LG G3 Review Q&A: your questions answered
Answer: LG hasn't made any promises regarding upcoming software updates for the G3, but we feel confident that it's going to receive at least the next one or two major Android versions, since it's a brand new flagship phone. If not, it would speak pretty badly of LG's software support department.
Answer: Nope, the on-screen buttons for navigation are still there. :(
Answer: Yes, the G3 has an IR blaster, allowing you to control various other electronic gadgets.
Answer: Yes, the laser focus works very well at night.
Answer: No, you can wirelessly-charge the LG G3 without a case.
Answer: There is some squeaking, but you have to cause it intentionally. Otherwise, it's not occuring.
Answer: That's a good question. The lag in the G3 is definitely there, but it's not enough to ruin the experience, or to make the performance annoyingly slow. We're simply annoyed to see it present whatsoever in such a high-end product. The combination of the overly-high display resolution and software that's not perfectly optimized results in some noticeable hiccups at times, and that, in our opinion, is not to be tolerated in a top-shelf phone in 2014. As for the Galaxy S5, what we meant there was that the Galaxy S5's TouchWiz UI has a very short response time, so when it loads your main menu items, for example, scrolling between pages is very instantaneous. The trouble there is that it also experiences such hiccups and delays at times.
Answer: Outdoor visibility is worse with the LG G3, mostly due to its lower maximum brightness. Because of the large display with tremendous number of pixels, it requires a lot of power in order to achieve brightness of 400+ nits, and that why it simply doesn't. It stays in the sub 400-nit category, ending up darker than the Nexus 5's 5" display that can go up to 485 nits.
Answer: The perceived pixel density difference between a 1080p 5.5" display and a QHD 5.5" display is negligible. Like, you need a magnifying glass in order to spot the difference.
1. refillable (Posts: 630; Member since: 10 Mar 2014)
Thanks for the clarification, so the phrase 'a substantial amount of lag' had been adjusted because that it is flagship? Then, it's not any worse than the S5! Even I could think that in fact it may be better than the S5 if not because of those terrible outdoor viewability.
9. refillable (Posts: 630; Member since: 10 Mar 2014)
In fact it really is better than the S5, after seeing other reviews... Though decision again... But I think I should wait till the Note 4/Allegedly 'G3 S805'/S5 Prime/Z3. What do you guys think?
15. chebner (Posts: 139; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
You could wait, but what's the point. There will always be something better just beyond the horizon.
16. refillable (Posts: 630; Member since: 10 Mar 2014)
I won't wait for a couple of years. We are talking about two or three months here not years.
2. hipnotika (Posts: 298; Member since: 06 Mar 2013)
i think we don't neek 2k or 4k resolution on 5" screen. 1080p is ok.
6. cncrim (Posts: 497; Member since: 15 Aug 2011)
We all said that when 720p come out, then 1080p
10. AliNSiddiqui (Posts: 373; Member since: 19 Sep 2012)
I don't notice any difference between 720p and 1080p either, but if you guys do then my eyes must be weak or something..
8. EclipseGSX (Posts: 1583; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
No one NEEDS it but most of us wouldn't mind it lol
3. rallyguy (Posts: 541; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
I would imagine part of the reason why it's hard to tell the difference between QHD and 1080p is because there is not a lot of content in 4k yet.
Try zooming in on a picture in 4k vs 1080p and the difference will become apparent real quick.
13. chebner (Posts: 139; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
That is the whole point of why anything greater than 1080p on a smartphone is POINTLESS!! You can only tell a difference when you zoom in, which means putting it within a couple inches from your eyes or using a magnifying glass. If that's how all of you QHD and 4k screen droolers look at your phone , then maybe it makes sense. For those of us that use only our eyes, there is no benefit for smartphone screen resolutions greater than 1080p.
Where higher resolution does matter is with content. With still photos higher resolution is better because you have the flexibility to zoom and crop. 4k will be awesome for home theater/video, but again, only if you have a big enough screen. 4k content on a 4k smartphone will look no better than 1080p content on a 1080p smartphone or a 4k smartphone for that matter because the detail is too small for the eye to see. Perhaps a very small percentage of people with extremely good eyesight (better than 20/20) may be able to see minimal improvement, but for the other 6.9 billion of us greater than 1080p on a smartphone provides zero benefit. We just get to suffer the consequences of a higher res phone, some of which are referenced in this article.
So now let's touch on 4k content for a second. I wish I had a 4k TV and that 4k content was readily available in a format that would give you the full benefits of 4k video resolution. I'm guessing a lot of you are also looking forward to 4k. The problem I see with 4k isn't the fact that there is so little content. The problem with 4k is the delivery system that will most likely be used. Those of you like me, hoping for some physical format like 4k BluRay are most likely going to be sorely disappointed. I'm guessing a lot of you are excited about 4k streaming. For you I ask... If most 1080p streaming can't compete with BluRay (especially Netflix) why do you expect they'll be able to do 4k any justice? Don't get me started on audio!
17. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2962; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
Many other reviews have commented on the sharpness of the QHD display and how it helps make small fonts more legible.
Just because one reviewer on PA who did a quick and mostly superficial review of the phone doesn't notice something like this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
4. firstviji (Posts: 9; Member since: 28 Jun 2013)
Thanks for the answer PA!
My gripe feelings on G3 are 1.Outdoor visibility 2. Bit Lag.
Anyhow, no phone is perfect.
If LG follows motola policy to update android, it would be very nice.
5. 3rdDegree (Posts: 171; Member since: 13 Jul 2013)
I have been doing comparisons with my G3 and G2 and I have to say, after 10 minutes using the G3 I went back to the G2 and noticed that the edges of the icons on the home screen looked slightly fuzzy. I thought that was very interesting. Aside from that , you will probably not notice an immediate difference except if you have a 2K wallpaper.it looks amazing, especially the one I have of a tiger. Its individual strands of fur stand out .
7. billgates (banned) (Posts: 555; Member since: 29 May 2014)
Glad the build quality is better than the G2, that was the biggest knock to the G2 imo
11. Brosepower (Posts: 35; Member since: 21 Apr 2014)
Still think the judging on the software laggyness is unwarranted with an unoptimized korean model...
12. fzacek (Posts: 1614; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)
I experience 0 lag or hiccups on my Nexus 5. That's the beauty of stock Android and a proper 1080p display. QHD has too many negatives with current technology...
14. chebner (Posts: 139; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
Why did PA rate this phone so high? New technology is great as long as it provides some sort of benefit and those benefits outweigh any negatives. That would be a NO on both accounts for the QHD display. PA points out the negatives and the fact that it provides no noticeable benefit, but still praises the screen as "one of the features that make us see the G3 as more technologically-advanced than most of its rivals". Really?
LG has made some technological advances to minimize the impact the extra pixels has on the battery, but imagine the battery life with those same enhancements and a 1080p screen. Since 1080p screens became the norm I haven't seen one complaint about screen resolution, but many people complain about battery life. But as soon someone comes out with a bigger number many (not all thankfully) of you go into instant drool mode. I can understand it a little in the comments, but the PA writers and reviewers should know better.
I'm sure the G3 is a fine phone, but if there is any hope of us ever getting a message through to the manufacturers to improve the things that need improving the tech press needs to learn to call a spade a spade. Technological advancement that provides no tangible benefit and lessens performance ("significant lag", poor outdoor viability) is not a step in the right direction. PA should do a better job educating it's readers. I'm not saying you have to be as negative as I'm being, I'm sure some would call my rant biased. But don't be so damn enthusiastic about pure fluff with no upside, and very noticeable downside.
PA rated the G3 the highest (tied with Z2) Android flagship of the year. It's a good phone, but think how much better it could have been with a 1080p screen. You should send a message like you did with the M8 and rate it somewhere between 8.5 and 8.8. Blind praise will only reward us with more useless advancement. Advancement should be in areas that actually provide noticeable benefit.
18. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2962; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
To their credit, most of the PA reviewers are less biased than you seem to be.
Just because you don't understand the utility and pleasure of a truly high pixel density screen, doesn't mean other people don't value it.
20. chebner (Posts: 139; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
I am very much in favor of higher pixel density, up to the point where a higher pixel density provides no further visible benefit. For a 5.5 inch display to see any noticeable improvement in sharpness the viewing distance has to be 6 inches or less, or a magnifying glass would work too.
When the pixel count provides no benefit, and also contributes to other negative aspects like lag, reduced brightness, etc... they've gone too far. Wouldn't you prefer they put their R&D dollars into something that provides benefit and doesn't cause any other drawbacks?
19. jellmoo (Posts: 665; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
I appreciate having my question touched upon, but it still leaves me with two concerns.
1) The fact that a phone with noticeable lag can still get a score like 9.2. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think that a device with lag like that should score so high.
2) There's a lack of consistency at play. When one review talks about thee speed and smoothness of a device (the S5) and another talks about the lag on the same device I wonder a bit at what kind of standards are at play for device reviews.
21. Brosepower (Posts: 35; Member since: 21 Apr 2014)
To those asking about lag, go look at stuff.tv and their review, or at engadget or even verge, they all say that they experienced no lag or very very little lag and that it was just as smooth as other flagships are.
Phonearena has a korean model and it obviously is not optimized and is probably the pre-production unit.
Until I have multiple sources stating that there is lag I am not going to believe it. This is the only site claiming that there is lag with the device.