Turing phone review is not encouraging [not a question]
Recently released review of Turing phone is not encouraging. The reviewer has always tried to prove that both the hardware and software at below performing. It's not at all in favour of SAILFISH OS. This kind of halfhearted approach from manufacturers are making the situation for the OS more critical. Let's hope the upcoming phone will get a better review..
Do you have a link to the review?
PatsJolla ( 2016-08-21 19:16:28 +0200 )edithttp://www.digitaltrends.com/cell-phone-reviews/turing-dark-wyvern-review/
partha9940 ( 2016-08-21 19:37:07 +0200 )editThe only thing that really worries me in this review is the lousy battery life. Losing "30-40 percent overnight without being used at all" indeed seems terrible. But this is not true for my Jolla 1, so it must be some kind of bug. Maybe Turing Robotics should not have handed out unfinished devices (the one in the test was not yet waterproof). This just harms their reputation. But I really love the design, a beautiful piece of hardware.
StaticNoiseLog ( 2016-08-21 20:50:27 +0200 )editMy personal impression is that the reviewer gets quite subjective when he has to step outside his comfort zone. ...which is quite logical but also utterly disappointing. The article shows that he hasn't done his research properly. Thus he fails to get the facts right (one example is deleting pictures) and doesn't see the strengths of the OS (not even a tiny hint to the multitasking).
No phone is perfect and flaws should be pointed out with a keen eye on the details in their given context. The article fails to do so, which is utterly sad. The saddest part is that the reviewer gets the details wrong after dragging the phone out of the given context. A security-minded phone should indeed be very harshly scrutinized but not by playing games on it. ...and just imagine giving an Apple phone the thumbs down for not running android.
Let's hope that reviewer spends more time with the (replacement) phone getting to really know the OS so that the next article will be a tad more objective. I expected more from a professional reviewer, to be honest.
vattuvarg ( 2016-08-21 21:14:27 +0200 )editBeautiful? That is debatable.
hoschi ( 2016-08-21 21:50:41 +0200 )edit