At Engadget, we spend every day looking at how technology will shape the future. But it's also important to look back at how far we've come. That's what This Week in Tech History does. Join us every weekend for a recap of historical tech news, anniversaries and advances from the recent and not-so-recent past. This week, we're looking at Google's 2011 I/O event, where it announced the first two Chromebooks that would go on sale later in the year.
Google has been holding I/O, its annual developer conference, in early May for years now. As such, there's often a lot of notable Google-focused anniversaries to recognize this time of year, and today is no exception. Eight years ago (May 11th, 2011), Google announced the first two commercially-available Chromebooks from Acer and Samsung. At the time, these were just a pair of announcements in the middle of two days of news, but it was a big milestone for Google's fledgling Chrome OS. And while it took years for Chromebooks to shake a reputation of being devices that were both cheaply-made and not very capable, we can look back now at these laptops as the start of something significant for Google.
The 11.6-inch Acer Chromebook and 12.1-inch Samsung Series 5 Chromebook were cut from similar cloth. Both used low-power Intel Atom processors, used small solid-state drives and claimed impressive battery life, at least for the time: 6.5 hours for the Acer and over 8 hours for the Samsung. With relatively small displays, both computers seemed easily comparable to the many small, low-cost Windows netbooks that were commonplace in the early 2010s. Though with prices starting at $350 and up, these Chromebooks actually cost a bit more than some netbooks running Windows 7 at the time.
With a semi-expensive price tag of $429 and an unproven OS, Samsung's Series 5 Chromebook wasn't an obvious winner -- but it turned out to be a surprisingly solid option. The hardware itself was study and well-built, the screen was decent, battery life was strong and the performance adequate -- provided that you could get by with the many limitations imposed by Chrome OS in 2011. There was basically no offline mode to speak of, Netflix didn't work and buyers only had 16GB of local storage to work with. At a time when cloud storage was both expensive and not always reliable, a Chromebook was certainly not for everyone.
But even in 2011, it was equally true that much of what one needed a computer for could be done in a web browser, assuming your needs were fairly simple. Gmail, Gchat, Google Docs and Facebook covered a lot of use cases -- and while Netflix didn't work with Chrome OS right off the bat, Google did promise it would add support before long. Add in the new cloud music locker that Google announced at I/O, and a lot of basics were covered. Indeed, when we reviewed the Series 5, we found that while it wasn't ready to be a main computer, it was far more capable than we might have anticipated.
While Chrome OS felt a bit like another beta product when it launched, the good news it that Google has kept up a steady stream of improvements. Given that Google has a bit of a reputation for abandoning and killing projects at a moment's notice, the company has been consistently supportive of Chromebooks, eventually turning them into far more than laptops that "can only run a browser." Features like offline support, better web apps and Google Play / Android compatibility all made the software experience more complete.
At the same time, Google's hardware partners quickly started selling Chromebooks under $300, making it an ideal option for students or for people who wanted a simple, low-cost laptop as a second computer. And after gaining some traction in the market with those inexpensive laptops, hardware makers followed the lead Google set with its wildly expensive but well-built Chromebook Pixel and started making higher-end Chromebooks of their own.
Now, eight years after these first consumer-ready Chrome OS devices were announced, 21 percent of all laptops sold in the US in Q4 2018 were Chromebooks. Google has also made undeniable progress in education, with one research firm estimating that Chromebooks made up 60 percent of K-12 laptop purchases in 2018. And that strength is based largely around what made Chromebooks attractive in 2011, even when they were still very much a work in progress. There's something to be said for simplicity and speed.
The weekend is a perfect time to catch up on everything announced during Microsoft's Build 2019 conference and Google's I/O event. Of course, the news wasn't all Android Q and Windows 10 -- check below for other highlights from the last week.
It's not all Pixel, Nest and Assistant, even if it seems that way. Hit our roundup of the high-profile updates from Google's keynote, including Incognito Mode for Maps, Google Lens upgrades, Android Q notes and so much more.
If you thought buying a new phone or laptop was hard, just wait until you're confronted with countless "smart" baby gadgets that promise to prevent SIDs, track every bowel movement and make sure your child isn't screwed up for life. Devindra Hardawar points out a few items his six-month-old has enjoyed.
If you hadn't already heard, HBO accidentally left a coffee cup in a shot from episode four of Game of Thrones' final season -- millions of TV viewers learned that Daenerys can't function before she's had her latte. However, you won't have much luck trying to revisit that production blunder online. HBO has digitally removed the cup from the episode on digital services like HBO Go, leaving an empty spot on the table where the caffeination once stood.
The Rift S isn't a huge upgrade over the original Rift, but it brings Oculus' desktop VR into the modern era. Devindra Hardawar says its built-in tracking works well, and the displays look much better than before. But if you were expecting something truly next-generation from Oculus, you're better off looking at the Quest.
The landlords of one Manhattan apartment building have agreed to provide physical keys to tenants who don't want to use smart locks. The decision was reached in a preliminary settlement after tenants sued their landlord for installing Latch smart locks, last year. As CNETreports, this marks one of the first times legal professionals have had to weigh in on how landlords can use smart-home technology.
Enlarge/ The $600 HP Reverb (left) and $400 Oculus Rift S (right).
By the end of 2019, many major VR headset manufacturers seem poised to launch a new "statement" product for PCs. This month sees two such headsets reach store shelves: the Oculus Rift S (coming May 21, priced at $400) and the HP Reverb (out now, starting at $600).
In both companies' cases, the statement from each headset is a mix of upgrade and compromise. Rift S sees Oculus take two steps forward, two steps back, from its three-year-old Rift headset to establish a new "baseline" PC-VR experience, particularly with active hand tracking in mind. Meanwhile, Reverb aims to deliver the most affordable "high-res" VR headset ever made—which, as you might expect, includes a few imperfections, ranging from the obvious to the surprising.
After living with both headsets, I can report that each headset's sales pitch is totally fine, not game-changing, and both are worth scrutinizing—because neither is currently a slam-dunk recommendation.
HP Reverb: You say you want resolution
The cloth face of the HP Reverb is its best design element.
Sam Machkovech
Another look at that fabric front, and how it runs right into the rest of the plastic body. Also, you can see the downward angle afforded to one of the Reverb's two front-facing sensors.
However, the actual head-fit of the Reverb feels a bit spartan, particularly thanks to this unwieldy fit of headphones and side straps.
Oh, look! "VR Headset!" I've always wanted one of those.
The Reverb in its box, with a pair of included Windows Mixed Reality controllers. These are the same as with other WMR headsets, and they rely on the sensors keeping an eye on the controllers' very bright strip of LED lights.
Reverb from the top. This is the $650 model, which upgrades the face lining to a more comfortable leather option. (The standard $600 version comes with a cloth lining.)
The bottom of the Reverb, with a look at its plastic nasal rest. This angle does a good job showing how the back "halo" strap might fit neatly onto an average head. I'm a fan of it.
A peek at the lenses.
HP includes a way to detach the Reverb's cable with a clamp pretty close to the headset itself. This is an unusual option for consumer VR headsets, but it's sturdy enough that you shouldn't worry about yanking it off if you step on a cord while within VR.
Let's start with the HP Reverb, a headset that promises to exceed the screen quality and pixel density of the already-impressive HTC Vive Pro and Samsung Odyssey. Reverb's total resolution weighs in at a combined 4,320x2,160 across its fast-switching LCD panels.
As a result, before HP agreed to send us a testing unit, we were asked to confirm a graphics card minimum of a GTX 1080 or AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200. Notice that their latter suggestion is designed for workstations, not consumer PCs. That's the point. The Reverb is squarely targeted at an enterprise or development use cases where screen quality is paramount; this is not necessarily your headset for gaming or high-speed interactivity.
Weaker GPU?
If you'd like to occasionally connect a high-res Reverb to a lower-than-recommended GPU, we think that's OK. Our use of a notebook-grade GTX 1070 worked in a range of popular games, but most of these automatically downgraded their resolution, anti-aliasing, or super-sampling settings. Some apps don't play as nicely, and trying to push "normal" settings in a visually rich game like Moss resulted in the kind of frame rate stutters that we wouldn't dream of recommending. But if that kind of lower-powered PC is your only option, we suggest more caution.
This is first made apparent by an awkward headstrap. Unlike the springy flex of the original Oculus Rift or the rotary dial of the PlayStation VR, Reverb's strap is spartan. You get three velcro straps to adjust, which are all difficult to adjust while wearing the headset. This is all bound by a light-yet-wide halo, meant to fit against the back of the head, and it comes with two decidedly cheap-feeling over-ear speakers—with fuzzy material you'd expect from $5 airplane headphones. (You can't detach these, but you can push them off your ears and plug in your own headphones with a 3.5mm jack.)
Yet this spartan approach means the strap system is under-engineered, a rarity in the sector. The headset is substantially lighter in mass than the over-engineered Vive Pro, which may be worth some inconvenience. Its back-halo design keeps more weight off your face than the original Rift. Plus, fit it onto your exact head shape once, and it's simple enough to put on and take off from there.
The Reverb's flip-up functionality is flimsy and bumps into your head, so it disappoints as a "peek at the outside world" option. Its cramped interior is not particularly glasses-friendly. And if your interpupillary distance (IPD) measures outside the "average" measure of 61-66mm, Reverb's "digital IPD" adjustment option will leave you unsatisfied from a comfort level.
All of which is to say: If your expected business/enterprise use case includes mostly VR-savvy professionals of a perfect head shape and size, you'll be fine. If you're handing these to a variety of utter VR newbies, on the other hand, be ready to on-board them just to get the thing on.
Sweet spot, not-so-sweet result
As for the Reverb's screens, the pixel resolution of 4,320x2,160 is incredible for the sector, well past the 2,800x1,600 measure of the Vive Pro and Odyssey. (And that's even more than the Rift S, which we'll get to.)
Reverb's "sweet spot" visibility, in the center of a user's field of vision (FOV), is the absolute winner in its price sector. After roughly one week of Reverb testing, I'm now convinced that this is the pixel count to count as "good enough" if you want to guarantee unobtrusive small-text legibility for the sake of VR's research, education, and industrial design apps. (In Reverb's case, this selling point is buoyed by the LCD panels' dense subpixel resolution and 90Hz refresh.)
HP provided some sample "professional" apps during my testing period, and after wandering through a virtual replica of Helsinki and dissecting a frog in a classroom, I understood why. With my attention focused on front-and-center content, I could see the Reverb's sales pitch damned clearly. HP has crossed an important VR-quality line at a reasonable business price point in 2019, and the rest of this review's caveats and warnings can't erase that fact.
One of those caveats, however, is my use of "sweet spot" as a qualifier. I struggled to understand why the high-res panel, all-in-all, looked a bit smeary ("a bit" is not a very scientific descriptor, after all). That issue became clearer once I set up a "VR desk" of a headset, a single hand-controlled WMR controller, a physical keyboard, and a floating VR replica of my PC's 2D desktop.
Doing this confirmed my suspicions: the HP Reverb, like many other VR headsets, offers a clear view in its central FOV but is less successful at translating its peripheral pixels. Trying to read text in the periphery was a struggle compared to the same text appearing front-and-center. This was particularly easy to notice as I examined details spread across 16:9-ratio desktop windows and Web browsers. Without a physical IPD slider to work with, and only a "virtual" IPD adjustment option, I had no idea how to remedy this apparent blurriness. Countless attempts to re-fit the headset didn't help.
To be fair, the fact that I could comfortably read Windows desktop content is its own VR revelation. That's almost impossible to comfortably do on the first wave of 2016 VR headsets. But the Reverb's arrangement of pixels and lenses does no favors to peripheral-view content, which leads to an uncanny valley-like issue: once some of the content is so damned crisp, why can't all of it be? Additionally, why must the headset be so demanding of PC hardware if it blurs its peripheral pixels by default?
Some headset manufacturers are toying with foveated rendering, which reduces pixel resolution depending on what's being displayed or how a user's eyes are tracked. But nothing so efficient is happening here. The Reverb instead renders, then wastes, at least one fourth of its pixels, which I can tell by budging the headset awkwardly around until only its corner pixels become clear.
LCD concerns
That divide in clarity means all the comfort you might hope for from a higher-res headset dwindles in longer-term use. This is a shame because the fast-switching LCD panel lives up to a 90Hz refresh with fuller subpixel resolution than comparable OLED panels. However, the "halo" effect from its fresnel lenses is particularly noticeable within this headset.
Additionally, HP's choice of fast-switching LCD panels means the Reverb simply suffers from imprecise color calibration—at least, compared to the rich, RGB-perfect results you can expect from a calibrated OLED panel. Part of that Vive Pro $1,100 price tag is an understanding that whatever content you bring in will enjoy nearly uniform color reproduction. But the Reverb's "cold" blue-green wash, which is nigh indiscernible when looking at a standard CMYK color sheet, becomes apparent across a wider scene, particularly the pastoral, faux-outdoor environs of the hub spaces in Windows Mixed Reality and SteamVR.
In VR experiences that rely on moody color mapping (like the storybook-adventure of Moss), the color reproduction borders on problematic. Everything in that game looks darker and less alive than on the OLED-fueled HTC Vive Pro. A visible "mura" effect on our testing headsets resulted in uneven color reproduction across wide fields of pixels, as well. It was arguably the most intense mura effect I've ever seen on a consumer-grade VR headset, in fact. (To best explain this, think of a large website background color, which is supposed to be totally uniform, having an uneven smudginess to it. Next, imagine that smudginess moving in relation to where your head is aimed in VR.)
The usual Windows Mixed Reality caveat
If you're fine with somewhat imprecise color reproduction, high system demands, and an asterisk on Reverb's high resolution, you have one more pill to swallow: its merely adequate room-tracking powers. This is identical to most inside-out Windows Mixed Reality headsets, which rely on two forward-facing cameras and guarantee decent tracking, so long as you keep your hands generally in front of your face.
The short version: milder apps like TiltBrush and Vacation Simulator work just fine. (So did the educational apps that HP provided.) Highly active apps like Beat Saber and Space Pirate Trainer, on the other hand, have to compensate for Reverb's poorly tracked hands on a pretty regular basis—as in, every 45 seconds in a high-speed Beat Saber song, a hand will noticeably disappear for a moment. Meanwhile, any games that rely on above- and behind-the-head hand action are out the window, as most WMR headsets (including the Reverb) don't have upward-facing tracking sensors.
In good news, most popular VR fare expects lighter tracking, and as a result, WMR-style tracking will work in a pinch. But if the idea of randomly disappearing hands is too VR-breaking for you, then you'll want to pony up for a fuller tracking experience.
Humanity’s obsession over edge-to-edge bezels, triple cameras and future-proofed specs has brought about the inevitable, to quote Thanos. But instead of an evil purple sociopath, this inevitable response to our pursuit of smartphone excellence comes in the form of the $399 Google Pixel 3a.
Everything about it from its build and features are a timely reminder that maybe we’ve been deluding ourselves with gear we don’t really need.It’s here to bring us back down to earth.
Reversing expectations
Why didn’t any one think of this before? Google’s clearly surveyed the market of mid-ranged phones and realized the reason why we aren’t usually satisfied is because of the camera. As with phones of this price like the Pocophone F1 or Samsung A9, the usual formula goes: good looks and great specs, but a sub-par camera.
Google has realized what this market was missing was a kick-ass camera. And it’s managed to reshuffle its manufacturing priorities to put the camera first – pretty much an import of the best-in-class shooter on their Pixel 3 phones.
So, with the Pixel 3a, new formula goes: decent looks, acceptable specs, fantastic camera. Nothing wrong with plastic Okay fine, it’s polycarbonate or whatever Google wants to call it. But the fact is, plastic may be cheaper but it’s not necessarily a bad idea. It may feel less exquisite to touch, but the payoff is better durability. Unlike glass, plastic doesn’t shatter, so that’s one less side of the phone to worry about when it accidentally slips out of your hand.
The Pixel 3a settling on a plastic chassis also makes the case that perhaps wireless-charging isn’t something we need after all. Fast charging means you don’t need to charge your device overnight, prolonging battery life and offering a more-than-adequate compensation given the price of the Pixel 3a.
Exposing the fads
It’s not an eye-catching phone, but this is a compelling case that we can live with these compromises. It doesn’t rock a notch. Instead, it has bezels that are wide by today’s standards, but it actually looks fine. It rewards us for our sacrifice by offering an OLED panel that we’d come to only expect out of flagship phones.
In terms of security, the Pixel 3a also deviates from mainstream trends like facial recognition and under-screen biometrics. It opts for the tried and trusted capacitive finger-print censor at the back. Fast, reliable and – since we don’t all carry top-secret data – it’s sufficient. And at $399, we’d take all that.
Software makes up for top specs
Pixel phones have never led the race for best specs the way OnePlus and Samsung have. It picks its fight with software and user interface. While not without flaws, the Pixel 3 did its best with the 4GB RAM it had and showed how sleek animations and minimal bloatware can still deliver a phone that felt responsive. There’s an art to the Pixel’s animations that makes it feel fast.
But its average internals leave us with questions on the Pixel 3a’s longevity. The Pixel 3 is already struggling to keep up after just one year, and with the 3a equipped with a weaker SnapDragon 670, we’ll need a while to see how long this one stays in the race.
Concerns about the resale price
Another concern you might have is the ability to resell the Pixel 3a at a satisfying price. You’ll be surprised at how high a price you can list a used flagship phone today. So long as its in good condition, many of one- to two-year-old flagship phones can be sold for about half of its original price so long as you’re patient. This is where future-proofing your phone really matters and beefy specs like a SnapDragon 800-series processor helps.
A year or two later, the Pixel 3a’s SnapDragon 670 and 4GB of RAM may be a hard sell. Sure, its camera will surely keep up, but buyers will be concerned at how well it runs the latest apps and its multi-tasking capabilities. Plastic may not crack, but it sure scratches easily and can look really worn out, affecting your selling price. If you buy and trade your phone cyclically, these may be some things to consider.
Making its mark on the market
The Pixel 3a was leaked almost completely months ahead of the Google I/O, but Google’s strategy to swim against the flagship currents were still curiously surprising. It’s capturing a market that longed for brilliant cameras and could make do with average specs.
If it all goes the way of the Pixel, we could see many more mid-range smartphone manufacturers pop flagship cameras in lower-tier devices. In a time of depressing $1000 phones, bring it on.
We reported earlier today that the Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL will remain on the March security patch until next month. The Android Beta Program has now been updated to note that the latest Made by Google devices won’t be eligible until June.
The easiest way to install Android Q is via the opt-in Beta Program that downloads the latest version just like a month security OTA. Another way is by flashing a factory image or sideloading an OTA image from the Android Developers page.
That latter route is the only solution as of this evening. Google has updated the Android Beta Program site to note how “Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL will be eligible in June.” However, Q Beta 3 can still be installed by flashing manually, though the phones are not currently listed on the Android Q Beta Devices list.
Further complicating this are reports of early Pixel 3a users on Tuesday able to sign-up for the Android Beta Program. This discrepancy is quite odd and likely related to how the Pixel 3a’s manufacturing schedule dictated that the phones be preloaded with a Pie build from March.
The April and current May security patch will be included in a patch coming Monday, June 3rd. Android Q Beta 4 is scheduled for early June and mostly likely that Wednesday. As flashing/sideloading is a relatively simple process, those that want the Android Q Beta on their device won’t have too hard a time. However, it’s another dent to the usual narrative of Made by Google devices offering the absolute latest software experience.
Google’s new Pixel 3a forgoes a handful of features to lower the price, and it seems those changes actually managed to make this phone easier to repair compared to most of today’s flagships. In a teardown of the Pixel 3a, iFixit describes how this phone reminds them of when phones were easier to fix.
The best gifts for Android users
Achieving a final score of 6 out of 10, the Pixel 3a is judged as being much easier to repair compared to most flagships today. That’s much better than the 4/10 the standard Pixel 3 managed.
The Pixel 3a teardown from iFixit (which is absolutely packed with Avengers: Endgame jokes) points out that most of the components in this device are modular and can easily be replaced. Further, “repair-friendly” adhesive which stretches was used around the battery, and only one type of standard screw is used throughout.
Those are all great for repairability, but there are, of course, some negatives. iFixit’s main complaints during the Pixel 3a teardown regard components that are a bit more fragile and could be broken. For one thing, there are “the myriad long, thin ribbon cables” inside which could easily be torn during a repair.
The display assembly is thin and poorly supported too. It’s easy to remove but lacks water resistance and could be damaged during removal. That display is also connected to the motherboard with a single ribbon cable.
However, there’s a great find in this Pixel 3a teardown. The new “gOLED” panel Google is using in these two phones is made by Samsung! Known for their stellar display quality, this is a great thing to see, and explains why these displays are so much better than most comparable devices.
iFixit’s teardown further reveals an easily replaceable USB-C port, as well as confirming that the Pixel 3a does not have the same vibration motor as the higher-end Pixels. Instead, it’s got the same Linear Resonant Actuator found in most devices. There’s also confirmation of the lack of a Pixel Visual Core.
Apple is widely expected to unveil three new iPhone models in the fall, and ahead of time, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Debby Wu have shared several expectations for the devices. While many of the details have already been rumored, this is still worthwhile corroboration from two reputable reporters.
Apple should announce the next iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR models in September, but their names are not known yet. They have been variously referred to as iPhone 11 or iPhone XI models.
