[Rumor] HTC Droid DNA Phablet Tipped for December Release (440PPI 1920x1080 Display)

52brandon said:
out of curiosity. Why do you prefer the T-bolt to the GS3? I have the GNEX and I find it superior to my old T-bolt in every way...

Better built and way better reception never had a problem with it other than battery... also I'm having freezing problems with my s3 and its just randomly acts up its a POS in my eyes and ill never buy another samsung. My previous post was more pointing out and comparing battery life tho
 
lol another tiny battery HTC.... i'm glad they make it VERY easy to say No.
 
Spen sounds and looks lame. Looks like something I would lose in 2 days and not useful. But whatever, to each thier own. :)
the S pen the biggest gimmick since the term retina display! no1 who has the OG note even uses the pen
I agree. I tried it out at T-Mobile and US Cellular a few days ago, and I found that when using it as I hold a pen (at a slight angle), only about 80% of the touches and gestures actually registered, I ended up having to touch this twice to get them to open.

The only time I can imagine using the S-Pen over your finger is if you wanted to write a quick note, where it takes too long to type something, or if you need to make note of something that isn't your average text.

i came from using a TBOLT with the extended battery and made a dumb mistake and gave it to my sister and got the S3 and it sucks and she wont give my phone back lol..... But to my point the TBOLT with the 2750MHA battery last about as long as the S3 with its 2100MHA battery..so the dna with its quad core processor if it comes with a 2500MHA battery i think we dont have nothing to worry about should last slightly longer or worst case the same as the S3!!
I also have the Thunderbolt, and bought a GS3. But I returned it the next day. The Thunderbolt was a much better phone IMO, which is why I really want this device to come out. The HTC One X is an amazing phone!
 
geoff5093 said:
I also have the Thunderbolt, and bought a GS3. But I returned it the next day. The Thunderbolt was a much better phone IMO, which is why I really want this device to come out. The HTC One X is an amazing phone!

That's funny the only reason I got this phone was we had a upgrade and I wanted to keep my unlimited data there was no point in wasting the upgrade and not using it i figured I could get my money back out of this s3 I also wanted the one X.. I will be getting this HTC DNA and the s3 will be on ebay its funny how people used to say htc phone all look alike but know 1 says anything about Sammy.. let's see the s3.. galaxy stellar.. galaxy mini the note the note 2 and the Ativ S are all the same damn phone!
 
I don't think 2500mha is that tiny

the OP says 2020 mah... if its 2500 it should be updated and 2500 for a non removable battery is tiny to me. not to mention the 5" screen size... but hey enjoy your "phablet"
 
I don't feel 2500 is tiny for a non removable battery, removable one too.

Remember in 2010, 1400 and 1500 was the norm.
 
I don't feel 2500 is tiny for a non removable battery, removable one too.

Remember in 2010, 1400 and 1500 was the norm.
and the screens were low resolution 4" and there was no lte. 2k mah on verizon lte is bare minimum for a smartphone.
 
I don't feel 2500 is tiny for a non removable battery, removable one too.

Remember in 2010, 1400 and 1500 was the norm.

yep so was single core under 500mb ram and 3.2" screens with a tenth of the apps that weren't as advanced as today.. I'm not worried about the past.. just the future.. and if a comparable phone like the note 2 has a far larger and removable battery with far more features and a better track record.. why would I bother with this big phone?

there's plenty of htc fanboys in this topic so I'll leave it to u.. I haven't been impressed with any htc phones thus far including this one

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
 
sweeeeet said:
yep so was single core under 500mb ram and 3.2" screens with a tenth of the apps that weren't as advanced as today.. I'm not worried about the past.. just the future.. and if a comparable phone like the note 2 has a far larger and removable battery with far more features and a better track record.. why would I bother with this big phone?

there's plenty of htc fanboys in this topic so I'll leave it to u.. I haven't been impressed with any htc phones thus far including this one

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Better track record? Haha ur funny
 
Re: [Rumor] HTC Droid DNA Phablet Tipped for December Release (440PPI 1920x1080 D

Previously battery life was garbage, the only people who had decent battery life amongst the first super phones babied Android or charged it all day.

I can honestly say after having my maxx that i will never ever consider a lte phone w/o 3kmah, unless the new cpus can get us through a day on 1500 mah.



Return of the Android
 
Can't believe the love in this thread for the turd that is the Thunderbolt. That has to be probably the most hated 4G device that I know of.

Back on topic, I like the looks of this and the new Sony phablet more than the Note II, so I'm hoping this thing turns out to live up to the hype.
 
I would just like to add that this phone looks amazing.

To those asking about the battery and why some report 2020mah and some report 2500mah, it's because the HTC J Butterfly in Japan has a 2020mah battery, and is 9.1mm thick. This is fact. There is a rumor that the Japanese carrier wanted a thin phone and chose to make it 9.1mm for the smaller battery, and that the US version will be thicker with a 2500mah battery. This is all rumor however. Right now, no one knows for sure what size battery this phone will have. If it does get 2500mah, it will likely be considerably thicker than the J butterfly. Also while I doubt it is true, some have rumored that removing the micro sd card slot in the J butterfly could allow enough space for the 2500mah battery. However that would be an even bigger fail on HTC's part in my opinion.

As for 2500mah being small, this is simply not true. When Super AMOLED came out years ago it was touted as saving power over LCD, but in my use of a few phones with those screens, I can say that Super AMOLED in normal use, draws more power than LCD, and LCD has only been getting more efficient, and the Super LCD3 in this Droid DNA will be even better than the Super LCD2 in the One X, when it comes to power consumption. As a result, I fully expect these power savings to balance the extra pixels the gpu will have to push, and then some. With a 2500mah battery, this phone could easily get better battery life than the Droid RAZR HD, which also has a 2500mah battery, and also will cost $199.99 on contract. However unlike the RAZR HD, this phone will have 2x the number of cpu cores, 2x the RAM, and 2x the gpu power with an adreno 320. For me, all of those specs make this phone much more viable than the RAZR HD. The Galaxy S3 does also pose a bit of a threat, but it still has half the power in regards to CPU and GPU, and I have seen weaker signal on the ones in my local verizon store. I'm just not sure how much I trust them.


Also for those touting the note II.

1) The note 2 has a 1.6ghz quad core arm cortex a9 cpu, the Droid DNA has a 1.5ghz quad core krait core cpu, this is a modified arm cortex a9 architecture which is closer to cortex a15, the cpu in the dna will beat the note 2, the same goes for the adreno 320 against the mali gpu in the note 2.

2) The note 2 is 10mm wider than the droid dna, and is simply too big for most people, this is why samsung made a one handed typing mode, but you have to go through settings to get to it, so you either would always use a tiny 1 handed typing mode that will render a keyboard smaller than the one on the droid dna, or be unable to type one handed on the note 2.

3) With its extra size the note 2 likely won't fit comfortably in most pockets, except in loose baggy jeans, and the added size is how they fit a 3100mah battery in it. If the droid dna was that big, it would no doubt also have a comparable battery.

4) The Note 2 uses the Exynos 4412 SoC, which does not support LTE, the Verizon Note 2 will need a second power draining chipset inside to support LTE, and depending on which chipset it is, the phone could have an LTE connection as unstable as the Galaxy Nexus, or one as awesome as the Samsung Stratosphere. However there is a gamble here, and people should wait to see how it does in real world performance as this can be considered a major risk of the Note 2 on Verizon.

I'm not saying the note 2 is bad, it is an awesome superphone just like the droid dna, and it will sell more units, being available to a larger consumer base. However the droid dna really is as big as most people can go with phones. It is only .6mm wider than the Galaxy S3, and so overall it won't seem bigger to hold. It is the true size limit for the average consumer. The Note 2 maybe not be a niche item anymore, but it certainly is losing a decent number of consumers simply for being too big, the same way the LG intuition/vu is (Though admittedly the Vu is just stupid, the Note 2 is awesome but huge).


Also just to compare the Note 2 and Droid DNA in battery life a bit prematurely, I'd like to add that screens consume power mostly in their backlight, and how much power the backlight consumes relates directly to screen size. The Droid DNA has a noticeably smaller screen, which will mean less power consumption than the Note 2. If we calculate the area of the 2 phone screens we get the number below

Droid DNA 10.682 in sq
Galaxy Note 2 12.933 in sq

12.933/10.682 = 1.2107

2500mah * 1.2107 (factor the screen is bigger by, calculating increased battery size relative to screen power consumption) = 3027mah

So if we assume the Note 2 screen consumes the same amount of power at the same screen size, and we calculate battery size relative to screen size, we see that the Droid DNA would have approximately a 3027mah battery inside in order to maintain the same battery life. Now, the screen does not use all the power in a phone, but it does use a significant amount, and as far as I have been able to tell, super amoled screens do use more power than LCD, and the SLCD3 in the DNA is the most power efficient yet. Having more pixels will require more power for the gpu, but overall I suspect battery life on these 2 devices will be comparable if the dna gets a 2500mah battery.

If it gets a 2020mah battery, that would be the equivalent of giving the Note 2 a 2445mah battery, and that would likely result in depressing battery life numbers.
 
ben7337 said:
I would just like to add that this phone looks amazing.

To those asking about the battery and why some report 2020mah and some report 2500mah, it's because the HTC J Butterfly in Japan has a 2020mah battery, and is 9.1mm thick. This is fact. There is a rumor that the Japanese carrier wanted a thin phone and chose to make it 9.1mm for the smaller battery, and that the US version will be thicker with a 2500mah battery. This is all rumor however. Right now, no one knows for sure what size battery this phone will have. If it does get 2500mah, it will likely be considerably thicker than the J butterfly. Also while I doubt it is true, some have rumored that removing the micro sd card slot in the J butterfly could allow enough space for the 2500mah battery. However that would be an even bigger fail on HTC's part in my opinion.

As for 2500mah being small, this is simply not true. When Super AMOLED came out years ago it was touted as saving power over LCD, but in my use of a few phones with those screens, I can say that Super AMOLED in normal use, draws more power than LCD, and LCD has only been getting more efficient, and the Super LCD3 in this Droid DNA will be even better than the Super LCD2 in the One X, when it comes to power consumption. As a result, I fully expect these power savings to balance the extra pixels the gpu will have to push, and then some. With a 2500mah battery, this phone could easily get better battery life than the Droid RAZR HD, which also has a 2500mah battery, and also will cost $199.99 on contract. However unlike the RAZR HD, this phone will have 2x the number of cpu cores, 2x the RAM, and 2x the gpu power with an adreno 320. For me, all of those specs make this phone much more viable than the RAZR HD. The Galaxy S3 does also pose a bit of a threat, but it still has half the power in regards to CPU and GPU, and I have seen weaker signal on the ones in my local verizon store. I'm just not sure how much I trust them.

Also for those touting the note II.

1) The note 2 has a 1.6ghz quad core arm cortex a9 cpu, the Droid DNA has a 1.5ghz quad core krait core cpu, this is a modified arm cortex a9 architecture which is closer to cortex a15, the cpu in the dna will beat the note 2, the same goes for the adreno 320 against the mali gpu in the note 2.

2) The note 2 is 10mm wider than the droid dna, and is simply too big for most people, this is why samsung made a one handed typing mode, but you have to go through settings to get to it, so you either would always use a tiny 1 handed typing mode that will render a keyboard smaller than the one on the droid dna, or be unable to type one handed on the note 2.

3) With its extra size the note 2 likely won't fit comfortably in most pockets, except in loose baggy jeans, and the added size is how they fit a 3100mah battery in it. If the droid dna was that big, it would no doubt also have a comparable battery.

4) The Note 2 uses the Exynos 4412 SoC, which does not support LTE, the Verizon Note 2 will need a second power draining chipset inside to support LTE, and depending on which chipset it is, the phone could have an LTE connection as unstable as the Galaxy Nexus, or one as awesome as the Samsung Stratosphere. However there is a gamble here, and people should wait to see how it does in real world performance as this can be considered a major risk of the Note 2 on Verizon.

I'm not saying the note 2 is bad, it is an awesome superphone just like the droid dna, and it will sell more units, being available to a larger consumer base. However the droid dna really is as big as most people can go with phones. It is only .6mm wider than the Galaxy S3, and so overall it won't seem bigger to hold. It is the true size limit for the average consumer. The Note 2 maybe not be a niche item anymore, but it certainly is losing a decent number of consumers simply for being too big, the same way the LG intuition/vu is (Though admittedly the Vu is just stupid, the Note 2 is awesome but huge).

Also just to compare the Note 2 and Droid DNA in battery life a bit prematurely, I'd like to add that screens consume power mostly in their backlight, and how much power the backlight consumes relates directly to screen size. The Droid DNA has a noticeably smaller screen, which will mean less power consumption than the Note 2. If we calculate the area of the 2 phone screens we get the number below

Droid DNA 10.682 in sq
Galaxy Note 2 12.933 in sq

12.933/10.682 = 1.2107

2500mah * 1.2107 (factor the screen is bigger by, calculating increased battery size relative to screen power consumption) = 3027mah

So if we assume the Note 2 screen consumes the same amount of power at the same screen size, and we calculate battery size relative to screen size, we see that the Droid DNA would have approximately a 3027mah battery inside in order to maintain the same battery life. Now, the screen does not use all the power in a phone, but it does use a significant amount, and as far as I have been able to tell, super amoled screens do use more power than LCD, and the SLCD3 in the DNA is the most power efficient yet. Having more pixels will require more power for the gpu, but overall I suspect battery life on these 2 devices will be comparable if the dna gets a 2500mah battery.

If it gets a 2020mah battery, that would be the equivalent of giving the Note 2 a 2445mah battery, and that would likely result in depressing battery life numbers.

YES YES YES YES! The quad core chip in the htc dna will allow for improved battery life over what currently on the market if this phone comes with a 2500mha battery it will roughly get slightly better battery than the Droid Razr hd. So that will be plenty to get most people through the day..we are prolly looking at right around 16hr talk time with it!
 
I would just like to add that this phone looks amazing.

To those asking about the battery and why some report 2020mah and some report 2500mah, it's because the HTC J Butterfly in Japan has a 2020mah battery, and is 9.1mm thick. This is fact. There is a rumor that the Japanese carrier wanted a thin phone and chose to make it 9.1mm for the smaller battery, and that the US version will be thicker with a 2500mah battery. This is all rumor however. Right now, no one knows for sure what size battery this phone will have. If it does get 2500mah, it will likely be considerably thicker than the J butterfly. Also while I doubt it is true, some have rumored that removing the micro sd card slot in the J butterfly could allow enough space for the 2500mah battery. However that would be an even bigger fail on HTC's part in my opinion.

As for 2500mah being small, this is simply not true. When Super AMOLED came out years ago it was touted as saving power over LCD, but in my use of a few phones with those screens, I can say that Super AMOLED in normal use, draws more power than LCD, and LCD has only been getting more efficient, and the Super LCD3 in this Droid DNA will be even better than the Super LCD2 in the One X, when it comes to power consumption. As a result, I fully expect these power savings to balance the extra pixels the gpu will have to push, and then some. With a 2500mah battery, this phone could easily get better battery life than the Droid RAZR HD, which also has a 2500mah battery, and also will cost $199.99 on contract. However unlike the RAZR HD, this phone will have 2x the number of cpu cores, 2x the RAM, and 2x the gpu power with an adreno 320. For me, all of those specs make this phone much more viable than the RAZR HD. The Galaxy S3 does also pose a bit of a threat, but it still has half the power in regards to CPU and GPU, and I have seen weaker signal on the ones in my local verizon store. I'm just not sure how much I trust them.


Also for those touting the note II.

1) The note 2 has a 1.6ghz quad core arm cortex a9 cpu, the Droid DNA has a 1.5ghz quad core krait core cpu, this is a modified arm cortex a9 architecture which is closer to cortex a15, the cpu in the dna will beat the note 2, the same goes for the adreno 320 against the mali gpu in the note 2.

2) The note 2 is 10mm wider than the droid dna, and is simply too big for most people, this is why samsung made a one handed typing mode, but you have to go through settings to get to it, so you either would always use a tiny 1 handed typing mode that will render a keyboard smaller than the one on the droid dna, or be unable to type one handed on the note 2.

3) With its extra size the note 2 likely won't fit comfortably in most pockets, except in loose baggy jeans, and the added size is how they fit a 3100mah battery in it. If the droid dna was that big, it would no doubt also have a comparable battery.

4) The Note 2 uses the Exynos 4412 SoC, which does not support LTE, the Verizon Note 2 will need a second power draining chipset inside to support LTE, and depending on which chipset it is, the phone could have an LTE connection as unstable as the Galaxy Nexus, or one as awesome as the Samsung Stratosphere. However there is a gamble here, and people should wait to see how it does in real world performance as this can be considered a major risk of the Note 2 on Verizon.

I'm not saying the note 2 is bad, it is an awesome superphone just like the droid dna, and it will sell more units, being available to a larger consumer base. However the droid dna really is as big as most people can go with phones. It is only .6mm wider than the Galaxy S3, and so overall it won't seem bigger to hold. It is the true size limit for the average consumer. The Note 2 maybe not be a niche item anymore, but it certainly is losing a decent number of consumers simply for being too big, the same way the LG intuition/vu is (Though admittedly the Vu is just stupid, the Note 2 is awesome but huge).


Also just to compare the Note 2 and Droid DNA in battery life a bit prematurely, I'd like to add that screens consume power mostly in their backlight, and how much power the backlight consumes relates directly to screen size. The Droid DNA has a noticeably smaller screen, which will mean less power consumption than the Note 2. If we calculate the area of the 2 phone screens we get the number below

Droid DNA 10.682 in sq
Galaxy Note 2 12.933 in sq

12.933/10.682 = 1.2107

2500mah * 1.2107 (factor the screen is bigger by, calculating increased battery size relative to screen power consumption) = 3027mah

So if we assume the Note 2 screen consumes the same amount of power at the same screen size, and we calculate battery size relative to screen size, we see that the Droid DNA would have approximately a 3027mah battery inside in order to maintain the same battery life. Now, the screen does not use all the power in a phone, but it does use a significant amount, and as far as I have been able to tell, super amoled screens do use more power than LCD, and the SLCD3 in the DNA is the most power efficient yet. Having more pixels will require more power for the gpu, but overall I suspect battery life on these 2 devices will be comparable if the dna gets a 2500mah battery.

If it gets a 2020mah battery, that would be the equivalent of giving the Note 2 a 2445mah battery, and that would likely result in depressing battery life numbers.

Wow nice post. At least its an factual post vs a pure fanboy post.

Nice info!
 
Back
Top