LG distinguished itself recently by releasing the UK’s first smartphone with a dual-core processor. But while the Optimus 2X grabbed all the headlines, LG also delivered another high-end handset - single-core, this time - the Optimus Black. LG Optimus Black Optimus Black: are LG bosses JK Rowling wannabes? The name Black …
androids in disguise.
im assuming the same firmware as the x2, i.e. random reboots, lockups, poor battery life with mystery drain. Poor screen in brightness etc.
And for the price; pay a little more and get a samsung S2.
or read the review...
>> The brightness comes in handy on sunny days, cutting through reflection and making the screen easy to read. <<
the original said that but was still bad. Not as bad as the HTC sensation that got returned but not as good as the more expensive samsung S2 that got kept.
Would it be fighting Megatron or joining forces with him?
As for the phone itself, looks distinctly meh.
Would be interesting to have the writers thoughts on how the NOVA display stacks up against the Super AMOLED of the SGS, and Super AMOLED Plus of the SGSII.
Not cheap enough
Basically a really nice Android smartphone, but a bit expensive for what it hasn't got. There's certainly room for somewhat bland looking, no nonsense smartphones which even don't need the latest and greatest multicore CPUs and whatnot, but the price just isn't right. The SGS2 isn't that much more expensive and offers quite a bit more.
...but do you ever actually go into the office to do any work? (not that that's a bad thing)
seems every cameraphone review done by Dave is in N17
Slightly better than my £100 Orange San Francisco
Got to be worth the extra £300!
Maybe the Orange Monte Carlo (ZTE Skate) would be a better option?
I was going to ask a genuine question about that very thing ...
I have the £99 San Fran, it was a breeze to root and put gingerbread on it, so (here is the genuine question bit) what am I missing? A brighter screen? A better camera? I'm just not prepared to ever pay £400 for a phone (even £99 was a huge extravagance when there was nothing really wrong with my old Nokia Navigator) especially when my San Fran seems to do exactly the same thing as everyone elses massively expensive phones. I'm not a troll - just genuinely interested!
I totally agree. What's the point in paying £400 for a handset when a £90 San Francisco does almost exactly the same thing. £300 extra for a better camera? Okay what else? The extra processor power is useless unless I want to play games, which is a bit silly on an Android anyway. The screen on my SanFran is an 800x480 oled, already better than 90% of screens out there. So £300 extra for what?
One day is the average for the current generation of these things?????!!!! I'll stick to my proper cellphone thanks.
SIP not taken off?
"SIP VoIP ... still waiting to take off."
Hm, I guess if you don't use SIP (or perhaps more likely, don't realise when you or you place of work are using SIP) it may seem appropriate to describe it as still waiting to take off, in the same way that those who don't use Skype might describe it as still waiting to take off...
And if you want a choice of providers, who can provide free incoming POTS numbers, cheap POTS terminated calls, and the option of treating your mobile as just a regular extension on your (virtual) PBX, all using open standards, with open source clients and exchanges, then SIP would appear to be a *much* better option than Skype. The SIP client in Andriod 2.3. is quite nicely integrated with the dialler, and uses less battery than the Skype client. (My only grumble is that it does not currently play well with ekiga.net due to a difference in expectation about how to do NAT traversal, but sipdroid works fine.)