Qualcomm aptX Lossless announced: Bluetooth audio for the discerning ear https://ift.tt/3jxzVIH

Credit: Robert Triggs / Android Authority

• aptX Lossless is the first Bluetooth audio codec to boast bit-exact CD-quality music support.
• The technology will be part of Qualcomm’s aptX Adaptive and Snapdragon Sound ecosystems.
• Expect the first aptX Lossless products to appear in 2022.

---

Prick up your ears audiophiles; you’ll finally be able to listen to lossless-quality audio through your Bluetooth headphones. Qualcomm has lifted the lid on the latest version of its Bluetooth audio codec: aptX Lossless.

Diving straight into the core details, aptX Lossless is the first Bluetooth audio codec to claim bit-exact transfer of CD-quality (16-bit, 44.1kHz) audio over Bluetooth. Finally, your wireless headphones can support lossless sound. Compression is still used to fit CD’s 1.4Mbps bit-rate into Qualcomm’s more limited 1Mbps maximum bandwidth, but the company notes it’s using entirely lossless compression. Unlike existing lossy Bluetooth codecs, the audio stream at the output is an exact match with the input when listening via aptX Lossless.

With the move to aptX Lossless, Qualcomm is greatly improving the data rate over its existing aptX (352kbps) and aptX HD (576kbps) codecs. In fact, it can even exceed Sony LDAC’s 990kbps data rate. Although, sustaining this high bandwidth is the key problem and one that Qualcomm says it has addressed thanks to end-to-end control and optimization of its radio stack via its Snapdragon Sound ecosystem. As such, Qualcomm notes Snapdragon Sound is a requirement for sustainable aptX Lossless and that it intends for all branded products to support the new codec going forward. Sadly, the new hardware requirements mean existing products are unlikely to be backwards compatible.

See also: Everything you need to know about Bluetooth codecs

Fortunately, aptX Lossless isn’t another standalone codec in an ever-growing list. Instead, it falls under the aptX Adaptive tool suite, meaning devices will also benefit from Qualcomm’s other codec features. For example, audio bit-rate scales from lossless right down to 140kbps without interruption if you wander into an area with high radio interference. That means you shouldn’t experience glitches or dropouts. aptX Adaptive also supports 24-bit 96kHz playback, albeit with lossy compression, and a dynamic low-latency mode for gamers and voice calls.

Qualcomm’s decision to support lossless audio via Bluetooth is partly due to the growing list of music streaming platforms that now support lossless formats. Apple Music, Amazon Music, Tidal, and others offer high-resolution and/or lossless tracks to stream and download. But to make maximum use of this audio quality via Bluetooth requires new codecs and impeccable wireless hardware and software implementation. Qualcomm’s latest Bluetooth audio codec could become the preferred way to listen for audiophiles who also want to enjoy the benefits of Bluetooth headphones and earbuds.

aptX Lossless products, complete with Snapdragon Sound branding and interoperability testing, are expected to arrive sometime in 2022.

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/2Yic47J

Why you should care about lossless Bluetooth audio (and why you shouldn’t) https://ift.tt/3t6TbA3

Credit: Lily Katz / Android Authority

With the introduction of Qualcomm’s aptX Lossless technology, Bluetooth headphone customers will finally join their wired audiophile brethren with the option to listen to lossless quality audio. The promise, as always, is superior sound. But whether this is really a game-changer for your future listening habits depends on who you ask.

On the one hand, existing wireless products are some of the best-sounding headphones on the market, packing in powerful noise-cancelling, virtual assistant, and customization options you’ll seldom find in the wired space. Plus, there are solid-sounding Bluetooth codecs already on the market, including LDAC and aptX HD. However, audio purists will tell you there’s no substitute for the sound quality of lossless audio. It’s a debate that’s raged since the development of the MP3, but who should you believe, and is lossless Bluetooth audio really that important?

See also: Bluetooth codecs 101 — Everything you need to know

Lossy vs lossless audio: What’s the difference?

Credit: Robert Triggs / Android Authority

Let’s start with a quick primer on lossy versus lossless audio. Both are types of digital file compression designed to shrink down the size of a music file or stream. Compression was originally very useful to cram as many tracks as possible onto your iPod or MP3 player. Today it avoids eating up your 4G/5G data limit too quickly while streaming.

As the names imply, lossy compression throws away some data from the original file to save space, while lossless gives you an entirely faithful reproduction with no loss when uncompressed, hence the debate about audio quality differences.

Lossless compression is achieved through the use of encoding techniques designed to optimize an audio file’s size without throwing anything away. Huffman coding is a basic example of this. You can think of lossless music as a bit like a .zip or .rar file, but rather than being general-purpose, lossless music files use encoding algorithms specifically designed for optimal audio compression. Common physical file types include FLAC and Apple’s ALAC, while aptX Lossless is the only Bluetooth codec currently in this category.

See also: Audio file formats explained and where to get them

Lossy compression is more complicated and there is a wider range of techniques and models employed to shrink file sizes. The common theme is that they’re based on frequency domain psychoacoustic compression, removing parts of the audio signal that are already masked or very difficult to hear based on the characteristics of human hearing. In theory, you shouldn’t hear any difference. However, the more aggressive the compression, the smaller the file size but the greater the chance that the listener will notice what’s been removed. Lossy audio file types include MP3, AAC, and OGG, while lossy Bluetooth codecs span SBC, LC3, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, LDAC, and others.

Lossless compression always sounds as good as the source but that doesn’t mean lossy compression is inferior or poor quality. Robust studies point to no discernible preference between decent bit rate lossy compression and the lossless source. Studies have shown similar results for CD vs Hi-Res files too — although that doesn’t mean some audiophiles don’t possess those coveted “golden ears.”

The Bluetooth/lossless problem

Credit: Robert Triggs / Android Authority

Why does Bluetooth use lossy rather than lossless compression, to begin with? The problem is that Bluetooth’s data rate is too low for lossless Bluetooth audio.

Even though Bluetooth’s Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) is capable of hitting above 2Mbps, sustaining that rate for real-time data transfer is not feasible. In reality, 1Mbps, or often well below is a more realistic sustainable maximum transfer rate. That’s not enough for 1.4Mbps CD, let alone 4.6Mbps Hi-Res audio. This limited speed is due to a combination of radio and object interference, packet overhead and loss, and often less than optimal antenna placements.

As a result, Bluetooth audio codecs have historically targeted lower, more sustainable bit rates using lossy compression. Another way to think of this is prioritizing playback that’s free from skips and dropouts at the expense of some audio fidelity.

Bluetooth audio is historically a trade-off between sound and connection quality.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the original low-bit-rate SBC codec was designed for voice compression rather than high fidelity music. Despite subsequent revisions, third parties have stepped in to fill the void with codecs specifically designed to transmit music over Bluetooth. But AAC, aptX, and the upcoming LC3 codec still target lower, sustainable bit rates around 300kbps and below. Qualcomm’s aptX HD pushes the envelope with high-end sound, but it’s still capped at 576kbps.

Sony’s LDAC was the first codec to attempt to tackle the quality and scalability problem head-on with its 330, 660, and 990kbps quality options. The codec also claims Hi-Res support and promises “same as CD quality” playback (note, not bit-perfect playback). After testing, we found the 990kbps mode is indeed virtually transparent for CD-quality audio. However, there are still some small elements of lossy encoding and, more importantly, some devices struggle to offer a glitch-free playback experience at this bit rate. LDAC can achieve near-lossless CD playback, but you’ll often find quality called back to 660kbps, although we’d argue that’s still good enough for all but the pickiest listeners.

LDAC can already achieve near-lossless CD playback, but sustained connectivity can be a problem.

Fixing Bluetooth: What is Bluetooth LE Audio? What you need to know about the LC3 codec

aptX Adaptive is Qualcomm’s alternative approach to solving the connection dropout problem. This codec dynamically scales its bit rate based on the radio environment, dropping down quality in congested areas to avoid glitches. Before aptX Lossless, aptX Adaptive still targeted a more conservative 420kbps but will now scale all the way up to greater than 1Mbps for lossless CD-quality audio. Qualcomm’s aptX Lossless is the first codec to claim fully lossless Bluetooth audio, bit-exact playback of CD-quality files, and also appears to have the hardware setup to sustain this high data rate. For now, lossless Hi-Res (24-bit, 96kHz) tracks remain out of reach for all Bluetooth codecs currently on the market.

Quick reference bit rates:

• SBC — 200 to 328kbps
• AAC — 128 to 256kbps
• LC3 — 160 to 345kbps
• LDAC — 300kbps, 660kbps, 990kbps

• aptX — 352kbps
• aptX HD — 576kbps
• aptX Adaptive — 279 to 420kbps
• aptX Lossless — 120kbps to >1Mbps

A closer look at the aptX Lossless solution

Credit: Robert Triggs / Android Authority

Qualcomm’s lossless Bluetooth audio technology is a two-pronged attack on the problem. First, aptX Lossless supports the compression of CD audio data (16-bit, 44.1kHz) without any loss in quality, while Snapdragon Sound ensures that both playback and receiver devices offer a robust enough Bluetooth connection to sustain the necessary data rate without dropping packets.

Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Sound encompasses Bluetooth radio components, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth co-existence management, and an optimized software stack to ensure a robust connection with minimal overhead. Without these optimizations, Qualcomm notes that it’s impossible to sustain aptX Lossless quality audio.

aptX Lossless is a hardware and software solution to Bluetooth's bit rate problem.

In addition, aptX Lossless falls under the aptX Adaptive tool suite, meaning devices will benefit from Qualcomm’s other codec features too. For example, audio bit rate scales from lossless right down to 140kbps without interruption if you wander into an area with high radio interference, so there are no glitches or dropouts. aptX Adaptive also supports 24-bit 96kHz playback, albeit with lossy compression, and a dynamic low latency mode for gamers and voice calls.

There are a few caveats, though. For starters, existing aptX Adaptive products won’t automatically receive Lossless support — at least not without a firmware update. You’ll also need Snapdragon Sound certified devices on both the transceiver and receiver ends to benefit from lossless audio. So it’s going to take a while for devices to permeate the market with a sizable portfolio. Unfortunately, not all Snapdragon Sound devices will necessarily support aptX Lossless, so knowing exactly what you’re getting might not be as crystal clear as it should be.

Is lossless Bluetooth audio actually useful?

Credit: Lily Katz / Android Authority

The prevalence of compression-heavy music streaming services has, until recently, made lossless Bluetooth audio an unnecessary luxury that probably crossed few people’s minds anyway. A lossless wireless connection to your headphones is redundant if your source is already compressed.

However, there’s a growing market for services offering music streaming and downloads in lossless CD and Hi-Res quality. Apple Music, Amazon Music, Tidal, and others offer high resolution and/or lossless tracks to stream and download. It’s these customers, and those with their own lossless audio collection, that stand to benefit from aptX Lossless support when listening via Bluetooth.

After all, it’s rather pointless to stump up a premium for Apple Music’s lossless ALAC files only to have them downgraded to lossy AAC when listening back via your AirPods Pros. However, customers with lossy music collections or those still streaming from more affordable providers likely won’t perceive any benefits with lossless Bluetooth audio over existing high-quality lossy Bluetooth codecs.

See also: Spotify HiFi — Everything you need to know

---

With lossless CD-quality, radio-aware scaling, low latency gaming and voice, and Hi-Res support, aptX Lossless appears to be the industry’s most robust Bluetooth audio option. However, there’s still likely to be some debate about whether Qualcomm’s standard offers a perceivable improvement to audio quality and which Bluetooth audio codec is the best pick for consumers with a Hi-Res library. Plus whether the proprietary nature of Qualcomm’s technology will limit consumer adoption versus more universal support for SBC and the upcoming LC3 codec.

Customers with a lossless music collection stand to benefit from CD-quality Bluetooth audio.

Ultimately, the best Bluetooth codec is the one supported by both your headphones and smartphone or music player. aptX Lossless has some rather steep requirements on the hardware side compared to existing standards. We’re waiting to see whether headphone manufacturers think this is the right technology to invest in, or whether wireless audio quality is already good enough for their customers. What do you think?

The prospect of lossless audio via Bluetooth will finally allow customers to make the most of the premium streaming options littering the market, setting Qualcomm up as the leader when it comes to Bluetooth audio quality — although those with a penchant for Hi-Res music collections will likely stick to their wired headphones for a bit longer.

Even so, lossless CD-quality audio over Bluetooth is great news for audiophiles, who can now enjoy the added bonus of revisiting old arguments on the merits and audible perception of lossy versus lossless compression and CD versus Hi-Res music quality. Thanks, Qualcomm.

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/3gOJOQA

Samsung is reportedly increasing its foldable display production by nearly 50% https://ift.tt/3yzOobl

Credit: Eric Zeman / Android Authority

• A new report claims that Samsung is increasing its capacity to make Samsung foldable displays for smartphones.
• The report says that it is expanding its display production plant in Vietnam later this year.
• The need for more displays is driven by the high demand for foldable phones.

---

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 and the Galaxy Z Flip 3 have just been launched. However, the company is apparently not waiting around to see if they will be sales successes. Instead, it is reportedly going all-in on future foldable smartphone production. A new report from The Korean Economic Daily claims that Samsung Display is gearing up for a major plant expansion designed to increase its flexible displays production greatly.

The story claims that Samsung’s display plant in Bac Ninh, Vietnam, will begin its expansion later this year, for completion in late 2021 or early 2022. Once it’s finished, the story says the plant will increase its foldable display production from 17 million units to 25 million units a year, or about 47%. The report claims that 10 million of those displays will be for future Galaxy Z Fold phones, while the other 15 million units will be for the smaller Galaxy Z Flip handsets.

See also: The best foldable phones you can get

The story also reports that pre-orders of its two latest foldable phones have already generated 920,000 unit presales in its native South Korea. It also claims that pre-orders in China have topped one million units. By comparison, the flawed original Galaxy Fold sold just 500,000 units worldwide, while the Galaxy Z Fold 2 and Galaxy Z Flip phones only sold a combined total of 1.5 million units. The article claims that Samsung has already made 3 million combined units of its two latest foldable phones in its first two months of production.

If Samsung is indeed successful in making the Galaxy Z Fold 3 and the Galaxy Z Flip 3 big hits, you can bet that its competition will also make foldable phones a bigger priority. That should also cause Samsung Display to get bigger orders from third-party phone makers as well.

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/3BxHRQo

Google Pixel 5a vs older Pixel phones: Should you upgrade? https://ift.tt/2WfTFYv

Left to right: Google Pixel 5, Pixel 5a, Pixel 4a 5G

Credit: Jimmy Westenberg / Android Authority

Google made the jump to flagship pricing with the introduction of the Pixel line in 2016. The Pixel series has only gotten more expensive since then, with many clamoring for an affordable alternative. Google answered the call in 2019 with the Pixel “a” series that’s reminiscent of Google’s Nexus smartphones. The affordable series has gotten better with every iteration, with the latest one — the Pixel 5a — being an easy phone to recommend in 2021.

The Pixel 5a offers everything Google smartphones are known for. Solid performance, an excellent software experience, and some of the best smartphone cameras you can get. It also brings key improvements in build quality and battery life but is somehow cheaper than its predecessor.

If you have an older Pixel device, is it time for an upgrade? We look at how the Pixel 5a stacks up against all the other Google phones that came before it! Before we start, just a quick note to say that if you’re still using a Google Nexus phone, it’s well overdue time to upgrade! We know, they were great, but it’s time to move on.

Our verdict: Google Pixel 5a review

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 2 series and older

The Pixel 2 series continued the trend of premium pricing that started with the first Pixel smartphones. While the Pixel 2’s base price stayed the same as that of its predecessor at $649, the Pixel 2 XL was priced to take on Samsung and Apple flagships of its time. Unfortunately, it fell short in key areas. Apart from the display and battery issues that plagued the device, it didn’t come with expected flagship features like wireless charging or water resistance. Ultimately, it was only the price that matched the competition.

That’s not to say that these phones were bad by any stretch. Everything that the Pixel series would come to be known for started with the Pixel 2 devices. The 12.2MP rear camera would become a staple of every Pixel smartphone in the future. You also got flagship performance with these phones thanks to the Snapdragon 835 chipset, with the software experience making everything even better.

See also: Everything you need to know about Google hardware

That said, if you’re still rocking a Pixel 2 series or older smartphone, it might be time for an upgrade. Google’s excellent software support ensured that the Pixel 2 made it to Android 11, but that’s the end of the road as far as major software upgrades are concerned. Also, while the Pixel 5a might be a mid-ranger in 2021, it offers better performance than the 2017 flagship. You’ll also get more RAM, 5G support, improved camera performance, and far better battery life with the Pixel 5a. And it’s only $449.

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 3 series

Pricing controversies would continue to surround the Pixel line with Google’s next generation of smartphones. The Pixel 3 saw a massive $150 price hike, and the $50 increase for the 128GB storage version of the Pixel 3 XL would see it touch the $999 mark. Once again, this seemed to be done to price-match the competition, but the Pixel 3 XL introduced some useful additions.

Google took the complaints about the Pixel 2 XL’s display issues to heart, with both Pixel 3’s featuring excellent P-OLED screens. There’s also that unseemly notch, but it was at least a sign of getting with the times. The larger Pixel 3 XL also has a more premium build quality, an IP68 rating for dust and water resistance, wireless charging, and a dual-camera setup for your selfies. The Pixel 3 missed out most of these, though, apart from the dual front-facing cameras, making its $800 price at launch much harder to justify.

See more: How has Google’s Pixel pricing changed over the years

If you still have the Pixel 3 or Pixel 3 XL, you could potentially hold off on an upgrade for another year. The Snapdragon 845 processor is quite capable, and the camera can still take excellent shots. The Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL will also get Android 12, but that’s the final major upgrade for these phones.

The Pixel 5a isn’t without its advantages, though. Once again, you’ll get better performance, more RAM, 5G support, and fantastic battery life. If you absolutely want to upgrade this year and are looking for a great deal, the Pixel 5a is the way to go. If you’re willing to splurge, you might want to wait and see what the Pixel 6 series will bring to the table.

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 3a series

The Pixel 3a series was the start of what would eventually lead to the excellent Pixel 5a. It was a welcome shift in Google’s smartphone strategy, and many appreciated the availability of an affordable entry point to the Android ecosystem. This wasn’t a return to the Nexus days, though, with the Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL being mid-rangers through and through.

A plastic body, the Snapdragon 670 processor, and virtually no “extras” ensured a low starting price, but these were certainly not the premium devices the Pixel line was previously known for. That said, the trade-offs were more than acceptable because the Pixel 3a retained what Google’s smartphones were known for. The Pixel 3a and 3a XL featured the same camera setup and shooting capabilities as the flagship Pixel 3 series, and of course, you also got a fantastic software experience with both.

Related: The best budget camera phones you can buy

The Pixel 3a is a couple of years old at this point, and mid-rangers tend to show their age sooner than flagships. You’ll still have a solid camera experience, and the Pixel 3a series will be upgraded to Android 12. However, if you’ve decided to upgrade, the Pixel 5a is a better phone in every way.

You’ll get far better build quality, faster performance, improved cameras, and superior battery life. The Pixel 5a is also the first of the line to come with dust and water resistance. Because the Pixel 3a launched at $399 ($479 for the 3a XL), the $449 price tag of the Pixel 5a is even more impressive.

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 4 series

Credit: David Imel / Android Authority

Google upped the ante once again with the Pixel 4 series and tried a few new things with its 2019 flagships. The lack of a notch was a welcome design change compared to the huge notch of the Pixel 3 XL, but it felt out of place against the competition. The “forehead” served a purpose, though, housing Google’s Motion Sense and Soli radar system. The Pixel 4 and 4 XL were also the first to come with dual-rear camera setups and displays with a 90Hz refresh rate.

Motion Sense and the Soli radar system were unique hardware additions, but the resulting reliance on Face Unlock and the removal of a fingerprint scanner took everyone by surprise. The new features also hurt battery life, which was, to begin with, average at best. There were plenty of issues with setting up and using the higher screen refresh rate and also had a huge impact on battery life. Google’s willingness to experiment is great, but that doesn’t always make for a good mainstream flagship competitor.

Also read: Everything you need to know about the Pixel 4 series

However, the point here isn’t whether the Pixel 4 and 4 XL were good phones. If you already have one of them, is it worth upgrading to the Pixel 5a? Probably not. 2019 flagships remain excellent performers in 2021, and the camera and software (which you will be able to upgrade to next year’s Android iteration) are its strongest features. You get the same camera setup with the Pixel 5a, but you miss out on a higher display refresh rate and wireless charging.

That said, if the Pixel 4 series’ battery life is giving you nightmares, the Pixel 5a falls at the opposite end of the spectrum. And for some, that might be reason enough to upgrade to the newest Pixel.

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 4a series

Credit: David Imel / Android Authority

The Pixel 4a was an interesting addition to the Pixel a series. It introduced a new, more modern look with its punch hole display but held on to “classics” like a capacitive fingerprint scanner on the back and a headphone jack. Of course, its camera capabilities and software experience were also as good as ever. It missed out on 5G support, but the Pixel 4a was $50 cheaper than its predecessor.

However, there’s no denying that the Pixel 5a is the better phone. The former comes with a faster processor, more premium build quality, improved camera setup, better battery life, 5G, and dust and water resistance. The Pixel 4a’s smaller footprint might be attractive to some, and its $100 lower price tag is even more compelling, so it just depends on what you’re looking for. If you already have a Pixel 4a, though, it might be too soon for an upgrade.

See more: Is there any difference between the Pixel 4a 5G and Pixel 5a?

If you have the Pixel 4a 5G, you definitely don’t need to upgrade to the 5a. The Pixel 5a comes with a few useful extras like water resistance, the battery life is longer, and it’s a better performer despite having the same processing package. But the two phones are otherwise the same. Camera performance is identical, you get the same software experience, and the handsets even look the same. So unless something like water resistance is an absolute must-have, the Pixel 4a 5G is definitely good enough.

---

Google Pixel 5a vs Pixel 5

Pixel 5

Credit: Jimmy Westenberg / Android Authority

Let’s just get this out of the way. The Pixel 5a isn’t an upgrade over the Pixel 5. But, there are a handful of surprising similarities that make the former a very compelling option.

To start with, there’s practically no difference in the design. The Pixel 5a is bigger and thicker, courtesy of its larger display and bigger battery. You also get the same processing package in the Snapdragon 765G, 5G support, and identical camera and software experiences. That’s quite impressive when you consider that the Pixel 5a is $250 cheaper than the Pixel 5 was at launch.

See more: Google Pixel 5 vs Pixel 5a — What’s the difference?

Google’s 2020 flagship has a few tricks up its sleeve, though. It comes with a higher display refresh rate (90Hz vs 60Hz), slightly better dust and water resistance rating (IP68 vs IP67), more RAM, and wireless charging. The Pixel 5a brings the fight with better battery life and a headphone jack. But that’s likely not enough to make a switch.

If you were deciding between the two, the Pixel 5a’s much lower price might give it the edge. The Pixel 5 is the better device overall. That’s a moot point, however, as Google discontinued the Pixel 5 following the launch of the 5a.

---

Should you upgrade to the Google Pixel 5a?

Credit: Jimmy Westenberg / Android Authority

Looking at an overview of the Pixel lineup, you realize that not much has changed over the years. Yes, you get the expected upgrade in performance, and a handful of attempts at new features have come and gone. But what defines the series — camera and software — are somewhat similar even if you go back to the Pixel 2.

If you're still rocking a Pixel 2, Pixel 3, or Pixel 3a, it's time to consider an upgrade.

The 12.2MP primary shooter is present throughout, albeit joined by a secondary camera in recent years. And because of excellent software support, even the Pixel 2 is running Android 11. That said, the Pixel 5a is definitely better than the Pixel 2, Pixel 3, and Pixel 3a phones. So if you’re considering an upgrade, the Pixel 5a is the way to go.

Things are a little bit murkier when it comes to more recent releases. You can definitely still hold on to the Pixel 4, 4 XL, and especially the 4a. The Pixel 5a has its advantages over them, but it might be too soon for an upgrade. On the other hand, there’s little reason you’d make the switch from the Pixel 4a 5G, and absolutely no point in replacing your Pixel 5 with the 5a.

Google Pixel 5a Water resistance comes to the Pixel A-series

Google's Pixel 5a offers a few quality-of-life upgrades over its previous devices that may make you want to join Team Pixel. It has a metal unibody design, an IP67 rating for dust and water resistance, and a battery that just won't quit.

• $449 at Google Store

---

Will you be upgrading from an older Google smartphone to the Pixel 5a? Let us know in the comments!

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/3yxL3cD

Android developer news roundup from August 2021: Android 12 Beta 4 and more! https://ift.tt/2U7EPSI

Things have been ramping up for the past few months, and August was no different with the release of Android 12 Beta 4. With this update, the Beta has achieved Platform Stability, meaning it’s go-time for devs that want to ensure their software is compatible with the new OS. Meanwhile, Google has also tweaked its ratings and reviews process to offer a fairer and more useful experience.

News and features from Android Authority

Android 12 is now at the brink of stable release as beta 4 drops today — Our coverage of the launch of Android 12 Beta 4. The latest Beta is mainly focused on stability and optimization. 

Google pushes out Android 12 beta 4.1 to fix some bugs — This small 6MB update is focused entirely on squashing a few bugs. Devs should make sure they have the latest version for testing.

News and features from Google

Android 12 Beta 4 and Platform Stability — Android 12 Beta 4 has reached Platform Stability. This means all app-facing surfaces and behaviors are final in Android 12. In other words: there will be no further changes to the official SDK/NDK APIs and it is now safe to start testing your apps for the big release. What are you waiting for?

This post includes a number of tips to help ensure compatibility with the new system, so it’s worth a read for all devs.

Sharing Tiles with your smartwatch users — Tiles allow smartwatch users to quickly view crucial data and interact with their favorite apps on Wear OS. Now Tiles can be shared with smartwatch users via the Jetpack Tiles API.

Making Ratings and Reviews better for users and developers — This will be music to the ears of many a developer: Google is overhauling its ratings and reviews process on Google Play! Among the changes, devs can now filter reviews in order to quickly find complaints pertaining to particular device types. More upcoming features will weight ratings by region, such that poor performance in one area doesn’t bring down the overall score for an app elsewhere.

Working Toward Android App Excellence — Some handy tips on how to ensure users get the very best app experience!

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/3DAE46G

You told us: Sony should think about launching a new PlayStation portable https://ift.tt/3zzlj16

Credit: Oliver Cragg / Android Authority

Portable gaming has taken off once more with the abundance of mobile titles, more powerful phones, and portable consoles like the Nintendo Switch. But one gaming company is sorely missed from the mobile arena. Sony has a long history of offering portable gaming systems, with the Vita and the PSP coming to mind. But what if the firm launched a new PlayStation portable console? Would you like to see this happen?

We asked our readers this exact question in a recent poll. Find the results below.

Would you like to see a new PlayStation portable console?

Results

We saw just under 1,200 votes on this poll since it was published on August 28. Readers had a pick between two options, but judging by the results, we barely needed a second choice at all.

In total, a whopping 94% of respondents would like to see a new PlayStation portable console, making this one of the more one-sided polls we’ve seen in quite some time. Just 71 (6%) respondents opposed this idea.

See also: 5 ways a new PlayStation portable could build on the PS Vita and PSP

The argument for a new PlayStation portable is exciting. Sony could use its bountiful PS4 and PS5 libraries, add user-expandable storage via microSD cards to the device, and introduce the DualSense controller’s smart haptics, too. Those against seemingly don’t want to carry yet another console around or argue that Sony’s smartphones could possibly take the place of a new PlayStation portable.

Find some more reader responses and opinions below.

Your comments

• blindexecutioner: No back touchpad or trackpad at all. People want buttons. This wouldn’t be replacing a mouse and keyboard. I agree about the storage for sure. It also needs to be about $250 or less.
• Jason Laird: Truth is, nobody wants to carry one around when you can just pull out your phone. That and the fact that they will always use some dumb proprietary memory card.
• godisafairytale: Sony already makes phones. Very good, powerful phones that can handle even the most demanding Android games with ease. And which play well with Dual Shock 4 controllers. Why would they cannibalize their own products? They could open up PSNow to Android (perhaps exclusive to Xperia phones) and make Dualsense compatible, and tap into the mobile market for way less money.
• Techngro: I still own my PS Vita. It’s modded and has all the hacks installed. But it mainly just sits doing nothing. Had so many PSPs. I used to mod them and sell them. The Vita was such a great design, but Sony abandoned it too early, or maybe they never really had any intention of supporting it long-term in the first place. I would love to see a new handheld though. One to compete with the Switch. Or at least give the ability to cast your game to a large screen. And yes, non-proprietary storage is a must. That was a huge problem with both the PSP and the Vita.
• lsatmata: Next PSP (if Sony ever make it) must use a downscale PS5 technology. the problem with a portable console is physical media. Nintendo Switch using cartridge is actually making developer/publisher paid more than a BD because cartridge is using NOR flash and it’s way more expensive than NAND flash. on top of that, Macronix, the biggest NOR flash manufacturer still cant produce a 64 GB cartridge, even Nintendo avoiding 32 GB cartridge because it’s expensive.

---

That’s it for this poll. Thanks for your votes and comments. If you have any additional thoughts, be sure to drop a comment don below.

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/38tZwM6

Report: Google is taking on Apple with custom processors for Chrome OS devices https://ift.tt/2viKkSb

Credit: Eric Zeman / Android Authority

• Google is reportedly working on its own processors for Chrome OS laptops and tablets.
• Products with the new silicon are tipped to launch in 2023.
• It’s also claimed that Google is “ramping up” its smartphone processor efforts.

---

Google confirmed earlier this year that the Pixel 6 series would be powered by the company’s first in-house chipset. The custom Tensor processor hosts some machine learning smarts and is also tipped to offer a Samsung modem.

Now, Nikkei Asia reports that Google is building its own processors for Chrome OS-powered laptops and tablets, citing three sources familiar with the plans. It’s claimed that a launch is planned for 2023.

Two sources told the outlet that Google was “particularly inspired” by Apple’s success in developing custom chipsets or smartphones and computers. Apple has been producing in-house iPhone chipsets since 2010’s iPhone 4, while it also delivered its first custom processor for Mac computers last year.

More reading: The best Chromebooks you can buy in 2021

It’s believed Google’s custom Chrome OS processors and its smartphone chipsets will be based on Arm designs, suggesting that we’ll see Arm Cortex CPUs and potentially Mali GPUs. We would also expect these new Chrome OS chipsets to contain machine learning silicon as we’ve seen with the Pixel 6’s chipset. Dedicated ML silicon allows for improvements like faster image processing, improved security, and better voice recognition.

Nikkei‘s sources add that Google is also “ramping up efforts” to build processors for its Pixel phones and other devices. This presumably means that the firm has follow-ups to the Pixel 6’s Tensor processor in the works, but we also wonder whether the firm is working on mid-range silicon for its Pixel A range.

Finally, the outlet claims that Google has asked suppliers to prepare for 50% more production capacity for the Pixel 6 series compared to 2019’s devices (pre-Covid).

It’s far too early to say whether Google will be able to take the fight to Apple on the desktop computing front with custom Chrome OS processors. But it’s worth noting that Apple develops its own CPU and GPU as well, as opposed to relying on a chip designer like Arm. This means Apple is at an advantage in theory (and often in practice) as it’s able to exert more granular control over the performance of its chipsets.

from Android Authority https://ift.tt/38vFW2o