![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google!!Got my 7 Pro about an hour ago. Stopped setting it up when I found that face unlock works only to unlock the phone from the lock screen. Everything else requires a password or fingerprint scanner.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/does-the-google-pixel-7-have-face-unlock/
I can live with less than optimal battery life. Face unlock was the reason I bought the 7 Pro less than a month after buying a 6 Pro. A gimped face unlock wasn't part of the deal. This 7 Pro is going back.
I finished setting up my 7 Pro. Figured I might as well since I have it. It feels quicker/snappier without any of the intermittent delays or mini-screen freezes that hit my 6 Pro. The screen is definitely improved, too. I'm having second thoughts about returning the 7 Pro, now. Still not pleased about the gimped face unlock, tho. I'll use it over the weekend and see if my thoughts change.
That would be a god send! Stock google OS with Samsung hardware. But I have come to like alot of the Pixel exclusives. Not sure I could go back to any other android now without them.
Thanks for the curved screen compare. I am curious if cheaper Screen protectors can be used and stay on due to the less curve at the edge.
Nice job! That's a solid upgrade. Surprised your battery lasted this long.
Technically I've had two 3 XL's. I bricked my first one installing modules after rooting it and Google was kind enough to send a replacement free of charge. Although, I never ran into any battery issues, but then again I don't use my phone for much more than talking, texting, and e-mail.
In the past 1080p has always help with Battery life in my experience. Granted display tech has gotten a lot better, I still think in all situations less pixels to render the better. In games titles yes 100% 1080p is easier on the SOC. When I had my One Plus 7 Pro I struggled to see any really differences between 1080p and 1440p on that display and normally ran in 1080p. You might need to do an A:B test to be sure so IDK
Software might help, but Google also appears to use lower-quality front cameras. That's a particularly sore point this year — every iPhone 14 variant now has an autofocusing selfie cam where Google is still using fixed focus. Not a huge issue on the regular Pixel 7, where the phone is so inexpensive, but I'd be miffed if I'd spent $899-plus on a Pixel 7 Pro that can't do video chats as well as someone's $599 iPhone 13 mini, let alone an iPhone 14.
It's got a 10.8 (basically 11) megapixel front camera vs 12mp in the iPhone 13 Pro Max my wife has. There shouldn't be as much of a difference in the amount of detail they produce but there is. I did a Google Meet to both phones, muted the mics and put them side by side. The iPhone was way clear and had way more detail vs the 7 pro. I could see hair strands on the 13 pro max that were just a crappy blur on the 7pro. It's only a 1 megapixel difference. How can there be that much of a difference on a video call. Why would Google put a crap front camera, but make a really good rear camera? On the other hand, DXOMark gave the 7pro #1 on rear camera and #3 rank on front camera. How is that? I did notice that it got like a 7/10 for texture though so maybe that's what it scored low on. I'm a bit disappointed I got rid of my S22 ultra to get a shit front camera in return. I feel cheated in that regard, but the software is quite nice compared to the boring OneUI that has been the same cartoon BS for the last 5 years or so. I pray that Google acknowledges the shit front camera and actually works to improve the front camera with a software update. Why would Google skimp on the front camera? Would it really have been that much more to put a good front camera?
I look at it this way: there's a reason why Pixels are priced below the iPhones and Galaxies of the world. They're good values precisely because Google is very strategic about the components it invests in — it's willing to cut corners in areas where people don't always notice. Usually in smart ways, but sometimes it's a bit too obvious. Apple, by contrast, is a paint-the-back-of-the-fence type that will fuss over little details even if it means raising the price... and let's be honest, is trying to project more of a premium image.
Exactly. $900 is a lot to spend, even if it's more affordable than an iPhone 14 Pro Max or Galaxy S22+. And it makes the iPhone 14 Plus look like a better bargain in some respects. You're not getting a telephoto lens or 120Hz display, but you are getting more consistent camera quality for the money.
Does this make the back entirely flat? AKA - no camera hump?
No, it's just a thin skin.
