Moto G4 Play Review: What Are The Pros And Cons?

Moto G4 Play Review

Recently, Motorola announced the $149 Moto G4 Play in the U.S. — which is the lowest price of an unlocked smartphone in the U.S. that I know of. And you can buy it for even cheaper on Amazon.com if you can tolerate ads on the lock screen and you are an Amazon Prime member. The price of the G4 Play on Amazon Prime is $99.99. This device further proves that Motorola’s strength is its ability to offer high-end hardware at a low cost. Thanks to Motorola’s marketing team, I was able to get my hands on the Moto G4 Play and put together this review.

Design

The Moto G4 Play has a thin frame at 9.9mm and the weight is 4.83 ounces (0.31 pounds). At the top-front of the G4 Play is a front-facing speaker. And at the bottom is the micro USB charger port. The 3.5mm headphone jack is at the top of the G4 Play.

On the back of the G4 Play is a plastic cover and it can be peeled from the bottom. The edges of the G4 Play are rounded, making it easier to grip in the palm of your hand. The Moto G4 is available in two colors: black and white.

What features seem to be missing from the G4 Play? The G4 Play does not have a fingerprint sensor like the G4 Plus does. And the G4 Play is not as durable as devices like the Galaxy S7 and the iPhone 7 because it does not come with an IP rating. And it does not have near field communications (NFC). However, the G4 Play does have water repellent nano-coating so it is protected from splashes and rain.

Pro: The Moto G4 is lightweight and packed with solid hardware.

Con: Missing features like NFC are kind of a bummer.

Display

The display on the G4 Play has lower specifications than the Moto G4 and G4 Plus. Those devices have a 5.5-inch full HD display (1920 x 1080 pixels) at 401ppi whereas the G4 Play has a 5” HD (720 x 1280 pixels) at 294ppi. That means the display of the G4 Play is the same size as the third generation Moto G.

Pro: By making the display smaller in the G4 Play, it makes the device easier to grip.

Con: Unfortunately, the display has a lower resolution — which makes it less sharp than the other G4 devices.

User Interface

Another advantage of the Moto G4 Play is the user interface. The user interface of the Moto G4 Play lacks nagware, thus making it faster than other Android devices. This makes the navigation much faster to use. Out of the box, the G4 Play ships with a stock-like version of the Google Android 6.0.1 (Marshmallow) operating system.

Plus there aren’t many preinstalled applications that ship with the G4 Play. Some of the stock apps that come with the G4 Play includes Google, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, Google Drive, Google Hangouts, Google Calendar and Google Photos.

Pro: The lack of clutter in the operating system makes the G4 Play much more intuitive than other Android devices.

Con: The lack of bells and whistles makes it less appealing to consumers that want higher end smartphones. For example, you won’t be able to record in 4K using the G4 Play nor does it have a fingerprint sensor.

Processor

The G4 Play has a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 processor paired with an Adreno 306 GPU. Unfortunately, this processor was not upgraded from the third-generation Moto G. This processor was announced in December 2013 and it was specifically designed for lower cost devices in developing countries. Even though it is an outdated processor, it does a great job at handling productivity apps. However, you will notice games having lagging issues.

Pro: The Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 processor is sufficient for handling productive tasks using the G4 Play.

Con: It is unfortunate that the G4 Play has an outdated processor instead of a new one.

RAM

The Moto G4 Play comes with 2GB of RAM. This is 2GB less than the 4GB RAM in the 64GB version of the G4 Plus. And the 2GB of RAM specification is also comparable to the 16GB version of the Moto G (3rd generation), which also has 2GB of RAM.

Pro: 2GB is a solid amount of RAM especially for a device that has a starting price of $99.

Con: Even though the amount of RAM integrated in the device is substantial, the CPU is what drives the speed and that is slightly outdated.

Camera

The Moto G4 Play has an 8-megapixel rear f/2.2 camera with an LED flash and autofocus. On the front of the G4 Play is a 5-megapixel camera, which is pretty solid for taking selfies. As a comparison, the G4 has a 13-megapixel camera and the G4 Plus has a 16-megapixel camera. Plus the G4 Play camera supports HDR so that helps balance the exposure of the photos that you take with it. The cameras can record in 1080p and 720p.

Pro: Having 8 megapixels on the back and 5 megapixels on the front with a starting price of $99 is a solid offering.

Con: The camera on the Moto G4 Play tends to struggle in low light conditions and the video recordings can be a bit shaky.

Battery

Packed inside of the Moto G4 Play is a 2,800 mAh battery, which gives it enough juice to last the whole day without having to recharge. This is up from 2470 mAh in the Moto G (third generation). The battery is removable so you can keep a spare battery around as a backup. According to TechRadar, it takes about 2 hours to fully charge the device from 0 to 100%.

Pro: The 2,800 mAh battery ensures that you could have as much as a day or a day and a half of phone usage available.

Con: The charger that comes with the G4 Play embedded so you can detach the USB cable and connect it to your computer. I would recommend buying a separate Quick Charge 2.0 charger instead of using the one that comes in the box.

Storage

There are two storage tier options for the Moto G4 Play: 16GB and 32GB. However, there is support for up to an additional 128GB of storage using a microSD card.

Pro: The ability to expand up to 128GB using a microSD card is convenient. This means you can save a ton of music, photos and video files on the device with the additional storage. Plus Google offers unlimited photo storage through Google Photos, which is seamlessly integrated into the Moto G4 Play.

Con: The internal storage options seem to be on the lower end of the scale for smartphones for what you would expect in 2016. Storage tiers offered by other smartphones generally start at 32GB and then go as high as 256GB.

Overall Impression

If you are looking for a smartphone at a low cost, then the Moto G4 Play pros outweigh the cons. With a starting price of $99.99 unlocked and support for all four major U.S. carriers, it seems tough for other manufacturers to beat the Moto G4.

There are some minor differences that the lower cost G4 Play has from the G4 and G4 Plus. For example, the G4 Play does not support the karate chop shortcut motion for turning on the flashlight. But if you manage what to expect from a smartphone due to the low cost, then you will likely be satisfied. I actually recommend this device for someone that is on a budget, someone that is getting a smartphone for the first time or someone that is switching from a feature phone for the first time.

Moto G4 Vs Moto G4 Plus Vs Moto G4 Play: What's The Difference?

Moto G4 Vs Moto G4 Plus Vs Moto G4 Play

Motorola is back with the fourth generation of the hugely successful Moto G and this time there are three of them. For 2016 we now have the new ‘Moto G’, ‘Moto G Plus’ and ‘Moto G Play’.

The new phones are impressive, but also create confusion. Motorola is including ’4′ in the range’s Moto logo as they are the fourth generation of Moto G phones (see below). This has led to the trio being referred to as the ’Moto G4’, ‘Moto G4 Plus’ and ‘Moto G4 Play’. To clarify their generation I’ve opted for this in the headline, but will otherwise refer to them without their number.

Yes, already it is complicated! So let’s cut through all this confusion and break down each model because there’s a real standout budget smartphone bargain among them…

Design & Size – ‘Plus’ By A Different Name

The most obvious difference between Motorola’s three new phones is their size. With one called a ‘Plus’ you might expect it to be larger than the other two, but actually that’s not the story at all:

Moto G and G Plus – 153 x 76.6 x 9.8 mm (6.02 x 3.02 x 0.39 in), 155 g (5.47 oz)

Moto G Play – 144.4 x 72 x 9.9 mm (5.69 x 2.83 x 0.39 in), 137 g (4.83 oz)

Yes, escaping all logic, the Moto G and Moto G Plus are the same size and it is the Moto G Play which is smaller as it is the cheapest.

This factor carries over to the design. All three still use a plastic chassis, but the Moto G and Moto G Plus have a more premium feel with front speakers, metal detailing and IPX7 water resistance. Meanwhile the Moto G4 Play retains the same budget friendly (but sturdy) basic rubber finish of its predecessors.

Another major Moto G and Moto G Plus advantage is they are now part of Motorola’s ‘Moto Maker’ customisation tool which offers the ability to change colours, accents and interchangeable shells.

Displays – Bigger And Better (Mostly)

Aside from build quality, the Moto G and Moto G Plus also take a major step up this year with their displays:

Moto G and G Plus – 5.5-inch IPS LCD, 1920 x 1080p (401 pixels per inch), Gorilla Glass 3

Moto G Play – 5-inch IPS LCD, 1280 x 720p (294 ppi)

Both the size (0.5-inches larger) and resolution (720p to 1080p) are upgraded from the third generation Moto G and they also get Corning’s tough Gorilla Glass 3. Yes the Galaxy S7 might have the very latest Gorilla Glass 4, but this is still a fantastic addition for affordable phones.

Meanwhile the Moto G Play retains the same specs as the 2015 Moto G. It also has larger top and bottom bezels with a 66.3% screen to body ratio, versus the 71.2% ratio of the Moto G and Moto G Plus.

Performance – Horsepower and Security Upgrades

As you might expect, the pattern of the Moto G and Moto G Plus one-upping the Moto G Play continues when it comes to performance.

Moto G – Qualcomm Snapdragon 617 (quad-core 1.5 GHz Cortex A53 & quad-core 1.2 GHz Cortex-A53 CPUs, Adreno 405 GPU), 2GB RAM

Moto G Plus – Snapdragon 617 (quad-core 1.5 GHz Cortex A53 & quad-core 1.2 GHz Cortex-A53 CPUs, Adreno 405 GPU), 2GB, 3GB or 4GB RAM

Moto G Play – Snapdragon 410 (Quad-core 1.2 GHz Cortex-A53 CPU, Adreno 306 GPU), 1GB or 2GB RAM

Two major talking points arise here. Firstly the Moto G4 and Moto G4 Plus get the far faster Snapdragon 617 chip over the ageing 410 (used in the 2015 Moto G). This is a serious difference.

Meanwhile the Moto G Plus comes top of the pack as Motorola will offer it in 2GB, 3GB and 4GB versions depending on your storage configuration (more later) while the Moto G is stuck on 2GB and the Moto G Play only has 1GB and 2GB variants.

Furthermore the Motor G Plus also has superior security because it is the only model to ship with a fingerprint sensor. This is located on the bottom bezel (iPhone-style) and is the second major standout factor from the standard Moto G.

Of course given Motorola’s admirable stance on shipping their phones with virtually stock Android (6.0.1 in this case) the trio should all perform well. But the G4 Plus with the larger RAM options could even give more expensive but heavily skinned rivals a run for its money.

Cameras – iPhone Quality On A Budget

This year Motorola has caused waves with its camera claims for the Moto G Plus boasting it can keep up with Apple’s iPhone 6S. And the specs do look promising on paper:

Moto G – Rear: 13MP, f/2.0 aperture, dual LED (dual tone) flash, phase detection, auto-HDR, 1080p, 30fps video. Front: 5MP, f/2.2, auto-HDR

Moto G Plus – Rear: 16MP, f/2.0 aperture, phase detection & laser autofocus, dual LED (dual tone) flash, phase detection, auto-HDR, 1080p, 30fps video. Front: 5MP, f/2.2, auto-HDR

Moto G Play – Rear: 8MP, f/2.2, LED flash, manual HDR, 1080p video. Front: 5MP, f/2.2

Yes, again the Moto G Plus takes the lead here and DxOMark backs up Motorola’s claims by saying its photography can stand up to the iPhone 6S. That said, none offer the 4K video recording of Apple’s handset nor its slow motion and time lapse capabilities so this is purely a photography measurement.

Of course this remains a hugely impressive achievement and the Moto G isn’t far behind, though the Moto G Play here is behind the pack. For camera enthusiasts on a budget the Moto G Plus looks to be worth the extra investment.

Battery Life & Charging

From a practical perspective one of the best improvements to all three new Moto G models are their major battery upgrades:

Moto G and Moto G Plus – 3000 mAh capacity battery, TurboPower charging

Moto G Play – 2800 mAh capacity battery

Compared to the third gen Moto G (2070 mAh) these are major increases and the slightly less capacious Moto G Play should still hold its own given its smaller, lower resolution display. The trio should all get you through a day with moderate usage.

Then again the Moto G and Moto G Plus have one notable extra advantage: TurboPower charging.

TurboPower is Motorola’s rebranding of Qualcomm’s Quick Charge 2.0 technology and it means users can get up to eight hours of usage from just a 15 minute charge and a full charge in around an hour. This again puts the Moto G and G Plus in line with more expensive Android rivals and easily eclipses Apple’s iPhone charge speeds.

Storage & Price – Expandable & Affordable

First things first and Motorola has made the welcome move of bringing microSD support for cards up to 128GB to all three new Moto G models. On top of this it has made the interesting move of tying RAM and internal storage options together to give a wealth of choices:

Moto G – 2GB RAM – 16GB or 32GB. Prices start at £169 (US pricing TBC)

Moto G Plus – 2GB RAM + 16GB, 3GB RAM + 32GB, 4GB RAM + 64GB. Prices start at £199 (US pricing TBC)

Moto G Play – 1GB RAM 8GB, 2GB RAM 16GB (Pricing TBC)

For me the Moto G Plus with 3GB RAM and 32GB is likely to prove the sweet spot in the range.

The G Plus’ external security and camera specs are worth the minimal extra cost over the standard Moto G. Moreover 3GB is about right as 2GB might not get the job done and 4GB is overkill for its chipset as is 64GB of internal storage with a microSD slot available.

As for the Moto G Play, as decent a handset as it is, pricing would have to be bargain basement for it to be my choice. I’d advise you wait and save up for the Moto G Plus.

Early Verdict – Plus Marks For Motorola

Motorola finds itself in a strange moment. Having been reborn under Google to critical (if mixed commercial) success it now finds its brand somewhat in limbo under Lenovo and facing growing pressure from the Chinese brands like Huawei and ZTE.

As such I find the entry level Moto G Play a little underwhelming. The Moto G does better, but it is the Moto G Plus with its premium camera abilities, fingerprint security and greater storage and RAM options which stands out. Unlike its Chinese rivals, it can also offer a clean near-stock Android experience.

Yes the competition is gaining ground and Motorola must improve upon this new needlessly complicated branding, but the Moto G Plus stands out as a budget handset to get excited about.

Galaxy S7 Vs iPhone 6S Review: Easy Wins, Big Losses

Galaxy S7 Vs iPhone 6S

Everything you know about the Galaxy S7 and iPhone 6S is wrong. Once accused of becoming increasingly identical, in 2016 the ranges offer very different propositions. The result? A tantalising contest where each phone scores big wins and takes heavy losses.

So which should you buy: Galaxy S7? iPhone 6S? Neither? My detailed review has the answers. Let’s go…

Design – Style Vs Style and Substance

Welcome to the year the master surpassed the apprentice. Having spent years making plastic ugly but highly practical phones, in 2015 Samsung launched the Galaxy S6 and proved it could craft handsets every bit as well as Apple. One year later Samsung has now surpassed them.

Yes, the iPhone 6S remains a beautifully sculpted phone. Carved from a block of aluminium, it exudes quality. Every port, speaker hole and curve is machined to within an inch of its life and the quality of the iPhone 6S is obvious the moment you pick it up. But that’s where the good news stops.

Where the iPhone 6S is luxurious so is the Galaxy S7 but, unlike Apple’s handset, the Samsung’s phone is actually nice to hold. It’s curvature feels far more comfortable and secure in hand. Meanwhile the Galaxy S7’s top and bottom bezels are far narrower making the 5.1-inch device feel little bigger or heavier than the 4.7-inch iPhone 6S:

Galaxy S7: 142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9mm (5.61 x 2.74 x 0.31in) and 152g (5.36oz)

iPhone 6S: 138.3 x 67.1 x 7.1mm (5.44 x 2.64 x 0.28in) and 143g (5.04oz)

On top of this the Galaxy S7 adds substance: wireless charging, the return of expandable storage and water resistance – none of which the iPhone 6S can match.

I’ll deal with wireless charging and expandable storage later and focus on water resistance now because it works brilliantly. Yes the iPhone 6S has some (unofficial) water resistance, but the Galaxy S7 fully lives up to its claims of surviving full submersion for up to an hour in 1.5m of water. Being able to take that call in the shower, adjust your music playback in the bath and not worry about emailing during a heavy downpour makes for a very welcome differentiator.

And yet neither of these phones are perfect. Both remain far too slippy in hand and you’d need to be Spider-Man not to drop them at some point without a case. The glass back of the Galaxy S7 is a key factor in this and it also gets sticky when warm as well as being a fingerprint magnet. So why have it? Currently glass is key to wireless charging, but a solution could be on the horizon.

Winner: Galaxy S7 – all the build quality of the iPhone 6S with a lot more practicality

Displays – Brains Vs Beauty

In 2010 Apple changed the smartphone market with the ‘Retina Display’ in the iPhone 4, but in 2016 it is Samsung which is now way out in front.

Galaxy S7: 5.1-inch, 2560 x 1440 pixels, 534 pixels per inch (ppi), Super AMOLED

iPhone 6S: 4.7-inch, 1334 x 750 pixels, 326 ppi, LCD

Yes the stats imply Samsung has a significant edge, but in truth their resolutions and panel types are not the main factors. The Galaxy S7 simply gets the big stuff right: it is brighter, sharper, has more vivid colours, deeper blacks and works better in bright daylight. Side by side there’s simply no comparison. The Galaxy S7, coupled with the Galaxy S7 Edge, have the best smartphone displays currently available, period.

Also looking good – though of less value, in my opinion – is the S7’s new ‘Always-on’ display.

What this translates to is the ability to permanently show the time/date/calendar or an image at all times which can be handy. That said it isn’t as useful as similar screens on Google and Motorola’s Nexus and Moto ranges which provide glanceable information that includes Android notifications. So yes, Always-on looks nice and battery drain is reasonable (circa 1% per hour) but I ended up switching it off. 

And yet where the Galaxy S7 has beauty, the iPhone 6S has brains.

Arguably the headline feature of the iPhone 6S is ‘3D Touch’, a pressure sensitive panel which can differentiate between taps, firmer presses and pushes. The good news is this adds a new dynamic to iOS – you can deep press on icons for quick launch options (eg on the camera: selfie, video and slow mo modes) or ‘peek’ (preview items with a press – like emails and URLs) or ‘pop’ (open the aforementioned items with a further push).

This isn’t original (the BlackBerry Storm had similar functionality in 2008), but in theory it is brilliant and the potential for third party developers (particularly in gaming) is vast. So why is the reality a lot less appealing? I put it down to software implementation.

As it stands iOS has no obvious way to indicate when 3D Touch options are available. Consequently you just hard press everything and see if anything happens: app icons, UI elements, etc. It’s complete guesswork and there’s no consistency between how third party developers implement it. Consequently using 3D Touch currently degenerates into speculation and memory.

In time I’m sure this will improve and 3D Touch, like the Retina Display, will prove a hugely important and influential feature (probably copied by others) but for now it’s a work in progress that doesn’t make up for a screen which is falling far behind the competition.

Winner: Galaxy S7 – the iPhone 6S has the more interesting tech, but many will forget about 3D Touch until it becomes more intuitive. Conversely the S7’s jaw dropping display will make you smile every time you wake up the phone.

Performance – Efficiency Vs Brute Force

On paper the Galaxy S7 display easily topped the iPhone 6S and in practice it also prevails. But that’s not what happens when it comes to performance:

Galaxy S7 – Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 quad-core chipset: Dual-core 2.15 GHz Kryo & dual-core 1.6 GHz Kryo CPUs, Mali-T880 MP12 GPU; 4GB of RAM

Galaxy S7 (International variant) – Exynos 8890 octa-core chipset: Quad-core 2.3 GHz Mongoose and quad-core 1.6 GHz Cortex A53 CPUs, Adreno 530 GPU, 4GB of RAM

iPhone 6S – Apple A9 chipset: Dual-core 1.84 GHz Twister CPU, Six-core PowerVR GT7600 GPU, 2GB of RAM

Yes the Galaxy S7 appears to have the iPhone 6S’s number and in pure benchmark terms it does (especially when normalised at the same native screen resolution), except that’s not how it works out in practice.

Ultimately there is a massive difference in the perception of speed using these phones.

The Galaxy S7 is brutally quick but ragged. Apps jump and stutter and there’s noticeable lag, particularly in the browser but even when navigating basic menus or Flipboard (built into TouchWiz to replace the infinitely more useful Google Now). This doesn’t manifest itself out the box, but once setup with all your apps you’ll spot the so-called ‘jank’ setting in.

By contrast the iPhone 6S is silky smooth. It doesn’t necessarily open apps or web pages faster and games run superbly on both devices, but the lack of any stuttering on the iPhone 6S gives the impression of a far more seamless user experience. There’s no phone on the market right now to match this, though the Nexus 6P is getting closer.

In fact this in itself is worth nothing. The Nexus 6P offers a significantly smoother experience than the Galaxy S7 despite using an older, slower chipset and 1GB less RAM.

Consequently the finger has to be pointed squarely at Samsung for TouchWiz’s ongoing inefficiency and bloat. You still get around 50 pre-installed (non-removable) apps (excluding carrier garbage), needless duplication (two email clients, two photo apps, two voice control systems, two app stores, two SMS apps, three media players, etc) and – despite looking better – it’s still full of rough edges.

For example, the TouchWiz app drawer has the option to sort installed apps alphabetically but should you choose this you’ll have to resort them every time you install a new app as it will just be dumped at the end of the list by default. How did that escape testing?

Of course Apple is not immune from criticism. For years now every new iPhone has been blazingly fast but then miraculously suffered when the next generation of iOS has launched alongside a new model. There are plenty of conspiracy theories about this, but the reality is iPhones tend not to impress so much after their first year. But this is about the here and now and right now the iPhone 6S (and by extension iPhone 6S Plus) is untouchable.

Winner: iPhone 6S – until Samsung dramatically cuts down on its exaggerated and unnecessary over customisation of Android its phones are unlikely to be able to deliver real world performance with anything like the seamlessness of iPhones or Google’s Nexus range.

Fingerprint Readers – Class Leading Vs Improving

The iPhone 6S also continues its fightback with its Touch ID 2.0 fingerprint reader. Samsung has improved a lot since the horrible swipe-based reader on the Galaxy S5, but the iPhone 6S still holds both speed and accuracy advantages over the Galaxy S7 having upped its game again since the iPhone 6 in 2014.

Consequently whereas the iPhone 6S (and Nexus Imprint on the Nexus 6P and Nexus 5X for that matter) will ask you to ‘Try again’ perhaps once every few days, this will happen 3-5x a day with the Galaxy S7. Given we unlock our phones hundreds of times a day that is a very high accuracy rate, but not quite up with the best.

Winner: iPhone 6S – Samsung has made great strides, but it still needs to overcome some accuracy issues to catch up with Touch ID 2.0 and Nexus Imprint.

Cameras – Stagnation Vs Innovation

And yet when it comes to the camera the iPhone 6S comeback gets stopped in its tracks. Samsung stole the best camera phone title away from Apple with the Galaxy S6 in 2015 and with the Galaxy S7 it has now extended this lead.

Interestingly this has happened despite what might appear to be, at first glance, a backwards step in resolution:

Galaxy S7 – 12 megapixel Sony IMX260 F1.7 sensor (some Samsung ISOCELL variants exist), OIS, LED flash, Dual Pixels, 4K video. Front facing 5MP F1.7 camera, 1080p video

iPhone 6S – 12 megapixel sensor, F2.0 lens, Focus Pixels, EIS, dual-LED flash – 4K video. Front: 5MP sensor, F2.0 lens, 1080p video

Yes, Samsung has dropped from the Galaxy S6’s 16MP to 12MP while Apple has jumped from 8MP to 12MP – and yet that is the only time the cameras are close.

To be clear, the iPhone 6S still has an excellent camera but it hasn’t really improved from the iPhone 6. You’ll find more detail in good lighting conditions, but almost every high end smartphone camera will provide great results in good lighting conditions (aside from the HTC M9!) and a reduction in pixel size from the iPhone 6 (1.5 vs 1.22 µm) means it is actually worse in low light than its predecessor. And this is where the Galaxy S7 takes the iPhone 6S apart.

As you’ll see in the two low light street images, the Galaxy S7 is a world ahead of the iPhone 6S. It is brighter, sharper and picks up colour and detail completely lost by the iPhone 6S sensor. The iPhone 6S photo is barely usable while the Galaxy S7 photo looks great – it isn’t even close.

‘Why?’ It comes down to a number of factors. While the two phones have 12MP sensors, the Galaxy S7 has larger pixels (1.4 vs 1.22 µm) to pick up a lot more light, a significantly faster F1.7 lens which it needs less exposure time to capture light (and so reduces blur) and lastly there’s the headline feature ‘Dual Pixel’.

Remarkably 100% of the pixels on the Galaxy S7 are also used to help the camera focus which means it snaps photos and videos into focus almost instantaneously, even in poor lighting. By comparison the much hyped ‘Focus Pixels’ in the iPhone 6S use less than 5% of its pixels to help it focus and the lag compared to the Galaxy S7 is dramatic.

All of which makes the Galaxy S7 the fastest, most consistently reliable camera I’ve ever used on a smartphone. And it’s a similar story with the front facing camera and video. The former again benefits from having an F1.7 lens so shots are extremely fast (though even with beauty mode off, they can be a little over processed) while video is class leading thanks to those Dual Pixels. It’s a move everyone else will need to follow.

And yet the Galaxy S7 camera is not perfect.

At times the auto HDR mode can be flaky – as seen in this Galaxy S7 vs Galaxy S7 Edge shot of the tree, the S7 (left) blew out the sky by incorrectly picking the non-HDR mode while the Galaxy S7 Edge nailed it.

Meanwhile in good conditions the drop in megapixels can be seen as the Galaxy S7 actually has less detail in its shots than the Galaxy S6. At times low light specialist the Nexus 6P (which has even larger pixels – 1.55 µm) can also produce even better shots – but it is much slower to open and focus meaning the moment is sometimes lost.

Winner: Galaxy S7. The iPhone 6S has a very good camera, but Apple has stood fairly still for the last three iPhone generations while Samsung has revolutionised the sector. If I were to rely on just one smartphone camera for a vital shot, right now it would be the Galaxy S7.

Battery Life – Stagnation Vs Crowd Pleasing

And from here the Galaxy S7 builds on its lead because it is streets ahead of the iPhone 6S:

Galaxy S7 – 3000 mAh battery capacity

iPhone 6S – 1715 mAh battery capacity

As with performance, iPhone specifications on paper usually don’t tell the full story but this time there’s just no denying the benefits of the dramatically bigger battery inside the Galaxy S7.

Whereas Apple controversially downsized the iPhone 6S battery from the iPhone 6 (1810 mAh), Samsung has increased it by almost 20% from the Galaxy S6 (2550 mAh). The result is the Galaxy S7 has regained the famous stamina prowess of the Galaxy S5 and even heavy users should get through a day without needing to charge.

By contrast the iPhone 6S can be flat by lunch time. Yes iOS still sets the benchmark for efficiency in standby (even if ‘Doze’ has improved Android Marshmallow), but in use the iPhone 6S drains quickly, particularly in games.

Furthermore the Galaxy S7 wipes the floor with the iPhone 6S when it comes to charging, both in terms of speed and flexibility. Whereas the 6S only accepts power from a wall charger and takes up to 2.5 hours to fully charge from flat, a Galaxy S7 can be charged in about an hour from the wall (it hits about 30% in the first 15 minutes) as well as wirelessly in about two hours (with support for both major wireless standards – Qi and PMA).

The Galaxy S7 could’ve been even better.

It actually omits Quick Charge 3.0 sticking with Quick Charge 2.0 (as the Exynos chipset doesn’t support it). Quick Charge 3.0 doesn’t bring massive speed increases, but it does reduce the power consumption required for charging by up to 40%. Meanwhile some will never forgive Samsung for ditching its removable battery option as the Galaxy S7 battery (like the Galaxy S6 before it) is fixed.

In addition Samsung has chosen to stick with the ubiquitous microSD port. Many will love this, but as a fan of cutting edge tech I’d rather have seen it hop aboard the newer (and ultimately all conquering) reversible USB Type-C.

Still these feel like minor complaints, especially when Samsung has the battery capabilities of its rival so thoroughly beaten.

Winner: Galaxy S7 – Samsung is simply miles ahead of Apple right now with its super fast wired and wireless charging. Meanwhile Apple desperately needs to address this with the iPhone 7 later in the year.

Speakers – Mediocre Vs Regressing 

One area where Apple and Samsung have trailed their rivals for some time is their stubbornness to adopt front firing stereo speaker designs, and the iPhone 6S and Galaxy S7 continue this depressing trend.

Both feature single, mono speakers and while the iPhone 6S is underwhelming (it’s loud but very tinny), the Galaxy S7 is actually a step backwards from the Galaxy S6. Why? It’s a side effect of the S7’s water resistance and this means the phone has one of the weakest premium smartphone speaker experiences around.

As for Apple, iPhone 7 renders show Apple may finally incorporate a dual speaker design this year, leaving the Galaxy S7 well and truly behind.

Winner: iPhone 6S – Apple’s win here is more a sign of Samsung’s regression than notable improvements in the iPhone 6S. Both must do better next time and the signs from Apple at least, are it will.

Value – Storage By Different Names

iPhone and Galaxy customers don’t usually place value at the top of their requirements, but this year the Galaxy S7 and iPhone 6S present intriguingly different approaches to their pricing:

Galaxy S7: $699 (32GB)

iPhone 6S: $649 (16GB), $749 (64GB) and $849 (128GB)

Your first thought seeing these prices is probably to think I’ve forgotten several Galaxy S7 variants, but no – bizarrely – Samsung has decided it will only release its new phone in a single 32GB edition in the US.

Why would Samsung do this? Because of the return of microSD support. So whereas iPhone 6S owners have to pick their storage option on day one and are stuck with it, Galaxy S7 owners can buy the 32GB option and quickly and easily expand its storage with capacious and affordable microSD cards.

For example, while you’ll need a fast one (I suggest nothing less than UHS Speed Class 3), quick 128GB microSD cards can be bought for little more than $50 and this means owners can attain a 162GB Galaxy S7 for just $749. Meanwhile 200GB microSD cards are available from $100-150 dollars giving users a 232GB Galaxy S7 for $799 to $849.

But there is a downside to this. MicroSD storage is nowhere near as fast as native storage and it represents a compromise for those who would’ve prefered to pay for more inbuilt storage. Here Apple rides to the rescue, though the company deserves severe criticism for continuing to offer a 16GB entry level storage as a cynical upsell tactic to the 64GB model.

Winner: Galaxy S7 – most users will get by on 32GB (25GB accessible) for apps and uses the microSD card for storing photos and video which keeps the price down. Larger internal storage sizes should be available, but there’s no denying the value of the Galaxy S7 overall.

Bottom Line – Samsung’s Big Win

Tallying the different section wins gives the Galaxy S7 a 5-3 victory over the iPhone 6S, but these numbers don’t tell the full story because in reality there is a large gulf between these two devices. The reasons for this are the win categories and margins.

The Galaxy S7 wins four crucial categories (design, display, camera and battery life) by a long way, while the iPhone 6S has only one clear win: the speaker (hardly a high point) and the other two category wins (performance and fingerprint sensor) are attained by smaller margins. Meanwhile the Galaxy S7 throws in two more uncontested benefits: water resistance and expandable storage.

And yet there’s still one big reason not to buy the Galaxy S7: Samsung’s butchering of Android. It’s needless, inefficient, self serving and yet self inflicted.

That aside it is easy to see how Samsung has been so successful with the Galaxy S7: it listened. The Galaxy S7 improves in every major area compared to the Galaxy S6 and addresses customers’ biggest complaints. By contrast Apple has been moving at a more incremental pace and the iPhone 6S display, ergonomics, battery life/charging and storage options feel well behind the times.

If Apple doesn’t address these with the iPhone 7 (a phone which will also remove the headphone jack) then Samsung could enjoy a phoenix-like revival over the next 18 months.

Why? Because not only is the Galaxy S7 better than the iPhone 6S, Samsung makes another phone which is better than them both…