted for a long 8 hours and 43 minutes on the CNET Labs video battery drain test. By comparison, the Samsung Galaxy S III offered an even longer 9 hours and 24 minutes on the same benchmark

Although I have no idea how good their battery test is at predicting real world usage.

-Keith

 

[Hanson]

Basically, those battery test don't mean shit when it comes to smartphones. The problem with all of them is that they test with network resources off or just wifi on or perform web browsing tests that are more a function of screen efficiency than device longevity in the real world.

The video run down tests are the least likely to reflect real world use since they are run in airplane mode or sometimes with wifi only. Your voice and data services, especially if you have poor to middling signal, will eat more of your battery than simply running a video. Plus, the video itself will have a direct impact on how well AMOLED screens perform. A dark movie in a loop, like Se7en will cause less battery drain on an AMOLED screen than something bright and colorful like Pixar's Up. For LCD, this drain is constant regardless of the source material.

The web browsing test don't really paint a good picture either. Whether they're running on wifi or 3G/LTE, the problem is that they stay on mainly white web pages. The biggest battery drain by far for this test is the screen, and phones with AMOLED screens displaying white web pages will suffer in comparison. That's because white drives all the subpixels to max brightness. If you have an AMOLED phone and surf the internet non-stop, it might be more indicative of your real life battery performance. But for most people, it's not really an accurate reflection of real life.

What I am finding now after using the GS2 for over a year is that all of the extra battery drain caused by poor 3G, poor voice, poor GPS, and even poor wifi is gone now -- when you have an Activesync email account and your phone is continually pumping extra power to the radios to establish a connection, your battery will crap out much earlier than any video run down test will indicate.

What it comes down to is this -- everyone will have different experiences with battery life depending in what programs they use, how they use their phone, and the quality of coverage from their carrier. Some people got 14 hours from their G3. Others got 6. Because of the way I use my phone, I'm on the shorter end of the continuum. So when they say the DNA lasted shorter than the S3 (which is to be expected considering the amount of pixels it's push with a slightly smaller battery), that's not a good sign. Someone somewhere will like the battery or even get "all day" performance, but I've never come close to any average run time numbers on any of my phones.

The reviews so far have been glowing, but I predict that a week or two after it actually launches, everyone will be bitching about the battery life.

And after thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that 11gb usable storage with no expandability is a deal breaker. I could live with 27gb usable, but 11gb is simply too small.

 

[KeithAP]

I am a relatively light duty user. Right now on my 32GB iPhone, I only have about 13GB of data that I have loaded on to it and that includes the entire first season of the TV show "Chuck" (a little over 6GB) that I don't think I ever watched on my phone. Dealing with 11GB of usable space won't be a problem for me.

The Verge called the battery life on the DNA "terrible." In their battery test the DNA was done at 4 hours and 25 minutes. Of course when they tested the Galaxy S3 with the same test it only lasted 4 hours and 12 minutes and in that review they called it "average" for a high-end smartphone. Also in that review, they mention the test was especially hard on LTE equipped phones because the radio using power. I assume that means that their test used the cellular network, at least to some extent.

It is certainly possible that once people start getting these "everyone will be bitching about the battery life." Look at how many people are bitching about it now and they don't even have the phone yet. However, with the exception of The Verge (which seems to have a real consistency problem), everyone that has the phone and is actually using it seems to find the battery life adequate.

Worst case scenario for me, I try it out and the battery sucks and it costs me a restocking fee to return it and get the Note 2. I can live with that.

Cheers

-Keith

 

[Hanson]

As I wrote in an earlier post, the battery torture test The Verge runs is not a very good indicator of IRL use. That's because it's more a test of screen efficiency than anything else, and both the S3 and DNA have the kind of screens that will absolutely chug electricity on your standard web pages -- the S3 because most websites have white backgrounds that require more power to the AMOLED screen, and the DNA because it's 1080p. The DNA is pushing more than twice the pixels the S3 is.

But while The Verge called the DNA battery "terrible", but it wasn't just in reference to the rundown test. The reviewer further stated:


Quote:

In daily use, it frequently tapped out long before the day was over. It’s certainly a phone that requires a trip to the battery charger at least once, possibly even twice, during the day to make it to the evening.

Meanwhile, the S3 got this comment about the battery:


Quote:

In more normal use, the handset lasted a full day of tweeting, browsing, watching movies and making phone calls, and if we paid attention to Verizon's pestering and joined Wi-Fi networks, it could last even a bit longer.

So the difference is all day versus one or two charges to get through the day. And that's why the DNA's battery performance was described as "terrible". And that limitation is compounded by the fact that the battery is sealed. You can buy any number of spare batteries for the S3, and for under $10 to boot. Extended batteries are also an option the DNA can't leverage.

 

[KeithAP]

I understand the limitations of benchmark battery tests but is it your contention that comments from two different reviewers doing different tasks are a better comparison?


In end nothing anyone else does really matters. What does matter is how it performs when I use it. Like I mentioned, I am a pretty light duty cell phone user. Even on my busiest day, I use the phone less than 4 hours for various tasks. I will have a 14 day return window to work with. I will do my own testing and see how it performs. If I can't easily get through a full day, I can always switch to another phone.

-Keith

 

[Hanson]

Keith, I see that you very much want this phone. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise (really, I'm not). There will be people who will get this phone and love it, and you may be one of them. But in my opinion, this is a very much handicapped phone, and I would caution anyone interested in it that battery life will probably not be good and 11gb storage is not a whole lot. For many users, it's too much of a price to pay to be the first on the block with a 1080p screen.

 

[Hanson]

It occurred to me just now that the reason the DNA battery is only 2020mAh (considering the J Butterfly is 2200mAh) is to show off the wireless charging feature. Wireless charging is slower than wall charging. If they put a really big battery in the DNA, it would take forever to charge wirelessly. By having it be a smaller 2020mAh, you could hit 100% fast enough that it doesn't take hours to recharge the phone.