Connect with us

Technology

Should smartphones be banned for under 16s?

Published

5 hours ago

on

Should smartphones be banned for under 16s?
BBC Two children talking into tin cans. The children have a grey filter and the background is green and red circles. BBC

Smartphones have worked their way deep into our lives and have become indispensable for work and socialising.

Unsurprisingly, many children want them too, but here we are much less sure of the benefits they bring. Many parents worry they are addictive and expose children to inappropriate and harmful content. A growing number think stronger restrictions are needed.

Others suggest some of the risks are overblown. They argue phones provide good opportunities for child development, including socialising, and that the evidence of harm is neither as convincing nor as conclusive as critics suggest.

I hosted a debate on WhatsApp between an academic and a campaigner, focusing on whether there’s a case to be made for stronger restrictions on children’s use of smartphones. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.

Meet the participants

Advertisement
A graphic that introduces the two participants. Daisy Greenwell, Co-founder of Smartphone Free Childhood, a campaign group and Sonia Livingstone, Professor at LSE who leads the university's research centre for children's digital rights.

To ban or not to ban?

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy Greenwell from Smartphone Free Childhood, a grassroots campaign group against big tech, let’s start with you.

What kind of ban or restrictions do you want and why?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Hi Chris.

Firstly, we think banning is unhelpful framing. We’re not calling for an outright ban on smartphones.

Parents have been put in an impossible position by the tech companies – we either give our kids access to a harmful product (ie a smartphone with unrestricted access to the internet and social media) or go against the cultural grain and risk alienating them from their peer group.

Governments need to do better to help parents and protect young people.

Advertisement

Put simply, we believe that until tech companies can prove that their products are safe for children, children shouldn’t have unrestricted access to them.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

What restrictions would you like to see?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

We believe there should be default age-appropriate set up of smartphones. Age-verification technology exists – how can it be implemented at a device and content level to ensure children can only access services that are appropriate for them?

Despite the 13+ minimum age requirement for social media, 51% of British children under 13 use it. They should not be on these platforms as they are not safe, so we need to find a way of enforcing that as soon as possible.

We also believe the government should implement a mandatory ban on smartphones in schools, given that only 11% of schools currently have an effective ban, and all the the research proves that they are hugely disruptive for learning, behaviour and lead to serious safeguarding issues.

A beige box that reads InDepth context as the title. The body text is as follows: "11% of secondary schools either don't allow phones in school or insist they are locked up during the school day, a survey by Policy Exchange, a leading think tank, has found. This is called an "effective ban". 52% ban any use of phones including at breaks and lunchtime, but pupils are allowed to keep their phones in their bags. 36% of schools surveyed had a partial ban, with phones banned in some contexts but allowed at other times, such as at break or lunch."
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia Livingstone, you’re a social psychologist specialising in how tech affects children’s lives. Does the evidence support what Daisy is saying about the risks?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Hi Daisy.

I think there are several points we could agree on, especially about avoiding the word ‘ban’…

Advertisement

Some points are trickier, though, including the application of age assurance, which is important for high-risk services but care is needed as it has privacy implications for the entire population.

On the question of evidence, it’s a mixed picture. There’s a little evidence supporting restrictions on smartphones in schools. For the rest of children’s lives, we need to consider the positives as well as the negatives of phone use.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Of course I agree and am aware of potential positives of smartphones for children. Wouldn’t it be great if all children could benefit from the upsides of this technology without any of the harms?

Unfortunately we’re a million miles away from that utopia at the moment.

That’s why something needs to change urgently.

Advertisement
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia, do you think it’s a mistake for schools to introduce bans?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

We’re just reviewing the research now. It’s pretty clear that parents, teachers and students would like clear and effective restrictions on use of phones in class.

The trouble is that we have had a policy of ‘bring your own device’ and of incorporating digital technologies into the classroom for educational purposes.

So I suggest it’s time to review our edtech policy more broadly. This hasn’t been updated since the pandemic, and is currently benefiting big tech and data brokers more than children, according to the evidence.

When we consult children, they agree with some of the risks and problems that Daisy points to.

But they also value their phones, precisely as a way of staying in touch with friends… Our society has cut many of the ways in which children have long been able to play or socialise outside the home.

Advertisement
An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The network effects of this technology and the sophistication of their addictive design means parents and young people are fighting an impossible battle.

Who should regulate children’s mobile phone use?

A bar graph showing the percentage of five-to-seven-year-olds using social media and how it has risen in one year. The dates included are 2022 and 2023. Overall, the jump was 30% to 38%. For WhatsApp it was 29% to 37%. TikTok it was 25% to 30% and Instagram it was 14% to 22%.
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – it’s hard for a child to buy a phone, and if they have one it’s probably come from mum or dad. Why not just leave it to parents to decide?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

It’s totally unfair to put the onus on the parents.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I agree that the burden should be shifted to companies. Not only are they amplifying the harms, but also they refuse to provide more age-appropriate services and a wider diversity of products.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia – are the risks as grave as Daisy suggests? Does the evidence support that?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

There’s a case to be made for both risks and benefits; and both appear to be greater for more vulnerable children.

So yes, children need better protections, for sure, and yes, the present situation is problematic for many and dangerous for some.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The entire business model of social media giants is predicated on harvesting as much attention as possible. Smartphones and addictive social media apps have lured children away from the activities that are indispensable to healthy development – outdoor play, face-to-face conversations, sleep.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

The question is how to achieve the balance that the public wants between regulation vs education, individual choice vs limits for all.

If we ask: are smartphones bad for children, the evidence suggests yes in some ways, no in others, and it depends on the child and the circumstances.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Yes it’s complicated. You can always find two sides to any academic debate, but we think we need to take a step back and question the societal norm, which is to give children smartphones when they’re younger and younger… Do they need them?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Now it sounds like you are putting the blame on parents, Daisy?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

No – we’re saying this is a huge societal issue that needs imagination and bold action.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Moreover, if we ask what the causes of child wellbeing or poor mental health are, technology use is one among many factors – let’s start with poverty, family stress, lack of play and community resource, anxiety about the future…

Are children addicted to smartphones?

Advertisement
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia – some researchers have disputed the idea that they are addictive, is there good scientific evidence of that?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I think Daisy has in mind the dark patterns and attention-grabbing incentives built into social media and game design; these certainly have adverse effects.

Clinicians are just careful about ‘addiction’ because alcoholism, drug addiction etc are rather different.

Still, they agree that some 1-3% of the child population meets the threshold for clinical addiction to tech.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

What about behavioural addiction?

We all know what addiction to our smartphones feels like… it seems ludicrous to question whether they’re addictive or suggest only 1-3% are.

We know that children are spending four to nine-plus hours a day on these devices.

Advertisement
An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I’m trying not to be ludicrous, and am happy to offer citations to clinical research.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – what needs to change, would you increase the age limits on social media for example?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

We believe that until social media platforms can prove they are safe for children, children shouldn’t be on them. We’re very interested in what the Australian government is exploring.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

All interesting proposals, and as ever, the devil is in the detail. Three questions from me:

1. Is the British public ready for mandatory age verification? They will have to get used to giving up their personal information to companies. Can we trust those companies with such sensitive information?

2. Yes, let’s enforce age limits. But first, let’s debate the right one – 13 is pretty much an accident of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, not a thought-through child-protection policy.

A beige box with the words "Daisy Greenwell is typing..." inside.

3. How safe should platforms be? As safe as roads? Or swimming pools? And how can we balance risks with opportunities?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

On your first question, the public is crying out for something to change. It’s not up to us to figure out the workings of age-verification technology, but we shouldn’t give up because it’s complicated.

To your second question, totally agree, we don’t think 13 is the right age – it’s based on 25-year-old US data law, not child wellbeing – but it is the age at the moment so it should be enforced.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Yes, the public wants change, and rightly so. But sadly, unless we can propose workable solutions, we may find our calls unheeded.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

This sounds defeatist – it shouldn’t be on parents to come up with all the policy solutions in what is an incredibly complicated space.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I don’t think it is all on parents. Academics, regulators, civil society, children’s charities, lawyers and technologists are all actively seeking ways forward.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

How young is too young to be on social media, Sonia?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I’m afraid I consider that the wrong question. We may need another debate.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Why? It seems a question that nobody wants to answer

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

OK, let me give it a try.

1. The right age for one child is not right for another.

Advertisement

2. It depends what the child wants to do online.

3. It depends if the child is vulnerable or supported.

4. It depends what digital product or service you are talking about.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Would you apply the same logic to the age of consent?!

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

That’s yet another debate – am not refusing to answer, but it will take time. Perhaps you have quick answers to big problems, but I like to weigh the evidence.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – what about Sonia’s third question. We do let children take risks where we think there are rewards too in sport etc.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

It’s interesting framing – it certainly shouldn’t be driving kids to suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, etc.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Do children benefit from having smartphones?

A bar chart showing the results of a survey about when children receive a smartphone. It says most children have a smartphone by the age 10.
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Do you accept, Daisy, that there are benefits to owning these devices and is it right to cut children off from those benefits that adults enjoy?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The upsides of technology are clear… Smartphones are incredibly useful. We carry around all-powerful supercomputers in our pockets that know everything and are connected to everyone, everywhere… They’ve transformed the way we live.

But at what cost? We need to question the assumption that all technological advancement is social progress.

Advertisement

Kids don’t actually need to be connected to the internet 24/7. They don’t need phones for work or to organise diaries etc.

A brick phone can keep them connected to family and friends.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

But don’t children need to learn how to use these tools that many adults find essential?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

A five-year-old can learn how to use Instagram in about four minutes – that’s really not a valid argument.

Do children need to learn how to have sex before they’re 16, or drive before they’re 17? Both things that will be important to their adult lives.

A beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone is typing..."

Also we aren’t saying don’t use tech – just don’t have unrestricted access to the internet in your pocket 24/7.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

The thing is, society has involved the internet – typically accessed via a smartphone – in most domains…

So it’s hard to know where to start. One place might be the recent Good Childhood Report. It gives a decent measure of what’s going wrong.

Advertisement
An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Why shouldn’t children have healthy, intentional, non-addictive relationships with technology that enhances their lives?

We would say the solution starts with people power, not more academic quarrels.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

We’re going to wrap up now. Thank you both – it’s been a lively debate.

A beige banner with Chris Vallance's profile and a series of red and green dots. The banner reads "Key takeaways from Chris Vallance".

This debate has demonstrated that even people who agree that tech firms need to do more can disagree passionately over how far we should restrict children’s smartphone use.

The UK government says it has no plans to introduce a smartphone ban for under 16s, and there may be no consensus over how much change is needed, but change is happening nonetheless: tech firms are rolling out new child-safety features, schools are adopting new policies and the technology itself continues to evolve, creating more opportunities and risks.

Disagreement over how we keep children safe online will likely be with us for some time.

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Advertisement

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Servers computers

All types of servers Rack / 2U /4U /6U /10U /12U/15U / 20U rack 😲😲😲 #shorts

Published

7 mins ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

All types of servers Rack / 2U /4U /6U /10U /12U/15U / 20U rack 😲😲😲 #shorts



All types of servers Rack / 2U /4U /6U /10U /12U/15U / 20U rack 😲😲😲 #shorts

source

Continue Reading

Technology

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Incomplete

Published

14 mins ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Incomplete

Apple’s regular-sized iPhone “Pro” model got a pretty nice upgrade this year. Both of the Pro models are now larger, sporting 6.3- and 6.9-inch displays. This is partly due to the thinner bezels, but also due to the fact that the phones are about 1mm wider in every measurement. It’s larger this year, but enough to really complain about. Hopefully this doesn’t become a yearly thing with Apple. As many people prefer these smaller phones, while still having flagship features.

The one thing that really got me excited for the iPhone 16 Pro this year was, adding the 5x telephoto camera to the smaller Pro. Last year, that new sensor was only available on the iPhone 15 Pro Max, forcing me to use a giant phone just to have a 5x telephoto camera.

The iPhone 16 Pro series looks more like its predecessor than the iPhone 16 series does, and that’s okay. I don’t think smartphone makers need to do major redesigns every year. Most people are not upgrading their phones every year, every two years, hell not even every three years. Not to mention the fact that these designs are iconic for these companies. That’s why you’ll likely never see a huge redesign from Samsung, Google or Apple with their phones. These design elements are what makes their phones stand out.

Apple iPhone 16 Pro AM AH 03

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Design

Compared to last year’s iPhone 15 Pro design, the iPhone 16 Pro does make a few changes. The sides are not a bit more shiny then last year, despite still being titanium. And that’s perfectly fine. They still don’t show fingerprints at all, which was a major complaint with the stainless steel on the iPhone 14 Pro and earlier.

Advertisement

As mentioned already, perhaps the biggest design change you’ll notice is the size. The iPhone 16 Pro now measures in at 149.6 x 71.5 x 8.3mm, compared to 146.6 x 70.6 x 8.3mm on the iPhone 15 Pro last year. It also gained back most of the weight it lost by adding titanium – now 199g. The iPhone 15 Pro was 187g and the iPhone 14 Pro was 206g.

Despite gaining a few millimeters in width and height, the iPhone 16 Pro is still pretty comfortable to hold. For those of us who want a smaller phone, this is a pretty big deal. If I wanted a bigger phone, I’d use a foldable like the Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold or the OnePlus Open.

The design is familiar, and that’s not a bad thing. As the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Display

This year, the iPhone 16 Pro models did get larger displays, going from 6.1 to 6.3-inches on the iPhone 16 Pro. And 6.7 to 6.9-inches on the iPhone 16 Pro Max. Making these the largest displays ever used by Apple. Part of this was done by enlarging the phone physically, and also by slimming down the bezels. Part of the reason for enlarging both phones this year, was to add in larger camera sensors into the phone. Part of the reason why the iPhone 15 Pro did not get the 5x telephoto last year, was due to the size of the actual phone. There just wasn’t room for the tetraprism sensor. Now, there is.

Advertisement

Both displays still sport 460 pixels per inch, as does the non-Pro iPhone 16 models. However, the Pro’s still are the only ones to use ProMotion – Apple’s marketing term for 120Hz. It’s adaptive 120Hz, so it does go all the way down to 1Hz. But let’s talk about this for a minute. Apple is still selling the iPhone 16 with a 60Hz display, which yes is bad, but we don’t hear complaints about this on other non-Pro Apple products. The non-Pro Macs are all 60Hz, the non-Pro iPads are also all 60Hz. Apple has designated 120Hz as a “Pro” feature by calling it “ProMotion”, and therefore we likely won’t see that come to other models that aren’t “Pro”. Though there are rumors of the iPhone 17 getting a 90Hz display, so it’ll be interesting to see how Apple markets that.

Apple iPhone 16 Pro AM AH 25

The display on the iPhone 16 Pro is simply incredible. It’s bright, the colors are insanely accurate, and it’s also pretty fast, thanks to ProMotion. Some users have complained about the touchscreen not registering touches. However, that only happened to me when I had a screen protector on. So it is a problem, but I do believe Apple can fix this with a software update – and iOS 18.1 is coming very soon.

Apple claims 1,000 nits of typical brightness here and up to 2,000 nits of peak brightness. That is actually about the same as the iPhone 15 Pro from last year, which I had no complaints about brightness with. And so far, the brightness on iPhone 16 Pro has been as advertised. Shortly after picking up my unit from the Apple Store, I had to head to New York City for a Samsung event (where they announced the Galaxy S24 FE) and was using the phone outdoors quite a bit. I had no issues seeing the display, and it wasn’t even at max brightness.

Additionally, this year, the iPhone 16 Pro can get darker than ever, down to just 1nit. That’s really good news for those that like to use their phones at night in bed, and don’t want to wake their partner.

Advertisement

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Performance

Inside the iPhone 16 Pro is the new A18 Pro chipset. This is another 3nm chipset with clock speeds that go up to 4.05GHz – which is insane on a smartphone, but the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 is set to be even faster. It also includes 8GB of RAM across all storage models with NVMe storage.

In everyday usage, the A18 Pro seemed to be fast enough. It never really lagged behind on whatever I was doing. From checking Twitter and email to playing games and even using GPS while doing Facetime. Perhaps more important is the fact that it did stay nice and cool. Something that we couldn’t say about the iPhone 15 Pro (Max) last year, unfortunately. Apple did spend a good amount of time talking about the larger vapor chamber in the iPhone 16 Pro series this year, so this should come as no surprise.

Benchmarks

As we do with every smartphone and tablet that comes across our desk to review, we ran a few benchmarks on the iPhone 16 Pro to see how it compares to the competition. This includes Geekbench 6, 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test and a video export test.

Geekbench 6

With Geekbench 6, it tests the raw performance of the CPU and GPU on the phone. This is a good way to see just how powerful the processor and GPU actually are. For the iPhone 16 Pro, it hit a 2,981 single-core score, 7,939 multi-core score, and 32,846 in the GPU test. That’s only marginally better than the A17 Pro in the iPhone 15 Pro series from last year. However, when we compared this to the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL and the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, it’s significantly faster, especially in the GPU test. The iPhone 16 Pro is nearly 3x higher than the Galaxy S24 Ultra in graphics.

Advertisement

Next up, we ran the 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test. This benchmark is set to push the phone to its absolute limit. Typically, this will also be the highest temperature the phone ever gets too, but on thermals in a bit. This benchmark will run a loop of a 60-second benchmark about 20x, provide us with the best loop score, the lowest loop score and from there a stability score.

So with this test, the iPhone 16 Pro scored pretty well, with the highest “Lowest Loop” score, though its “Best Loop was a bit lower (about 10% lower) than what the Galaxy S24 Ultra put out. However, its stability was higher at 67.7%, whereas the Galaxy S24 Ultra’s stability was around 51%.

Capcut video test (lower is better)

Finally, we do a video export test using Capcut. This is a pretty popular video editing app that is also very robust. What we do is import the same 60-second video on every phone, and then record how long it takes to export. The iPhone 16 Pro had a time of 5.11 seconds, which is actually the fastest we’ve ever tested. Even edging out the RedMagic 9 Pro at 5.2 seconds. Comparing it to its predecessor, the iPhone 15 Pro Max, the time is a little more than twice as fast, which is a good change year-over-year.

Thermals

Moving onto thermals, there are three tests that we perform here. That’s 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test, an hour of Genshin Impact at max settings, and then recording 4K60 video for 5 minutes and 10 minutes.

Advertisement

First up is the 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test, which is typically the highest temperature we will ever see. The iPhone 16 Pro hit a temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit. That is higher than the Galaxy S24 Ultra by about 3.5 degrees, it is lower than the iPhone 15 Pro Max which shows that the vapor chamber is doing its job this year. It’s also much lower than the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL.

Next up is Genshin Impact. We play this for an hour at max settings and max brightness, to try and get it as hot as possible. On this test, it measured in at 95.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is actually very low. Again, showing off that vapor chamber.

Finally, we record video at 4K60 for 10 minutes, measuring the temperature at 5 minutes and again at 10 minutes. We don’t test at 4K120 because not every phone is able to record at that setting, and we want these to be as similar as possible. At 5 minutes, the iPhone 16 Pro was at 89 degrees Fahrenheit, and 93.7 degrees at 10 minutes. That is lower than the Galaxy S24 Ultra, by quite a bit, but it is higher than the iPhone 15 Pro Max. I’d be willing to bet that the larger area of the iPhone 15 Pro Max allowed it to dissipate heat easier.

All in all, I’d say thermals are pretty good on this phone. Much improved over the iPhone 15 Pro series from last year, and right up there with some of the best in the Android space.

Advertisement

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Battery Life and Charging

One of the biggest reasons to upgrade your iPhone is going to be the battery life. And I can say that battery life has improved this year, compared to the iPhone 15 Pro series. Over the last 10 days, I’ve been averaging over 7 hours of screen time, though that is not the end all be all for battery life. Since I’ve been traveling over the past week, some days show more than 100% of the battery being used. Typically on days that I used less than 100%, it was over 6 hours of screen on time.

That might not sound all that impressive, but it is similar to what my iPhone 15 Pro Max was getting last year. So to get the same battery life on the iPhone 16 Pro this year is pretty impressive. It has also started to get better and better, so I could see this lasting 7-8 hours of screen time per day in a couple of weeks.

iphone 16 pro battery life

When it comes to charging, it does charge faster this year. This is thanks to the iPhone 16 series supporting up to 45W charging speeds, but it’s important to note that it rarely ever hits 45W. Typically only when its low on charge and you’re using it at the same time. Apple did also up the wireless charging speed to 25W with a new MagSafe wireless charger – which we do not have, so we could not test that.

For me, I mostly charge at night, or stick it on a MagSafe charger in the car while I’m driving and using wireless CarPlay. So the charging speeds aren’t that big of a deal for me. But faster is always nice to see.

Advertisement

Benchmarks

Like we do with performance, we also do benchmarks for battery life and charging. For battery life, we charge up to 100% and let it sit plugged in for at least an hour after it hits 100% to ensure it is fully at 100% charge. Then start up a YouTube video that is about 24 hours long and play it at max brightness until the battery dies. We’ve only had one phone last longer than that video.

In this test, the iPhone 16 Pro lasted for 20 hours and 48 minutes. That’s 45 minutes less than the iPhone 15 Pro Max, which is impressive. Considering Apple touts that the difference between the pro and pro max are about 4 hours on video. So the iPhone 16 Pro Max should have really great battery life.

On the charging side, we plug it in right after this battery life test is done, using the included charging brick or one that will give us the max charging speed to make things fair. For the iPhone 16 Pro, we got a time of 1 hour and 34 minutes (technically 1:33:57 but we’re rounding up, here). That’s 12 minutes faster than the iPhone 15 Pro Max from last year. So it doesn’t sound as impressive since we’re comparing the Pro Max to the Pro here. That’s still pretty slow, and one of the slowest we’ve ever tested – the Sony Xperia 1V Is still the slowest at just under 2 hours!

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Software

Here’s where the problems with the iPhone 16 Pro come into play, software. Typically a strong suite for Apple, not to so much in letting you do whatever you want, but providing you with a stable experience usually. But this year, many of the features that Apple are advertising, are not available until at least October. Yes, we’re talking Apple Intelligence.

Advertisement

At WWDC this past Summer, where Apple introduces the new version of each platform, they spent a good amount of time talking about Apple Intelligence, which is their suite of AI features. However, they are not available until iOS 18.1 which will launch in October at some point. But not all of them will come in iOS 18.1 and if you’re in Europe, forget about it. And this makes many of the iPhone 16 ads, false advertising to a lot of people.

Obviously, we can’t comment on the Apple Intelligence features just yet, since we don’t review betas – like most publications. We will update this review once Apple Intelligence is out, however.

That said, iOS 18 did bring quite a few changes, of course, the bigger ones being the changes to the home screen. Now you can move your icons anywhere you want on the screen, you know like Android has been able to do for well over a decade. Apple also added the ability to adapt your icons to dark mode and work with your phone when it’s in dark mode versus light mode. Finally, there’s app tinting, which is probably the feature everyone hates, including myself. It just doesn’t look great for most icons.

iOS 18 is a pretty good update, especially since it does bring RCS to the iPhone, as well as a few more features for iMessage. And we can’t forget the changes to control center. Now with Control Center, you are able to create multiple pages (seemingly unlimited pages) for your controls. Moving them around as much as you want, making them larger and smaller, and so much more. It’s a welcome change, but perhaps it went a little too far. Having a page for controls, another for home controls and then media controls is likely enough for most people, and even too much for some.

Advertisement

Apple iPhone 16 Pro AM AH 24

As I said, there’s much more coming to the iPhone 16 series in terms of software, but it’s also important to remember that you should never buy a product based on the promise of what’s coming. You should buy it based on what it is today.

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Review: Camera

The iPhone camera has always been pretty impressive, and this year, the iPhone 16 Pro camera gets even better. Now that the new tetraprism 5x telephoto camera is available on the smaller pro model. Apple also upgraded the ultrawide to a 48-megapixel sensor, making it better for macro shots, versus the old 12MP camera.

Apple iPhone 16 Pro AM AH 01

Apple has also added 4K120 video recording. Yes, it’s not new to smartphones, but it is new to iPhone. And when you record at 4K120, you can later go in and slow it down after the fact, to get slow-motion in your video. Having said that, 4K120 does chew up a lot of storage, we’re looking at 800MB per minute of video. Whereas 4K60 is 440MB for a minute, and 1080p120 is 190MB per minute. So if you are looking to do a lot of 4K120 video, it’s a good idea to get a higher storage capacity, or invest in a good portable SSD, as you can still record to an external SSD.

Lets start off with Macro. The change to a 48-megapixel ultrawide sensor really helped the macro portion of this phone, and it’s a big deal. The macro shots I’ve taken with the iPhone 16 Pro are vastly improved over the iPhone 15 Pro Max. This is because of the added resolution. Remember with macro, you’re also much closer to the object and blocking out a lot of light. Below, you can see some macro shots I’ve taken over the past week and a half.

Advertisement

Moving onto to night photography, it also does a great job here. In New York City, there’s currently an art installation of elephants made of bamboo, which made for a great night photography test for the new iPhone. Despite there being some light around the elephants, the iPhone 16 Pro was able to produce some great pictures while also making it look like it was at night (because it was). Compared to the Pixel 9 series, which makes night look like day time.

Then there’s 5x telephoto. The images from the 5x telephoto look great, though I would really like to see this camera get moved to a 48-megapixel sensor too. Because in some lighting conditions, the 5x optical zoom does really start to fall apart.

Finally, here are some photos taken with the regular main sensor on the iPhone 16 Pro.

The cameras on the iPhone 16 Pro are exactly what you expect, great. Especially when it comes to video. And that’s why the iPhone is such a popular camera these days, as it’s much easier to carry an iPhone versus and entire DSLR or mirrorless camera.

Advertisement

Apple iPhone 16 Pro AM AH 23

Should you buy the Apple iPhone 16 Pro?

Now, for the verdict. Should you buy the iPhone 16 Pro (Max)? That really depends on what you’re looking for out of a phone and what phone you are currently using. If you’re on an iPhone 14 Pro or older, I’d say it’s a good upgrade. But if you’re on an iPhone 15 Pro, then it’s not really worth upgrading to the iPhone 16 Pro (even though I did).

If you’re an Android user thinking about switching to the iPhone to see what the hype is about, the iPhone 16 Pro is a really great option to check out iPhone for the first time. It’s their best iPhone they’ve ever made, because of course it is. It’s very solid for the price. And in some cases, cheaper than some Android flagships these days.

You should buy the Apple iPhone 16 Pro if:

  • You want a smaller, flagship phone.
  • You want a 5x telephoto on a smaller phone.
  • You want good battery life.

You should not buy the Apple iPhone 16 Pro if:

  • You want a larger screen.
  • You want the best battery life in an iPhone.

Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

Sea of Stars’ free Dawn of Equinox update arrives in November

Published

35 mins ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

Menu

The first of two Sea of Stars content updates for the next year has an official release date. The free Dawn of Equinox, which adds a co-op mode, new combat and other features, arrives on November 12 on all platforms.

Announced in March, Dawn of Equinox adds new game modes and mechanics for our favorite lunar-solar heroes, Valere and Zale. It includes a new local co-op mode that lets you and up to two friends play the entire game together. Each player has independent movement when traversing the world (as long as you stay within the screen’s confines), and there’s a new co-op Timed Hits feature that turns one of the core game’s mechanics into a group effort.

Gameplay screen from Sea of Stars’ upcoming Dawn of Equinox update. Players move independently in co-op mode.

Sabotage Studio

The update also includes Combat 2.0, which adds some fun wrinkles to Sea of Stars’ battles. Mystery Locks adds a new challenge to unlock enemies’ spells the first time you face them. (A corresponding “Reveal” action will appear in some of your party’s special skills.) Combo points also remain after battles, which should open the door to some epic beat-downs on your opening moves in subsequent standoffs. In addition, developer Sabotage Studio says it’s put effort into rebalancing the entire game to reflect the new mechanics and incorporate player feedback.

Other changes include a more action-oriented prologue that ditches the old flashback structure, a bonus cinematic and a relic (game mode) designed for speedrunners. There will also be three difficulty options when starting the game. Finally, it enhances the game’s secret-tracking parrot and adds a French Canadian translation, “for Quebec’s finest Solstice Warriors.”

Advertisement

The new features in Dawn of Equinox will also apply in the upcoming Throes of the Watchmaker DLC. That content will add an all-new storyline next spring in what Sabotage Studio describes as “an encore to Sea of Stars’ original adventure” (perhaps before a full-fledged sequel?). The DLC will send Valere and Zale into a “magical miniature clockwork world threatened by a cursed carnival,” forcing the heroes to adapt their sun and moon magic to the mysterious environment.

Battle screen from Sea of Stars: Dawn of Equinox. Three heroes square up against three monsters in the '90's-style RPG.

Sabotage Studio

Sea of Stars was one of 2023’s biggest surprises, garnering grassroots praise and taking home the hardware for Best Indie Game at last year’s Game Awards. Engadget’s Lawrence Bonk praised the game’s Chrono Trigger vibes earlier this year, calling out its gorgeous pixel art and an overworld map that pays proper tribute to its ’90s RPG inspirations.

Sea of Stars is available now on all major platforms: PC, Switch, PS5/4, Xbox One Series X/S and Xbox One (including on Game Pass). The full game costs $35, and both big upcoming content updates will be added for free.

This article contains affiliate links; if you click such a link and make a purchase, we may earn a commission.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Servers computers

Do Rack servers actually need a rack mount?

Published

40 mins ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

Do Rack servers actually need a rack mount?



The clear answer is YES, you can place a rack server without a rack-mount though with certain conditions to be taken care which is mentioned in the blog. So, check out our blog to know more.
#rackserver #rackmount #serverstack

For more updates follow us on:-

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/ServerstackI…
Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/company/serv…
Twitter https://twitter.com/_Serverstack
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/serverstack/
Pinterest https://in.pinterest.com/sandythecool…

source

Continue Reading

Technology

Series, a GenAI game development platform, has quietly raised $28M from Netflix, Dell, a16z, others

Published

56 mins ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

Series, a GenAI game development platform, has quietly raised $28M from Netflix, Dell, a16z, others

It’s been quite the year for gaming industry exec Pany Haritatos. 

Last month, he quietly closed an oversubscribed $28 million Series A for his new game studio startup Series Entertainment, according to an SEC document and confirmation from the company. Investors include Netflix, Dell Technologies Capital, with follow-on investments from seed investors Andreessen Horowitz, BITKRAFT, and F4 Fund. This comes after launching the company only a year ago with a healthy $7.9 million seed led by a16z. 

In between, he’s already made an acquisition. Series bought mobile game studio Pixelberry in July, best known for its interactive fiction game Choices: Stories You Play.

Series, also known in the industry as Series AI, is on a mission to create video games using LLMs and GenAI. But more than that, it’s gunning to be the new Unity, powering legions of game developers. Haritatos and team have created the Rho Engine, which uses GenAI to help game developers build games speedily.

Advertisement

One can be skeptical that LLMs will really be the panacea to humanity that its loudest proponents claim. But gaming is definitely one of the areas that AI is glowing up. 

Instead of designing everything from characters to elixir bottles, game developers can have AI step in to do that work and to make games more interactive than ever. NPCs can turn into rich, fully developed characters that, for instance, haggle with the gamer. Players can be given vast, perhaps unlimited, capacities for customization. And so on.

But to do all that, developers need AI-enhanced game engines. Series bills Rho as the first AI-native, multimodal full-stack game creation platform – meaning it handles visuals and audio. To be fair, there are other AI gaming engine competitors out there including, for instance, Modi.ai Engine, and Unity’s Muse Chat. But Rho says it sits in a different spot. Modi.ai performs tasks like bug catching, or identifying reasons why the games are crashing. Series views Muse Chat as more of an AI assistant. Rho, the company says, is intended for full-stack game development.  

A16z investors Joshua Lu and Andrew Chen were so excited to land the seed deal a year ago with Haritatos that they penned a blog post calling Series, “a game studio and technology company that is reinventing the future of game development with generative AI.” 

Advertisement

Part of what excited these investors was Haritatos himself. He has decades in game development and a knack of being on the cutting edge at just the right time. When Adobe’s Flash player emerged in the late 1990’s as a multimedia tech, he built his first studio making browser games and sold it to Zynga. Then he built a mobile game studio and sold it to Kongregate – a site that rose during the Flash games era. Haritatos later became CEO of Kongregate (eventually selling the company to Swedish gaming studio MTG). In 2020, he was hired to lead Snap’s games group, developing augmented reality and embedded games.

Those chops are why his investors are all big names in gaming. In addition to nabbing backing from a16z’s game-specific fund, Series landed BITKRAFT. This is a firm founded by eSports pioneer Jens Hilgers who cofounded ESL and G2 Esports, and is one of the most active game investors. Ditto for F4 Fund, a firm run by David Kaye and Joakim Achrén, two game makers who have built and sold multiple studios apiece and now invest.

Series has grown from 17 employees at the start of 2024 to over 100 now, the company says, with the team coming from companies like Zynga, Machine Zone, Google, and Snap. 

While Haritatos declined an interview after TechCrunch discovered the Series A raise, his people sent an emailed statement from him that praised his investors and said, “We are thrilled that we raised a very successful $28 million Series A during a tough year for funding.”

Advertisement

Pitchbook estimates the Series A was for about 15% of the company, giving Series a $190 million post-money valuation. The company declined comment on the accuracy of that number.

Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

FTC clears Chevron-Hess deal, bans John Hess from board

Published

1 hour ago

on

September 30, 2024

By

FTC clears Chevron-Hess deal, bans John Hess from board


John Hess, chief executive officer of Hess Corp., speaks at the 2024 CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston, Texas, US, on Tuesday, March 19, 2024. 

F. Carter Smith | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Advertisement

The Federal Trade Commission has banned Hess Corp. CEO John Hess from Chevron‘s board as a condition for the oil companies’ $53 billion merger to move forward.

The FTC on Monday alleged that Hess encouraged OPEC representatives to draw down inventories, which would result in higher oil prices.

“Mr. Hess’s communications with competitors about global oil output and other dimensions of crude oil market competition disqualify him from serving on Chevron’s Board of Directors,” Henry Liu, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement Monday.

Hess said the FTC concerns are without merit, describing the CEO’s communications with OPEC as consistent with statements he has made to the U.S. government.

Advertisement

Hess Corp. and Chevron, however, have agreed that they will not appoint Hess to the board in order to facilitate the completion of the merger, according to the companies. Hess will serve as an advisor to Chevron on government relations and “social investments” in Guyana.

The FTC’s decision to allow the deal leaves the companies’ dispute with Exxon Mobil as the final hurdle for the transaction to close. Exxon has filed claims with an arbitration panel claiming a right of first refusal over Hess’ lucrative oil assets in Guyana.

If the arbitration panel rules in Exxon’s favor, the Chevron-Hess deal will not close. Chevron and Hess have said they are confident that panel will rule in their favor.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com