Another really positive Honor 8 Review

[shea-bird]

Found a recently posted review that sings the praises we all know:

Huawei Honor 8 review | Android and Me

Having this phone over a month now, I am really impressed - especially with battery life!

UPDATE: My favorite Review outlet (besides AC ) recently posted a review as well. They also gave it prety good remarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10678/the-huawei-honor-8-review

As for battery life. I don't game on my mobile phones and that is the only area of weakness for this phone. For me I can literally get through 2 full days on a charge with 4-5 hour screen on time. To me that is ridiculously good. If you read anandtech's review, they explain why this is so (has to do with the kiran chipset).

 

[libra89]

Wow that is an amazing review, thanks for sharing. I agree with it on pros and cons.

Sent from mTalk

 

[Etyrnus]

Definitely a good review, and that reviewer seemed more openminded to EMUI than some of the "purists".

 

[dpham00]

How does he define heavy use? I usually use around 12-13 hours SOT a day which is for me a heavy use case. The only phone that I have seen do this would be the Moto z Play, though it would be great if the honor 8 can do it. Just seems unlikely though based on what I have read.

 

[edwin walke]

Excellent review. I still wonder why Huawei/Honor don't include CDMA bands in the H8. A lot of potential customers left out.

I looked at a iPhone 7 plus yesterday and the build doesn't look any better than my H8. The big difference in the phones is $400+ in cost for the iPhone.

 

[Etyrnus]

Excellent review. I still wonder why Huawei/Honor don't include CDMA bands in the H8. A lot of potential customers left out.

I looked at a iPhone 7 plus yesterday and the build doesn't look any better than my H8. The big difference in the phones is $400+ in cost for the iPhone.

The CDMA bands I believe require certain licensing, and it seems Qualcomm has that locked down. I think Samsung even had to use a Qualcomm modem in the S6 with their exynos processor to have it work on all US carriers.

 

[dpham00]

Excellent review. I still wonder why Huawei/Honor don't include CDMA bands in the H8. A lot of potential customers left out.

I looked at a iPhone 7 plus yesterday and the build doesn't look any better than my H8. The big difference in the phones is $400+ in cost for the iPhone.

if you are just worried about the build, get a iphone se...same price as the h8 and similar build to the iphone 7 plus. or get a iphone 7 which is a lot less than the $400 plus and same build, though obviously still more than the h8..

My guess would be that Huawei didn't want to get approval from the USA CDMA carriers. because it won't work on two CDMA carriers without explicit carrier approval. It will work on the third cdma carrier provided that it had the appropriate LTE bands, with an active sim card, so technically it could work, but that carrier won't activate the device without approval so...it's a hassle many customers don't want to deal with.

 

[dpham00]

The CDMA bands I believe require certain licensing, and it seems Qualcomm has that locked down. I think Samsung even had to use a Qualcomm modem in the S6 with their exynos processor to have it work on all US carriers.

huawei has cdma in the 960 and it is a custom cdma solution, not requiring licensing from qualcomm. but most solutions will use qualcomm licensing for cdma.

i would guess that samsung didn't use a qualcomm soc in the usa s6 and note 5 because that year, qualcomm's soc didn't have the bp incorporated into their high end soc. meaning even if they used the qualcomm soc, they would have to have a separate bp. the year before and the year after, qualcomm did incorporate the bp into the soc, and so samsung did use the qualcomm soc in those years.

 

[Ry]

huawei has cdma in the 960 and it is a custom cdma solution, not requiring licensing from qualcomm. but most solutions will use qualcomm licensing for cdma.

i would guess that samsung didn't use a qualcomm soc in the usa s6 and note 5 because that year, qualcomm's soc didn't have the bp incorporated into their high end soc. meaning even if they used the qualcomm soc, they would have to have a separate bp. the year before and the year after, qualcomm did incorporate the bp into the soc, and so samsung did use the qualcomm soc in those years.

Is CDMA an open standard? I would think not thus any solution would have to pay Qualcomm.

 

[dpham00]

Is CDMA an open standard? I would think not thus any solution would have to pay Qualcomm.

Depends on the implementation. If they used a Qualcomm standard such as cdma2000 then yes. But CDMA is used in gps for example,and that doesn't use a Qualcomm standard.

With regards to the 960, Huawei adds native CDMA support and doesn't need to be licensed from Qualcomm.

 

[dpham00]

Think of this like Qualcomm quick charge which is proprietary technology. But Samsung has a compatible tech which is their adaptive fast charging. Samsung was able to essentially achieve the same thing but without infringing on Qualcomm ip. I would guess that that is the same thing that is happening here

 

[Ry]

Think of this like Qualcomm quick charge which is proprietary technology. But Samsung has a compatible tech which is their adaptive fast charging. Samsung was able to essentially achieve the same thing but without infringing on Qualcomm ip. I would guess that that is the same thing that is happening here

Yet Samsung devices with their Adaptive Fast Charging are listed on Qualcomm's site as Quick Charge compatible.

(Same thing for Motorola micro USB devices that use the TurboPower branding)

 

[dpham00]

It would also be interesting if Huawei discussed this with Qualcomm or if they did it on their own... Cuz if the latter then Qualcomm might sue them for infringement,especially in the states

 

[Ry]

It would also be interesting if Huawei discussed this with Qualcomm or if they did it on their own... Cuz if the latter then Qualcomm might sue them for infringement,especially in the states

..or they have and it's already covered.

 

[Etyrnus]

huawei has cdma in the 960 and it is a custom cdma solution, not requiring licensing from qualcomm. but most solutions will use qualcomm licensing for cdma.

i would guess that samsung didn't use a qualcomm soc in the usa s6 and note 5 because that year, qualcomm's soc didn't have the bp incorporated into their high end soc. meaning even if they used the qualcomm soc, they would have to have a separate bp. the year before and the year after, qualcomm did incorporate the bp into the soc, and so samsung did use the qualcomm soc in those years.

Thanks, I was kind of guessing on my explanation.

 

[James Falconer]

It would also be interesting if Huawei discussed this with Qualcomm or if they did it on their own... Cuz if the latter then Qualcomm might sue them for infringement,especially in the states

I'm sure they have it all sorted!

 

[dpham00]

I'm sure they have it all sorted!

I am sure that they will but it could also be why they aren't releasing that chip in the USA now.