The Paperweight Dilemma // Mobian's Blog (blog.mobian.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Shatur@lemmy.ml to c/linuxphones@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not a good news for the original PP. I personally don't use Mobian and I just use megi's kernel, but I understand their concerns.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The modem is the same and the SoC is the same as in the Pinebook Pro, which costs much less. The only actually better part in the PPP that justifies a slightly higher price is the back camera.

I think Pine64 tried to get in some imagined premium market with the PPP and the PineNote, and at least for the Note they admitted it was a total failure.

[-] awai@fosstodon.org 3 points 1 year ago

@poVoq @Shatur The PBP doesn't include a modem (so no LTE antennas), has only 1 (cheap) camera, bigger display/form factor, no touchscreen, smaller eMMC, cheaper audio codec...

Also, the PPP's display is way better (and therefore costly) in both contrast and color-correctness to the OG PP one.

Comparing the PPP & PBP prices based only on the fact they use the same SoC really doesn't make any sense unless you look at *all* the differences, and even then, it's dubious...

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Obviously I am comparing both the PP and the PBP with the PPP. The two cheaper devices show that it would have been perfectly possible to make a sub 300$ device that is a functional equivalent of the PPP.

More colors on a tiny low resolution mobile screen is another one of these useless premium features they added to justify the massive price hike.

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023

31 points (100.0% liked)

Linux Phones

4474 readers

1 users here now

Community about running GNU/Linux on phones. Projects like Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, PostmarketOS, Mobian etc. Either on former Android phones or hardware like the PinePhone.