Should we start being more critical of OnePlus?

[D13H4RD2L1V3]

I've got the S8+, and have had it since the day it launched. It is a fantastic phone in so many ways. I agree that Samsung has come a very long way with their software. I actually like most of their stock apps like their browser over Chrome, their calendar and Contacts over Google's etc.

But one thing that still bugs me a lot is the S8+ real world performance. The OP3T is so much quicker, let alone the OP5, and it's 6GB RAM make a huge difference in terms of keeping apps in memory. 8GB probably doesn't add anything beyond that. So as much as I love the S8+, I'm going to try the OP5. Speed is not everything, and to many and probably most people, the S8+ is more than quick enough. But over time if you're a heavy user, it makes a difference. If you want to see just how much quicker the OP5 is than the S7, check out this video comparison https://youtu.be/jO0kuUXpaPA

I don't think anyone would disagree that the OP5 is a speed demon.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

For the charging system, I really like what they've done however I can't give it a pass because it isn't compliant with the other standards. If they could have spent the last year figuring out a way to still give their benefit while also supporting power delivery Etc then we'd be totally good.

Bad software comes up due to lack of support for seamless updates, late firmware updates, abandoning the OnePlus 2. Reviews of the OnePlus 5 have indicated that there are still some bugs and stuttering throughout the OS, however it's not clear on if they're saying it's worse than other devices or just that they exist. This is going to be something that needs to wait until we can actually use the device to figure it out. For me the benefit of the doubt does not go to OnePlus because of Prior Generations.

For security I listed it as poor because of the inconsistent support for monthly updates and the lack of a commitment from the company to support monthly security bulletins within 24 hours of them being made available for public release.

The fingerprint scanner is definitely subjective as far as where users want to use it, however I am going after it for a different reason which is one of design. It is in my opinion not okay to still be releasing devices with capacitive buttons. For 2015 devices I was willing to give the front-facing fingerprint scanner a pass if it was the home button and the other two buttons were on the bezel next to it. In 2016 that seemed to be the direction that many wanted to go with it and I do believe that fingerprint scanners are going to come back to the front as companies learn to put it below the display. For a 2017 device a front-facing fingerprint scanner is just outdated. But that's just my opinion. The second thing about the fingerprint scanner though is that the OnePlus still has both software and capacitive keys available to the user. In my opinion this is a mistake and OnePlus should choose one or the other and go all in with it and adjust the design of the face of their device accordingly.

But again all of these things are meant to be taking as these ten things together and not as a list of individual things about it.

And Qualcomm's solution isn't a "standard" either, but proprietary, as much as OP's is.
USB-PD is the only one with with a standard.
A lot of your dismissal is based purely on personal opinions.
Fingerprint scanner position is entirely personal preference.
You seem to contradict yourself saying that the front scanner is a problem, while acknowledging that is the way it is going in the future, albeit under the screen rather than adjacent to it.
The awkward placement of the scanner on the s8 makes it clear that the rear scanner was a last-minute compromise rather than a choice from the start, one forced because the bezel-less screen could not at that point accomodate the underscreen scanner.
As is the capacitive buttons, as I am not a fan of inconsistent button presence on the screen.

If the individual statements are a problem, so is the list overall.
And so much of that isn't based on facts.

 

[Aquila]

And Qualcomm's solution isn't a "standard" either, but proprietary, as much as OP's is.
USB-PD is the only one with with a standard.

This is correct until QuickCharge 4.0 which the SD835 supports, but so far no one has implemented afaik. I give the same pushback to QC 3.0 and lower standards on USB Type C chargers.

Fingerprint scanner position is entirely personal preference.
You seem to contradict yourself saying that the front scanner is a problem, while acknowledging that is the way it is going in the future, albeit under the screen rather than adjacent to it.

OnePlus has two issues with FPS, etc. 1. It's visible on the front of the device. This is a design issue, which putting it under the display solves. Since they didn't make it invisible under the display, that'd be a good reason to move it to the back. 2. They have both hard and soft keys on the front of the device. This is indicating that they have no clear design philosophy that they're pushing to the users.

But again, all of those things are meant to be taken as a list of ten things that together are the issue, not any individual component of the entire list. It's a package.

 

[AFM1204]

I'm pretty concerned with the price. I can get an LG G6 from my carrier for $20 down, $20/month for 20 months = $500. The G6 has a better camera, better display, better water resistance, $20 more expensive.

The Moto Z2 play is in the same price range. It's a lot more to consider, a lot of competition.

 

[Doug Moffat]

Best summed up as the least expensive flagship phone.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

This is correct until QuickCharge 4.0 which the SD835 supports, but so far no one has implemented afaik. I give the same pushback to QC 3.0 and lower standards on USB Type C chargers.



OnePlus has two issues with FPS, etc. 1. It's visible on the front of the device. This is a design issue, which putting it under the display solves. Since they didn't make it invisible under the display, that'd be a good reason to move it to the back. 2. They have both hard and soft keys on the front of the device. This is indicating that they have no clear design philosophy that they're pushing to the users.

But again, all of those things are meant to be taken as a list of ten things that together are the issue, not any individual component of the entire list. It's a package.

And putting it under the screen isn't "solved" yet by Samsung.
So putting it on the back should be equally criticised by that judgement.
Putting it on the back if it was so good wouldnt then require it to be on the front.
You are being contradictory, you cant make up your mind if front or back is good.
A package is only as good as its weakest argument, and you have many weak ones.

Putting it on the back is a compromise because on the front under the screen simply wasnt something they could do technically.
As is putting it on the front adjacent to the screen.

You simply don't like it, you cant argue that one is bad but the other is not by the same measure that it isn't under the screen.
Both aren't that, therefore both have failed that measure.

Some people like a rear sensor, some like a front one.
Therefore even one embedded in the screen won't be simply "better", it only meets YOUR expectations.
Personally a lot of things beyond it simply being on the front or rear contribute to the experience with the sensor, its actual position, the speed and accuracy of the response, and even something like the position on the rear isn't going to be universally good for everyone who has that preference.
Different grips on the phone, different lengths and flexibility of their fingers, holding in the other hand which is more of an issue for an off-centre sensor.

Your "package" is mostly a list of personal gripes, contradictions and inconsistent arguments.

 

[Aquila]

And putting it under the screen isn't "solved" yet by Samsung.
So putting it on the back should be equally criticised by that judgement.
Putting it on the back if it was so good wouldnt then require it to be on the front.
You are being contradictory, you cant make up your mind if front or back is good.
A package is only as good as its weakest argument, and you have many weak ones.

Putting it on the back is a compromise because on the front under the screen simply wasnt something they could do technically.
As is putting it on the front adjacent to the screen.

You simply don't like it, you cant argue that one is bad but the other is not by the same measure that it isn't under the screen.
Both aren't that, therefore both have failed that measure.

Some people like a rear sensor, some like a front one.
Therefore even one embedded in the screen won't be simply "better", it only meets YOUR expectations.
Personally a lot of things beyond it simply being on the front or rear contribute to the experience with the sensor, its actual position, the speed and accuracy of the response, and even something like the position on the rear isn't going to be universally good for everyone who has that preference.
Different grips on the phone, different lengths and flexibility of their fingers, holding in the other hand which is more of an issue for an off-centre sensor.

Your "package" is mostly a list of personal gripes, contradictions and inconsistent arguments.

Yeah, sorry I'm either being unclear or you're not getting the point on the FPS. There's no contradiction. The key to the argument is that the FPS should be invisible and not on the face of the device, aka the bezels. So rear and front under the display are both acceptable because they meet the criteria of being invisible and not on the face of the device. Neither one is inherently better than the other for those criterion, assuming all other aspects other than the positioning are equal. And as you said, typically all other things aren't equal, so those would weigh in as well.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

Yeah, sorry I'm either being unclear or you're not getting the point on the FPS. There's no contradiction. The key to the argument is that the FPS should be invisible and not on the face of the device, aka the bezels. So rear and front under the display are both acceptable because they meet the criteria of being invisible and not on the face of the device. Neither one is inherently better than the other for those criterion, assuming all other aspects other than the positioning are equal. And as you said, typically all other things aren't equal, so those would weigh in as well.

You said the sensor on the OP5 is bad because it is not under the screen, but then say that a rear sensor is good because it isn't at the front
That is two entirely different judgments as to what makes a good place, front under the screen - which you choose to criticise OP5 for not doing, yet Samsung is not either yet is being held up rather more favourably.
You are inconsistent in what you deem the ideal solution for the sensor, in that you have two "ideals" both of which are not what the OP5 does, therefore the OP5 is bad, but someone else who does different is good despite them failing the very thing you criticised the OP5 for not doing.
You cant have two different ideals, you should have one instead of simply introducing another as soon as something else exists you look upon favourably that breaks the first rule you described.

And that is even excluding the fact that what you present are subjective opinions, that something is bad simply because it isn't doing something.
On the FPS there is for no small number of people an importance to a tactile interaction, even if the interaction is simply static, but knowing you put your finger in the right place because you can feel it is important.
You could argue that underscreen sensor with vibration solves that, but if there was one "solution" to suit everyone, why are there so many input peripherals with considerably different physical characteristics to the tactile feedback.
And why does it have to be "invisible" anyway, a purely subjective opinion.
"It is bad if you can see it". - Why ?

 

[Aquila]

You said the sensor on the OP5 is bad because it is not under the screen, but then say that a rear sensor is good because it isn't at the front
That is two entirely different judgments as to what makes a good place, front under the screen - which you choose to criticise OP5 for not doing, yet Samsung is not either yet is being held up rather more favourably.
You are inconsistent in what you deem the ideal solution for the sensor, in that you have two "ideals" both of which are not what the OP5 does, therefore the OP5 is bad, but someone else who does different is good despite them failing the very thing you criticised the OP5 for not doing.
You cant have two different ideals, you should have one instead of simply introducing another as soon as something else exists you look upon favourably that breaks the first rule you described.

And that is even excluding the fact that what you present are subjective opinions, that something is bad simply because it isn't doing something.
On the FPS there is for no small number of people an importance to a tactile interaction, even if the interaction is simply static, but knowing you put your finger in the right place because you can feel it is important.
You could argue that underscreen sensor with vibration solves that, but if there was one "solution" to suit everyone, why are there so many input peripherals with considerably different physical characteristics to the tactile feedback.
And why does it have to be "invisible" anyway, a purely subjective opinion.
"It is bad if you can see it". - Why ?

So, I tried to explain that there isn't a contradiction a couple of times. At this point it seems that you're going out of your way to misunderstand the points. Rear and under display are both viable for the exact same reason. I've explained that and given you the benefit of the doubt, assuming I was unclear... However at this point my position has been made perfectly clear and you're also making your position clear, which is that you are interested in arguing against points that I'm not making. If you read the actual content of my statements, there's no contradiction either directly or implied. I'd kindly suggest either rereading until that makes sense or we can simply agree to move on... because I'm not going to attempt to defend points I haven't made against someone who is not reading the points that I have made.

 

[torbach1]

Definitely time to move on in my view. I see points from both sides that are relevant. At the end of the day, I think that the OPs primary point of this thread, is reasonable. Yes, we should start being a bit more critical of OnePlus. The reasons are in my view fewer than the OP referenced. But we could all argue back and forth about those. I think it's important to OnePlus in order to help them improve, that OnePlus fans start being vocal with their criticism of issues. This will help them improve, and that will help all of us.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

Definitely time to move on in my view. I see points from both sides that are relevant. At the end of the day, I think that the OPs primary point of this thread, is reasonable. Yes, we should start being a bit more critical of OnePlus. The reasons are in my view fewer than the OP referenced. But we could all argue back and forth about those. I think it's important to OnePlus in order to help them improve, that OnePlus fans start being vocal with their criticism of issues. This will help them improve, and that will help all of us.

Singling out OnePlus was personal, and had nothing to do with a constructive argument.
There is plenty we can criticise about other manufacturers too, but often don't.
This "list" was largely formed from personal preferences, cherry-picked to paint the OP5 in the worst possible picture, deciding their way was wrong because they didn't do something a certain way regardless of other phones also failing that.
I read plenty, plenty of subjective opinions which absolutely have to to taken as part of the "package".
Presenting opinions as opinions is fine, trying to pass them off as facts and undisputable is not.
Yet every time there was a disagreement, we were told to look at the "package", something we could very easily put together for many phones if we wanted to.

Saying that we aren't being critical is simply being willfully blind.
Not everyone feels the need to openly bash for the sake of bashing, particularly when it is something already well covered.
Seeing what you want to see does not mean that is all there is to see.

Things I have mentioned myself about OP5, which are less than positive.
Dropping the strongly hinted, if not "promised" update for the OP2.
Dual cameras being a very mixed bag, even having sometimes worse performance particularly under low-light conditions.
The dash charge charging solution while having some superior characteristics is still reliant on proprietary products unique to the brand.
There is at least as much criticism about if you want to see it, as there is for other brands, if not even more, because there always seems to be a brand which it is "cool" to bash, and OnePlus seems to be that at the moment.
How much criticism do you actually deem sufficient, for there is actually a lot already.

 

[Theo Donacik]

It is a great phone and amazing for its price

 

[torbach1]

Singling out OnePlus was personal, and had nothing to do with a constructive argument.
There is plenty we can criticise about other manufacturers too, but often don't.
This "list" was largely formed from personal preferences, cherry-picked to paint the OP5 in the worst possible picture, deciding their way was wrong because they didn't do something a certain way regardless of other phones also failing that.
I read plenty, plenty of subjective opinions which absolutely have to to taken as part of the "package".
Presenting opinions as opinions is fine, trying to pass them off as facts and undisputable is not.
Yet every time there was a disagreement, we were told to look at the "package", something we could very easily put together for many phones if we wanted to.

Saying that we aren't being critical is simply being willfully blind.
Not everyone feels the need to openly bash for the sake of bashing, particularly when it is something already well covered.
Seeing what you want to see does not mean that is all there is to see.

I agree with you on most of this. I think the criticism that should be leveled on OP by users should be objective, not subjective. Frankly, the only real issue I have with it is it's camera, which is still damn good, but not what was promised. However the OP saw more issues. I too disagree with many of his points. But whether we should criticize, I think we should, in a constructive manner. That means objectivity is important. I think reviewers for the most part are giving OP the appropriate feedback.

 

[Kayza]

You've explained why you don't think the OP5 is worth the money. You have some valid points. But I'm not sure why it's important to be critical per se. Sure, let's not gloss over the issues that exist. But there is no moral failing here, nor are there any issues that were kept secret or anything like that.

I agree that they've turned on the hype machine, but that's not just them.

And, ultimately,for a lot of people this phone will still be a good value.

 

[Aquila]

Singling out OnePlus was personal, and had nothing to do with a constructive argument.
There is plenty we can criticise about other manufacturers too, but often don't.

Literally nothing personal about it, it's about OnePlus because the thread is about the OnePlus 5. This can and has been done regarding many other OEM's and other devices. But as said multiple times... you would know all of this if you took the time to read, instead of making assumptions and arguing against those assumptions. So now that's we're so far into asked and answered territory, are we good to let it go and agree to disagree?

 

[Kayza]

4 -How, exactly, do you define "bad security"? How is it different than any other phone company?

6 - So what? It's obviously a non-starter for Verizon and Sprint customers in the US, but why should that keep anyone on other carriers from giving this serious consideration?

8 - I don't this matters. Esthetics are the thing that's easiest to disregard when you are looking at a significant price differential. Especially since a lot of people are putting a phone into a case that hides the design.

10 - This is actually a significant issue. Possibly more so that the camera, which by all accounts is not too bad.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

Literally nothing personal about it, it's about OnePlus because the thread is about the OnePlus 5. This can and has been done regarding many other OEM's and other devices. But as said multiple times... you would know all of this if you took the time to read, instead of making assumptions and arguing against those assumptions. So now that's we're so far into asked and answered territory, are we good to let it go and agree to disagree?

It was personal.
Many criticisms laid at OP which are equally applicable to others, with the claim that they "need" the criticisms.
When there has been plenty already, despite claims otherwise.
There has been plenty, if you want to see it.
Anyone saying that it isnt there, or isn't sufficient is downright lying.

The forum alone has plenty in this section, but apparently those threads or posts don't exist.

Pick fault, sure.
But don't say that other people are not doing the same "adequately", for that is completely false.

 

[Kayza]

For security I listed it as poor because of the inconsistent support for monthly updates and the lack of a commitment from the company to support monthly security bulletins within 24 hours of them being made available for public release.

The thing with this is that the other flagships are not much better. The Pixel is, and so is the Blackberry keyone, but no is calling that flagship class. When you are lucky, you get Security updates on Samsung flagships 2 months behind. And OS updates? Ages. I have a Galaxy S6 - it's a year and a half old, and it's never even gotten to Android 7.1 - it's at 7.0. That's not what I call a good update record.

 

[Aquila]

It was personal.
Many criticisms laid at OP which are equally applicable to others, with the claim that they "need" the criticisms.
When there has been plenty already, despite claims otherwise.
There has been plenty, if you want to see it.
Anyone saying that it isnt there, or isn't sufficient is downright lying.

The forum alone has plenty in this section, but apparently those threads or posts don't exist.

Pick fault, sure.
But don't say that other people are not doing the same "adequately", for that is completely false.

Three things to notice that I am starting to think may have gotten confused. First, this thread is over a month old. It was a month old before you joined the site. Second, I'm not the OP. My contribution was a list in the second post of things that, as a package, are making it difficult to view the OP5 as a legitimate flagship level competitor. Because the competition there is incredibly steep, not because the OP5 sucks. Third, I never said it was a bad phone or that I didn't like it. Those are things you read into it.

 

[Aquila]

The thing with this is that the other flagships are not much better. The Pixel is, and so is the Blackberry keyone, but no is calling that flagship class. When you are lucky, you get Security updates on Samsung flagships 2 months behind. And OS updates? Ages. I have a Galaxy S6 - it's a year and a half old, and it's never even gotten to Android 7.1 - it's at 7.0. That's not what I call a good update record.

Yep, the Pixel and Nexus devices take security seriously. The BlackBerry devices do to a point, but while they are great at getting monthly bulletin updates out, they still fall down on getting major OS version updates out. iPhones are pretty great at security, nearly on par with Google's phones. Everyone else is on a spectrum between merely ok and really bad at security. That said, the new Nokia devices seem to be trying to wedge in there somewhere between Google and Blackberry. Problem is, the Pixel, KeyOne, etc, etc. all have their own lists of issues. Which is a good reason to think of devices as packages, rather than as a competition on the spec sheet, because there are always pros and cons to getting any device over any other.