Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on Button On Face With No Opening. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to Button On Face With No Opening awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of Button On Face With No Opening, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding Button On Face With No Opening. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of Button On Face With No Opening. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of Button On Face With No Opening, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on Button On Face With No Opening, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around Button On Face With No Opening. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of Button On Face With No Opening.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about Button On Face With No Opening, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of Button On Face With No Opening.
No opening crawl for 'Rogue One'? 'Huge mistake,' says creator
No opening crawl for 'Rogue One'? 'Huge mistake,' says creator
"Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" has many of the elements that have become so familiar to Star Wars fans since the first film in 1977. Gritty rebels and evil Darth Vader, lovable droids and the terrifying (if expensive) Death Star.
But it's also lacking an iconic staple of the previous seven films. It begins without the iconic text crawl, a brief introduction that crawls through space at the beginning of each of the other movies.
There's no memorable explainer slowly wandering off into space following the words, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...." There's not even a snooze-worthy history such as "The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute" from Episode I -- "The Phantom Menace."
Dan Perri, the title designer who created the crawl for the original film, told The Hollywood Reporter that he feels the lack of a crawl was the wrong decision.
"Frankly, it is a huge mistake, because the image is so iconic and it's so important to tens of millions, hundreds of millions of fans," Perri told THR. " I couldn't imagine it starting without that. It's foolish."
"Rogue One" director Gareth Edwards addressed the crawl issue with Entertainment Tonight back in July, five months before the movie's Dec. 16 opening. "The idea is this film is supposed to be different than the saga films," Edwards said then.
The lack of an opening crawl hasn't stopped the film from selling out across the nation. It took in an estimated $155 million on its opening weekend, making it the second largest opening weekend for December in box office history.
Perri also told THR that getting series creator George Lucas to accept the original crawl was a tedious process, and he would often wait for hours only to have the director reject his latest crawl attempt. And Perri himself never saw "Rogue One" and its lack of a crawl -- he says he hasn't seen any of the films since the original.
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
Apple watch it s been 5 years since my original review and reflect apple watch it s been 5 years since you passed apple watch it s been 5 years since you ve apple watch it s been 5 years since i met apple watch it s been 5 years jamie foxx apple watch it s been 5000 years apple watch it s been 50 years meme apple watch it s been a long day lyrics apple watch series 8
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
Galaxy z fold 3 review a refined foldable in search of leonard galaxy z fold 3 review a refined foldable in search of sisterhood galaxy z fold 3 review a refined foldable phone galaxy z fold 3 review a refined compilation galaxy z fold 3 review anime samsung galaxy z fold 3 review samsung galaxy z fold 3 reviews galaxy z fold 3 case galaxy z fold 3 price
Galaxy Z Fold 3 review: A refined foldable in search of a purpose
Galaxy Z Fold 3 review: A refined foldable in search of a purpose
Samsung announced the Galaxy Z Fold 3 and Z Flip 3 at the same time. But of the two, the $1,000 Z Flip 3 has a familiar design that's based on clamshell flip phones that have been around for decades. It folds in half from a 6.7-inch phone down to a square that's roughly the size and thickness of several coasters stacked. Meanwhile, the Z Fold 3 costs $1,800, with a futuristic design closer to something you'd see in a sci-fi movie or TV show like Westworld. The latter folds open from a regular phone, into a 7.6-inch square tablet and lacks the same "love at first sight" appeal as the Z Flip 3.
This is because Samsung's phone/tablet hybrid design is still inherently new compared to the tried-and-true flip phone motif the Flip 3 embraces. The Z Fold 3 is actually a wonderful tablet, but when it's folded up it has the same hefty appeal as an air conditioner remote control.
Like
120Hz cover screen
Water resistance
Wonderful tablet experience
S Pen is a blast to use
Software improvements for multitasking and Flex Mode
Don't Like
Battery life lasts about a day
Weird, heavy phone when closed
$1,800 is still expensive
Despite its complicated allure, the Galaxy Z Fold 3 is a remarkable showcase of technology and innovation. Pretty much anytime I open the phone in public, there is someone with a dumbfounded look on their face. For the price, you get nearly every high-end feature one would expect in a flagship Android phone. And for $1,800, you better. The few compromises Samsung did make, like having B+ cameras instead of A+ ones, aren't deal breakers and stand as further reminders that the Z Fold 3's high price tag is because the phone folds in half.
Throughout my time with the Z Fold 3, I kept asking myself why the tablet even needs to fold in half? Or is there a better way to design a tablet that folds down to the size of a phone? As much as the Z Fold 3 has improved over its predecessors, it's still largely a concept in search of a purpose. And I couldn't escape that underlying conundrum. Yet if you want a tablet that can fold up and fit into your pocket, the Z Fold 3 certainly deserves your consideration. It's the second best foldable phone Samsung has made to date, with the best one being the more practical Galaxy Z Flip 3.
Galaxy Z Fold 3 storage and pricing
US
UK
Australia
Galaxy Z Fold 3 256GB
$1,800
£1,599
AU$2,499
Galaxy Z Fold 3 512GB
$1,900
£1,699
AU$2,649
The Z Fold 3 has nearly all the refinements you could ask for, but it still feels like it's missing a purpose.
Patrick Holland/CNET
A stronger, lighter and thinner Fold
The Z Fold 3 takes on the same design and form as the Z Fold 2, albeit with a bunch of improvements. For some, the best improvement might be the $200 drop in price from the $2,000 the Z Fold 2 cost. Most of the phone's upgrades are more iterative, small touches that add up to a more refined package overall.
For instance it's lighter than the previous Fold, which I noticed as soon as I picked it up. But it's still one of the heaviest phones I reviewed this year. It's thinner and more svelte than the Z Fold 2, but still one of the bulkiest phones I have ever tested.
It seems more durable. Obviously, I only had a couple of weeks with the Z Fold 3, so I can only be hopeful that the improvements I noticed span the life of the phone. The metal in the frame and hinge is reinforced and you can feel that extra tensile strength when you hold it, fold it and interact with it. The folding screen, hinge and body feel more like a single uniform whole instead of being separate features. The 7.6-inch main screen still has a crease but it doesn't bother me in the least. You could nitpick it if you want, but the iPhone's notch is far more of an eyesore.
The Gorilla Glass Victus-clad cover screen now has a smooth 120Hz refresh rate that matches the main display and looks lovely. The Z Fold 3 has water resistance and can be submerged up to 1.5 meters (about 5 feet), which is truly remarkable for a folding phone.
Using an S Pen on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 is a blast
One indication that Samsung is confident about the Z Fold 3's durability is that it sells a sharp pointy stylus for you to use on the screen. It's as if Samsung is saying, "We're no longer worried about your fingernails making indentations on the main screen. Go ahead and try out an S Pen."
In my time using the S Pen with the phone, the screen looks just like it did when I took it out of the box. And that's on top of all the times I folded and unfolded it, shoved it in the pockets of my jeans and threw it in my backpack along with whatever else was in there.
Samsung made two versions of the S Pen for the Z Fold 3: the S Pen Fold Edition, which lacks Bluetooth and costs $50; and the S Pen Pro, which has Bluetooth and costs $100. Both have a retractable tip that helps reduce wear and tear on the screen. I only got to try out the S Pen Fold Edition and I noticed that the tip rarely retracted all the way. Instead, it seems to relieve some of the pressure I put on the screen when I draw or write. There's a small arsenal of S Pen tricks such as hover to magnify, which activates when the S Pen is just millimeters away from the screen.
The Galaxy Z Fold 3 is the first foldable phone that supports the S Pen.
Patrick Holland/CNET
The cover screen doesn't support either new S Pen which is a bummer because there's no way to jot a quick note or a doodle without opening up the Fold. And if you have an old S Pen, you can't use it with the Z Fold 3.
As much fun as it is to use an S Pen on that giant vibrant screen, the Fold in no way replaces the inherent convenience that a Galaxy Note provides. The Fold doesn't let you quickly make a note. And there isn't a place to store the S Pen. It would be nice if you could magnetically attach the S Pen to the Fold 3's hinge in the same way you can attach an Apple Pencil to an iPad Pro. I should note that Samsung sells a bundled S Pen Fold Edition and phone case that stores it along the hinge for $80.
Under-display camera selfies and Zoom calls on the Z Fold 3
There are two, technically three, selfie cameras -- let me explain. You can take a selfie with the hole-punch selfie camera in the cover screen. Or you can flip the cover screen down, use it as a live preview and take a selfie with the main rear camera. Or you can use Samsung's first ever under-display camera, which is mostly hidden behind the main screen.
Out of the three options, the one that is the most curious is the under-display camera. The part of the display in front of the camera has fewer screen elements and translucent wiring. At certain angles or when brighter colors are on the display, you can see the part of the screen where the camera is. Think of this camera setup like looking through a window that has blinds on it.
The front-facing camera in the main display of the Galaxy Z Fold 2 (white screen) is housed in a hole-punch cut out. The Galaxy Z Fold 3 uses an under-display camera. Notice the tiny octagon shape in the green leaf wallpaper on the Fold 3's main display.
Sarah Tew/CNET
The under-display camera is only 4 megapixels, which isn't a lot, but that lower resolution helps it see through or around those screen elements. Samsung also uses AI processing to improve the image quality. I took selfies with all three options on the Fold and, no surprise, the photos from the under-display camera looked the worst. Indoor selfies look highly processed and outdoor snaps in good lighting do not look much better.
The under-display camera is intended for video calls and works fine for them. On the few video calls I made using it, people on the other end said that they didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.
I took selfies with the different cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3. From left to right, here are selfies from: the main rear camera, cover screen camera and under-display camera.
Patrick Holland/CNET
But let's go back to why there is an under-display camera. The idea is to reduce visual distractions on and around the display. There isn't a notch. There isn't a hole punch. Instead, you either see nothing (yay!) or when bright colors are displayed, you see a tiny glittery octagon that I found to be more distracting than something like a hole-punch camera. At this point, the benefit of having a screen free of visual interruptions isn't worth the tradeoffs from this under-display camera.
Z Fold 3 has B+ cameras at an A+ price
Despite all of the improvements to the phone's hardware, the cameras are one area that largely remain the same. In terms of quality and performance, they are a step behind the camera systems found on phones like the iPhone 12 Pro Max and Samsung's Galaxy S21 Ultra. These are good cameras and for most people the photos and videos they capture with them will be fine.
There are five cameras on the Z Fold 3: the aforementioned under-display camera, the cover-screen selfie camera and a triple camera array on the "back" with a main wide-angle camera, an ultrawide-angle camera and a 2x optical telephoto camera that now has optical image stabilization. In bright lighting, photos look good. Digital zoom up to 4x magnification has minimal image deterioration. If you go past 6x, photos look less stellar and have softer details. Night mode on the Z Fold 3 is solid, but compared to the S21 or S21 Ultra, images look soft. Take a look below at a few photos I took with the new Fold.
The camera hardware didn't change, but the Z Fold 3 gets a new image signal processor thanks to its Snapdragon 888 chip.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Under good lighting, the Fold can capture great photos.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Notice how it handles the highlights in the clouds and the details above the windows of the cream-colored building.
Patrick Holland/CNET
There is something about the perspective of Samsung's ultrawide cameras that always gets me.
Patrick Holland/CNET
This was taken with the 2x telephoto camera.
Patrick Holland/CNET
A beautiful day yields some perfect views. Look at the highlights and shadows in the clouds.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Night mode on the Fold 3 isn't quite to the level of the Galaxy S21, but it's still impressive.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Images look bright and are mostly free of image noise, even from the ultrawide camera.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Videos are decent, but suffer from image noise in all but the most ideal of situations. Take a look at some videos I recorded with the Z Fold 3 below.
There will inevitably be some people who expect the absolute best cameras on a phone that costs $1,800. I'd argue that Samsung made a smart tradeoff to keep that price under $2,000.
Like the Z Flip 3, the Z Fold 3 is essentially its own tripod. Because of its size and flexibility you can put it nearly anywhere to capture a unique angle or perspective.
Galaxy Z Fold 3 gets multitasking right
On the inside, the Z Fold 3 packs nearly every 2021 Android spec you could want. It has a Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 chip and 12GB of RAM. It runs Android 11 and Samsung's One UI 3. Split-screen apps are more customizable, taking advantage of the larger tablet screen. You can put them side by side, stacked vertically or even have three. You can move each app around and resize their windows. You can also save split-screen app groupings and setups for later.
Like the Z Flip 3, the phone's settings has a section called Labs, which lets you optimize nearly any app for the screen. For example, natively Instagram shows up in a thin vertical aspect ratio with screen space on either side of the app. I went into Labs, and forced it to be displayed across the full screen, which worked well.
Multitasking is fun and customizable on the Z Fold 3. You can save app window layouts to use the same setup again.
Patrick Holland/CNET
A useful trait that the Flip and Fold share is Flex Mode. You can position either phone half open like a mini laptop. Flex Mode gets more support in One UI 3 and there are more apps that can take advantage of it. Some apps just move to the top half of the screen with system navigation and brightness controls on the bottom. Other apps, like for videos and music, place the playback controls on the bottom half of the screen. Not every app is optimized for Flex Mode, but this is a huge step up from the Fold 2. I still would like to see apps go farther and even be designed around Flex Mode. Can you imagine a game designed for Flex Mode?
Galaxy Z Fold 3 has less than average battery life
The Z Fold 3's biggest drawback is its battery life. The dual 4,400-mAh batteries are actually a tad smaller than the ones in the Fold 2. As a result, the Z Fold 3 barely makes it through a day. I imagine that has a lot to do with the combination of 5G connectivity and the fact that there are two screens that run at 120Hz. Screen-on time during my review averaged about three and a half hours, which isn't great. I am still running CNET's battery test and will update this review with the results soon.
The Fold lacks dust resistance. In my use this wasn't an issue. But I recommend being careful if you take the Z Fold 3 to the beach or on a hike or anywhere there's potential for small particles to interact with the phone. This wouldn't be a good phone for Salt BAE.
The screens and finish on the body collect finger smudges easily. I find myself wiping it clean constantly.
The Galaxy Z Fold 3 and Z Flip 3 are quite the pairing. One is aimed more at the mainstream and the other at early adopters.
Sarah Tew/CNET
A better foldable, but not the best
While I continue testing the Galaxy Z Fold 3, I still question who this phone is for exactly. A phone enthusiast might love all of the technology in the Fold, especially that folding screen. Foldable phones are still at a comparatively early stage, but the lower price offered by the Z Fold 3 and the Z Flip 3 compared to their predecessors shows an effort to make them more accessible. And I hope that's a trend that continues in the coming years. I still hold that most people who want a folding phone will likely want to consider the Z Flip 3 for its familiar flip-phone aesthetic, but if you want that larger tablet shape the Z Fold 3 fulfills that promise.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 specs vs. Galaxy Z Fold 2, Galaxy Fold
