It’s about time! A USB-C magnetic charger for the Apple Watch has finally arrived

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

While most of the recent buzz surrounding Apple has been about the iPhone XR, the company has also introduced a new accessory to its lineup for the Apple Watch. First spotted by 9to5 Mac, a USB-C charger for the smartwatch is currently listed on Apple’s site and will be available starting October 24.

Featuring a 0.3-meter cable and coming in at $29, the new Apple Watch charger doesn’t look any different than its predecessors, you’ll now be able to purchase an Apple Watch charger that’s compatible with current MacBook models — aside from the MacBook Air.

The news comes only a day after Apple sent out invites to its hardware event on October 30, where the company is expected to debut its new iPad Pro, as well as new Mac models. While any rumors have yet to be confirmed, it’s been reported that the iPad Pro will ditch the Lightning port for USB-C as well — but we’ll have to wait until the end of the month for any concrete information.

The new charger also arrives just in time for those who purchased an Apple Watch following the release of the Apple Watch Series 4, which boasts a few new features. Since there’s a 30-percent larger display and a redesigned modular watch face, users can see more detailed information like stocks, heart rate, track scores, and more. The smartwatch also has the ability to screen your heart rhythm in the background and send you a notification if it detects irregular rhythm — which could point to atrial fibrillation.

Battery life on the Series 4 remains the same, with 18-hour all-day battery life. Apple increased outdoor workout time to 6 hours, with full GPS tracking for long bike rides. In our review of the smartwatch, we found that with only notifications turned on and shutting it off overnight, it was able to last close to 24 hours — but that’s without GPS, fitness tracking, or cellular.

As for the new USB-C charger, 9to5Mac notes that it won’t charge your Apple Watch quicker than the Type-A since the induction charger on the back of the Apple Watch remains the same. But it will be far more convenient for those who use their MacBooks as a power source.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Refreshed MacBook Air and iPad Pro are absent from Apple’s website leak
• What to expect from Apple’s September 12 ‘Gather Round’ event
• Apple’s September 12 Event: Everything Apple announced
• Apple Watch Series 4: Everything you need to know
• Is Apple planning an all-Mac keynote later this fall?

Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition Review

Research Center:

Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition

Kids can be considerably less respectful of electronics than adults, to put it politely. Most parents have at some point reclaimed their phone or tablet only to find it has developed a new scratch or crack of indeterminate origin, or perhaps finger smears of an unknown substance. You can only watch your iPad sprayed by an unguarded sneeze or dig it out of the bottom of the toybox so many times before you resolve to get kids a tablet of their own.

Amazon’s Fire HD 8 Kids Edition could be the perfect solution. Packed with curated, age-appropriate content, wrapped in a rugged bumper with a no-quibble replacement warranty, and coming in at just $130 this is the child-friendly tablet of your dreams.

Set it and forget it

While you could buy a standard Fire HD 8 tablet with 32GB of storage for $110, Amazon has packed in way more than an extra $20’s worth of value here. The Kids Edition tablets are some of the most thoughtfully designed kid-focused electronics around, but to be honest the bar isn’t very high.

No parent wants to allow their child free reign in the app store to install whatever they like, but that means kids are constantly asking if they can install this or that and you have to check it for suitability and then install it if you approve. The Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition dispenses with this problem entirely. During setup you’ll create profiles for your kids, and there is the option to create multiple profiles and allow them to share a tablet if you like.

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

You’ll set their age and the age range of content you feel is suitable for them and Amazon will serve up a carefully curated buffet of cartoons, apps, and games that are age-appropriate. The content rotates, so there’s always something new and it includes lots of recognizable characters from Disney, Cartoon Network, PBS, Nickelodeon, and more.

The Kids Edition tablets are some of the most thoughtfully designed kid-focused electronics around.

There are more than 20,000 books, movies, TV shows, and educational apps and games on offer as part of Amazon FreeTime Unlimited. It’s a subscription service that costs $3 per month for one child or $7 per month for a family of up to four kids if you have Prime membership, or $5 and $10 per month respectively without Prime. However, you get a one-year subscription included with your new Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition tablet.

We’ve found that the kids love the content it serves up. They’ll watch Spongebob or Teen Titans Go, they’ll play Star Wars or Peppa Pig games, and they’ll even dip into the odd app that looks vaguely educational. They enjoy being able to choose their own content and install it without having to ask and the great thing is you have peace of mind they’ll never be accessing anything unsuitable.

Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition Compared To

ReMarkable tablet

Apple 10.5‑inch iPad Pro

Amazon Fire HD 8 (2017)

LeapFrog epic

Lenovo Tab 2 A8

LG G Pad 10.1

Microsoft Surface Pro 3

Dell Venue 8 Pro

Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1

Barnes & Noble Nook HD+

Dell Latitude 10

Acer Iconia Tab W700

Motorola Xyboard 8.2

Lenovo IdeaPad K1

BlackBerry PlayBook

Excellent parental controls

There’s still some argument about how much screen time is safe for kids, but everyone is conscious that we need to impose some limits. Amazon provides extremely granular tools for parents to dictate precise limits and even break allowances down into specific goals, so you might limit your child to one hour of screen time a day but specify that 30 minutes of it should be spent reading.

It’s relatively easy to set parental controls on a Fire tablet and you don’t have to drill down into specifics if you don’t want to. You could just set a daily time limit, bedtime hours when the tablet can’t be used, and an age range and be done with it. But if you want to get more specific, you have the power to do it.

Both Apple and Google are playing catch up when it comes to parental controls, although Google’s Family Link app is also very good and there are lots of third-party parental control apps out there.

With the Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, when the time limit runs out or it’s bedtime, your child will see a message pop up on screen to tell them. They can come and ask you to extend the time, but you’ll have to enter your PIN to do so. It should go without saying that you need to guard that PIN well.

You can also check the Parent Dashboard on any device at the Amazon website to see precisely how your child has been using their time on their Fire tablet. It provides a breakdown of their activity over the last seven days.

Curated content with limits

The Fire HD 8 runs Amazon’s Fire OS over a forked version of Android, which means you won’t find any Google apps or services on it.

As good as the curated content is, there will be times when your child comes to you and wants that iPad game they played or an app a friend has been talking about. You can install things from outside the FreeTime Unlimited program, but you’ll need to do it manually and you are limited to Amazon’s App Store, which has far fewer options than Google’s Play Store or Apple’s App Store. When our kids were younger this was rarely an issue, but as they’ve grown it has definitely become a problem.

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

Another issue you’ll run into is that some content can’t be streamed or played without an internet connection. Amazon has thankfully now added the option to download videos, but you’ll need to plan ahead to ensure you’re well stocked before a car trip or vacation. Irritatingly, some games also insist on an internet connection for no obvious reason, but thankfully many don’t.

Although you can remove the garish pink, blue, or yellow case to reveal a less embarrassing plain black tablet beneath, we think your kids will also outgrow the curated content. Amazon suggests the tablet is good for kids up to age 12, but our 9-year-old has abandoned his Fire tablet now, complaining about a lack of things he wants to play or watch. Much depends on your child’s tastes.

Performance is just good enough

We’ve bought and tested several gadgets and tablets for kids and there are plenty of manufacturers out there talking up their wonderful educational credentials and then packing their content onto the cheapest, nastiest hardware available.

While the Fire HD 8 is certainly no speed demon, it performs well enough. There’s a quad-core processor inside clocked at 1.3 GHz and backed by 1.5GB of RAM. We’d like to see that climb just a touch higher, because there are sometimes long loading times and irritating pauses.

The display is an 8-inch IPS LCD with a resolution of 1,280 x 800 pixels, which translates to 189 pixel-per-inch (ppi). To give you a point of comparison, the iPad scores 264ppi. The screen is sharp enough and generally bright enough that content is always legible, though viewing angles aren’t great.

Simon Hill/Digital Trends

You also get 32GB of storage in the tablet and there’s a MicroSD card slot to expand that by up to 400GB. The dual speakers have Dolby Atmos support and they’re loud and clear. There’s also an audio jack and a built-in microphone.

The front and rear cameras are both rated at 2-megapixels and the main camera can also record 720p video. The quality of most photos and videos is awful, but our daughter enjoys making both, so it’s a nice feature to have. If you already have a Fire HD 8 Kids Edition and you’re wondering what has been upgraded this year, it’s just the front-facing camera which went from VGA to 2 megapixels.

While the Fire HD 8 is certainly no speed demon, it performs well enough.

The best thing about the performance is the battery life, which Amazon claims can stretch to 10 hours between charges. We think six hours or so is more accurate for kids gaming and watching movies, but that’s still good.

Sadly, you have to charge via Micro USB cable and that’s tough for adults to plug in the right way first time, so kids can really struggle with it. We recommend snagging a cable with a detachable magnetic tip that stays in the tablet – this has enabled our daughter to charge the tablet up herself really easily.

Price, availability, and warranty information

Amazon charges $130 for the Fire HD 8 Kids Edition and it comes with a special two-year worry-free warranty. That means, even if your child drops it and breaks it repeatedly, Amazon will replace it every time. The only thing you’re not covered for is theft or loss.

Our Take

The Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition tablet is the complete, affordable package for young kids. It’s easy to set up, it works well, and it’s automatically filled with a rolling menu of good quality content. The case will keep it safe, but if it doesn’t you can get it replaced without any hassle. The limitations pale into insignificance next to the benefits.

Is there a better alternative?

For $130 the Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition is the best you’re going to do. If your kids want a bigger tablet, then check out the Amazon Fire HD 10 Kids Edition at $200.

If your budget allows, you might consider the Apple iPad (2018) at $330, but remember that you’ll also have to buy a case and a bunch of content which will bump the price up considerably beyond that.

How long will it last?

Thanks to the chunky protective case and the two-year warranty you can expect to get at least two years from your Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Edition tablet.

Should you buy it?

Yes. If you have a child between the ages of 3 and 9 years-old, we think this tablet makes the most sense.

Huawei Mate 20 Pro vs. P20 Pro: Which 2018 Huawei flagship is best for you?

It doesn’t seem that long ago that the Huawei P20 Pro burst onto the scene with its stunning twilight finish, upping the ante for smartphone cameras everywhere with a triple lens setup. Yet here we are barely six months later with a new Huawei flagship sailing into view. The Huawei Mate 20 Pro is certainly bigger, but is it better than its predecessor?

At first glance, these phones share a lot of similarities, but we’re about to dig a bit deeper to uncover all the differences and help you choose between them.

Specs

Huawei Mate 20 Pro 
Huawei P20 Pro

Size
157.8 x 72.3 x 8.6 mm (6.22 x 2.85 x 0.34 inches)
155 x 73.9 x 7.8 mm (6.1 x 2.9 x 0.3 inches)

Weight
189 grams (6.66 ounces)
174 grams (6.14 ounces)

Screen size
6.4-inch AMOLED display
6.1-inch AMOLED display

Screen resolution
3,120 x 1,440 (538 pixels-per-inch)
2,240 x 1,080 pixels (408 pixels-per-inch)

Operating system
Android 9.0 Pie
Android 8.1 Oreo

Storage space
128GB, 256GB
128GB, 256GB

MicroSD card slot
No – features proprietary Nano Memory Card
No

Tap to pay services
Google Pay
Google Pay

Processor
Kirin 980
Kirin 970

RAM
6GB, 8GB
6GB, 8GB

Camera
Triple sensor 40MP and 20MP and 8MP rear, 24MP front
Triple-lens 40MP, 20MP, and 8MP rear, 24MP front

Video
2,160p at 30 frames per second, 1,080p at 60 fps, 720p at 960 fps
2160p at 30 frames per second, 1080p at 30 fps, 720p at 960 fps

Bluetooth version
Bluetooth 5.0
Bluetooth 4.2

Ports
USB-C
USB-C

Fingerprint sensor
Yes (In-display)
Yes (front)

Water resistance
IP68
IP67

Battery
4,200mAh

Fast charging

Qi wireless charging

4,000mAh

Fast charging

App marketplace
Google Play Store
Google Play Store

Network support
T-Mobile, AT&T
T-Mobile, AT&T

Colors
Emerald green, midnight blue, twilight, pink gold, black
Black, blue, pink gold, twilight

Price
1,049 Euros (around $1,220)
$1,000

Buy from
Huawei
Huawei

Review score
Hands-on
4.5 out of 5 stars

Performance, battery life, and charging

Andy Boxall/Digital Trends

The newer Huawei Mate 20 Pro has Huawei’s latest Kirin 980 processor inside. Huawei claims that it’s 20 percent faster and 40 percent more efficient than the Kirin 970 which graces the P20 Pro. Both phones are available with 128GB of storage and 6GB of RAM or 256GB of storage and 8GB of RAM. Only the Mate 20 Pro allows for storage expansion via a card, but it won’t take any Micro SD card, you will have to spring for one of Huawei’s proprietary NM Cards.

Not only does the Mate 20 Pro have a bigger battery, it also supports much faster charging at up to 40W, giving you 70 percent battery life in just 30 minutes, compared to just over 50 percent for the P20 Pro. Just to seal the deal, the Mate 20 Pro also supports Qi wireless charging which the P20 Pro lacks.

Winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro 

Design and durability

Both of these phones have notches at the top of the displays, but the P20 Pro’s is smaller. They also both have bezels at the bottom, though the P20 Pro is starting to show its age with that lozenge-shaped fingerprint sensor, while the Mate 20 Pro has an in-display fingerprint sensor. The sides of the Mate 20 Pro are also more curved. On the back, you will find Huawei’s gorgeous paint job — we especially love the twilight finish — but the P20 Pro’s triple lens camera module definitely looks better than the big square module on the back of the Mate 20 Pro.

Something Huawei has improved is the water resistance, with the Mate 20 Pro scoring an IP68 rating compared to the P20 Pro’s IP67 rating. Both can handle a short dunk without damage, but the Mate 20 Pro can handle slightly deeper water. Neither is going to handle falls well, so you’ll want to look at some good cases.

We’re going to give the Mate 20 Pro the nod here, but we do think the P20 Pro looks better from the back.

Winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro 

Display

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

You’ll find top-quality AMOLED screens in both of these phones. The P20 Pro has a 6.1-inch display with a 2,240 x 1,080-pixel resolution which translates to 408 pixels-per-inch (ppi). The Mate 20 Pro has a slightly bigger 6.4-inch display with a 3,120 x 1,440-pixel resolution for a pixel density of 538 ppi. The taller display in the Mate 20 Pro isn’t just bigger, it’s also sharper and so it wins this round.

Winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Camera

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

Huawei has stuck with a triple lens setup on the Mate 20 Pro, just like the P20 Pro, but there are some differences. The Mate 20 Pro has a main lens rated at 40 megapixels with an f/1.8 aperture, with an ultra wide-angle lens with 20 megapixels and an f/2.2 aperture, and a telephoto 8-megapixel lens with an f/2.4 aperture. On paper, the P20 Pro set up looks familiar with 40-megapixel, 20-megapixel, and 8-megapixel lenses, but the monochrome lens we loved so much in the P20 Pro is gone. Huawei has essentially swapped the monochrome lens for a super wide-angle lens and the Mate 20 Pro camera is likely to be more versatile as a result.

Both phones have a 24-megapixel front-facing camera for stunning selfies, but only the Mate 20 Pro offers proper facial scanning and 3D Live Emoji.

Winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Software and updates

EMUI 9.0 Beta Andy Boxall/Digital Trends

While the P20 Pro launched with Android 8.1 Oreo, Huawei has started to roll out the Android 9.0 Pie update. The Huawei Mate 20 Pro launches with Android 9.0 Pie on board. Both feature Huawei’s EMUI on top which adds various customization options and extra features. The software experience on these phones is going to be identical and we expect them to continue to get updates for a similar period of time, so there’s no dividing them here.

Winner: Tie

Special features

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

Although most of the special artificial intelligence features are available on both phones, powered by the dedicated neural processing unit, the newer Mate 20 Pro chip should prove faster and more capable. The Mate 20 Pro also supports much faster charging and a special reverse wireless charging ability that enables it to act as a wireless charger for another phone, though we’re not sure you will want to donate your extra battery life very often. Factor in the FaceID-like, front-facing camera capabilities and the Mate 20 Pro is the clear winner here.

Winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Price

The P20 Pro was never officially released in the U.S. and it would have cost you close to $1,000 to import one when it was first released, but that price has dropped considerably and you can pick one up now for between $700 and $800. By contrast, the new Huawei Mate 20 Pro is going on sale at 1,049 euros, which is a staggering $1,220. There is a chance Huawei will release it stateside in the new year, probably for closer to $1,000, but we can’t say for sure.

Overall winner: Huawei Mate 20 Pro

It’s more powerful, boasts a bigger screen, faster charging, and a more versatile camera, but the Huawei Mate 20 Pro is also considerably more expensive. The Huawei P20 Pro is still a strong flagship that outperforms many big competitors, so if you’re choosing between these two right now, we wouldn’t blame you for snagging it and saving the difference. If you already have a P20 Pro, the Mate 20 Pro isn’t enough of a jump to merit an upgrade, but it is definitely the better phone.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Huawei P20 Pro vs. Apple iPhone X: A battle of flagship smartphones
• Apple iPhone XS Max vs. Huawei P20 Pro: Clash of the titans
• Huawei Mate 20 Pro hands-on review
• Huawei Mate 20 Pro vs. Mate 20 vs. Mate 20 X vs. Mate 20 Lite
• Huawei Mate 20 Pro vs. Samsung Galaxy Note 9: Flagship fight

Hunter Symphony Smart Fan: Pricey and niche, but great

With smart home technology booming – Apple, Amazon and Google all have their own respective platforms, among others – more and more appliances and gadgets are looking to get in on the game. Doorbells, deadbolts, light bulbs, even microwaves. And now, with the Hunter Symphony, smart ceiling fans. Retailing for $299.00 from Amazon, Home Depot and others, it’s not an inexpensive device, but it’s also pretty affordable compared to some of the more outlandish boutique fans on the market.

I’ve been using the Hunter Symphony in my game room in the tail end of one of California’s signature sweltering summers – here are my generally unfiltered thoughts on the connected ceiling fan.

Build

I don’t have a whole lot to compare it to, but the assembly and installation of the Hunter Symphony went smoothly. All pieces were both lightweight and sturdy, and fit into place precisely. The fan chassis doesn’t wobble on its downrod even at maximum speed, and the fan blades tightened in place with ease.

The Hunter Symphony features a triple-blade, 54″ design and a dual, dimmable LED light setup. It comes in three different finishes: Matte Black, Fresh White, and Matte Nickel. My Symphony is matte black, and it strikes a distinctive figure hanging from my ceiling. In retrospect, I probably would have gone with the Matte Nickel to complement the other hardware in my home.

Like most modern ceiling fans, the Symphony has a reverse flow option. This pulls the air up and pushes it across the ceiling, resulting in air circulation that’s indirect rather than pushing down on you.

Generally, the two airflow directions are useful in two different kinds of weather – counter-clockwise, direct downdraft in warm weather and clockwise, indirect updraft in Winter. This article on Del Mar really helps explain the process, if you’re curious.

What’s interesting about this particular fan, though is that you can change the flow of the air with a single button press. Many fans require you to manually flip a switch on the fan’s chassis, but the Symphony can be manipulated with the included remote – it’s all very convenient. The remote offers the usual controls – Light On/Off, Fan On/Off, and Fan Speed Up/Down.

According to my installer, the installation of the Hunter Symphony was straightforward for anyone with experience doing it, The instructions and diagrams included all made sense even to me, which is a promising sign for do-it-yourself types.

Connectivity

The Hunter Symphony features a WiFi technology called SIMPLEconnect, complete with its own companion app in the Google Play Store.

SIMPLEconnect allows the Hunter Symphony to link up with most of the Smart Home platforms on the market, including Amazon Alexa, Apple HomeKit, and Google Assistant.

While the Hunter Symphony is a wireless-enabled device and has its own companion app, its compatibility with modern AI assistants is a little improvised. Rather than using the typical Google Assistant interface, for example, in which you would add the Hunter SimpleConnect service from a list within the Google Home app, Hunter opted to make its voice commands a little less intuitive. Instead of saying something like “Hey Google, turn on the Living Room Fan,” we have to say “Hey Google talk to SimpleConnect” and then say “Brighten Fan Light” or “Turn On Fan,” etc.

I’d like to see a more integrated and intuitive interface, and fortunately, these problems can be fixed with a simple software update. Whether or not Hunter decides to make that fix is yet to be seen, but as it stands the AI integration and smart home capabilities leave something to be desired.

Performance

In my experience with ceiling fans – which is, admittedly limited to the fans in the three whole houses I’ve lived in – none have provided the smooth, consistent flow of the Hunter Symphony.

The Symphony features the SureSpeed guarantee, which – in Hunter’s words – “delivers optimized airflow for ultimate high-speed cooling” and features a 20% increase in airflow velocity compared to its competitors. I’ll let you decide if that’s buzzword marketing or not, but in my experience, the Symphony makes my game room – which is routinely much hotter than the rest of the house – much more bearable without Air Conditioning, even in the sweaty California summer sun.

Even better, that great airflow doesn’t come at the expense of sound. With Hunter’s trademark WhisperWind technology, the only sound I generally hear from the fan is the air movement itself – no low thrumming, no wobbling on the downrod, no jingly pull-chain. Just quiet, cool air.

Value

A quality ceiling fan will generally run you between $100 and $300. The Hunter Symphony is on the high end of that spectrum, at $299.00. Its feature list and performance back that pricing, with great airflow and quiet operation as well as the smart – if a bit janky – connectivity features. There aren’t many smart ceiling fans on the market – Hunter’s solutions and the $500+ Haiku fans are about it – and as such these smart features come at something of a premium. All things considered, the Symphony is an excellent ceiling fan that may be a touch expensive for the average consumer, but also may be a great addition to a Smart Home.

Get the Hunter Symphony from any number of online retailers, including:

Amazon  |  Hunter  |  Home Depot  |  Wayfair  |  Build.com

How to sell your old Google Pixel or Pixel 2 for the most money

Julian Chokkatu/Digital Trends

There’s never any shortage of ways to get rid of your old smartphone —  especially if it’s in good condition. You could trade it in at a carrier, sell it on eBay, or find a third-party buyer. But the key question is: How can you get the highest value possible?

While selling your Pixel or Pixel 2 can significantly offset the cost of a new device (the new $799 Pixel 3, for instance), it’s hard to know what route to choose. Options like selling it directly to a buyer might seem a little risky, while trading in a device may not provide you with the highest payout. It’s all a bit overwhelming and time-consuming. Thankfully, we’re here to help with that. Below is a comprehensive guide to selling your Pixel or Pixel 2, as well as how much you can expect to earn from the sale.

Trade it in

One of the simplest, and thus most appealing, options is to trade in your Pixel through Verizon and Project Fi (the exclusive U.S. carriers), Google’s own website, or stores like Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, and GameStop. However, this will only provide you with credit, not cash — so it will help you with the price of the new device, but won’t give you the freedom to do whatever you like with the proceeds of your sale. Still, it’s an easy way to get rid of your device. Additionally, while it might not be the most lucrative way to get rid of your old phone, the compensation is more than reasonable in most cases.

To get the credit, you’ll need to either bring your Pixel into a store or go through an online process in which you evaluate the condition and worth of your device. If it’s got a cracked screen or other issues, the value drops precipitously, but there’s no point lying since they’ll easily find out and cancel the credit. Before you hand it in or send it off, just make sure you’ve backed up all your data and wiped your phone.

Sell it via an online marketplace

Selling your phone directly to another person takes more time, but can be more financially rewarding. It depends greatly on the market environment when you put your Pixel up for sale, though, which is in itself an ever-changing thing. The best time to sell your phone is generally before a new generation comes out, but since that’s not possible with Pixel 2, you’ll have a bit of competition. Still, there are plenty of people looking for inexpensive Pixel 2s following the Pixel 3 launch (especially the notch haters out there), so it shouldn’t be too hard to find an interested buyer.

On Craigslist and eBay, you can set your own asking price. It’s worth it to put a little extra time into making your listing well-written with appealing photos — you’ll gain buyer trust and get higher offers. Make sure that you account for shipping so that you don’t end up with an unimpressive net amount. If you’re handing the device off in-person instead, make sure that you keep in mind basic safety precautions. Meet in a public space, or with a friend. Also, make sure all your data is scrubbed off the device.

For the risk-adverse, Swappa is an even better choice. It’s an online marketplace dedicated to mobile devices where each ad is verified by Swappa staff. You’ll have to go through a few extra steps of verification, there’s an added sale fee, and you’ll have to send the device out within two days if it’s purchased, but those are reasonable hoops to jump through for a little more peace of mind.

Sell it to a company

If you’d rather skip interacting with individual buyers as much as possible, there are several companies that make the process easier by buying up old smartphones (and subsequently reselling them). Among the most trustworthy options are Gazelle, uSell, Decluttr, and Glyde, which is a hybrid between a marketplace and an electronics purchasing site. As with trade-ins or Swappa, you’ll have to go through an appraisal process before the company makes an offer, then your site of choice will provide a postage-paid packing label for you to send the device away. Once the company has received it and verified the condition, you’ll receive your cut through PayPal or check.

How much is your old Pixel worth?

Now that you have all the options, let’s take a look at how they stack up, price-wise, with a few Pixel and Pixel 2 models. Keep in mind the following caveats: this information is accurate as of the time of publication — October 19, 2018 — and is based on the values provided for good condition Pixels with base levels of internal storage and the original charger (if the site asks for it).

The eBay prices listed are averages based on data from Bidvoy, while Glyde’s numbers are recommended listing prices, not guaranteed sales amounts.

Pixel (32GB)

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

• Glyde: $180
• eBay: $145
• Verizon: $145
• Google Store/Project Fi: $119
• uSell: $108
• Decluttr: $102
• Amazon: $65
• Gazelle: $65
• Walmart: $54

Pixel XL (32GB)

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

• Glyde: $230
• eBay: $162
• Walmart: $142
• Verizon: $135 (note: yes, it is lower than the smaller Pixel — we double checked)
• Google Store/Project Fi: $130
• uSell: $126
• Decluttr: $125
• Amazon: $70
• Gazelle: $70

Pixel 2 (64GB)

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

• eBay: $381
• Glyde: $350
• Google Store/Project Fi: $300
• Amazon: $245
• Verizon: $228
• Gazelle: $210
• Decluttr: $190
• Best Buy: $180 (before potential in-store promo value, which varies)

Pixel 2 XL (64GB)

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

• Glyde: $430
• eBay: $390
• Google Store/Project Fi: $325
• Decluttr: $247
• Amazon: $245
• Gazelle: $245
• Verizon: $231
• Best Buy: $200 (before potential in-store promo value, which varies)

Helpful tips

• Wipe your data. This point is worth reiterating because so much important information is stored on your mobile device. You really don’t want it to fall into the wrong hands. To completely erase personal info from your old Pixel, you can head to Settings > System > Reset options > Erase all data (factory reset). Just make sure to get everything you want off your device first, or back it up to the cloud.
• Do a thorough multi-site comparison. It doesn’t take long to browse each of the sites mentioned above to find the best price, or, if you’re strapped for time, you can also check out Flipsy, a handy comparison tool.
• Keep future trades/sales in mind. The better you take care of your new phone — for instance, by purchasing insurance, a case, and/or a screen protector — the higher your eventual trade-in or resale value is if you want to undergo this process again in the future.

As for getting the best price on your new phone — take a look at our buying guides. Hopefully, with the credit or cash you earn from letting go of your old Pixel, you can get the shiny new device you’ve been hoping for at a reasonable price.

Editors’ Recommendations

• How to fix a dead pixel
• Google Pixel Stand hands-on review
• The best Google Pixel tips and tricks
• The best Pixel 3 cases and covers
• Google Pixel 3 vs. Pixel 2 vs. Pixel: Picking the perfect phone for you

Intel Core i9 vs. AMD Threadripper

The release of AMD’s Threadripper chips changed the face of high-end CPUs forever. Not only did they provide the first competition Intel has had at the top end for years, but they introduced some of the highest cores counts we’ve ever seen on single CPU configurations that aren’t specifically targeted at servers. They aren’t typically aimed exclusively at gamers either, but if you’re looking for power beyond AMD’s $300 2700X, Threadripper is your best bet.

Or it would be if Intel didn’t have some fantastically powerful Core i9 CPUs to go head-to-head with AMD. From extreme edition CPUs with up to 18 cores for big multi-threaded loads, to high-end gaming chips like the 9900K, Intel’s line up is equally worthy of your time if you’re looking for a big CPU upgrade.

Productivity

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

Some tasks, like video encoding or image editing, can see a real benefit from masses of processor cores. That’s where some of the more extreme CPUs can really come into play. Chips like the Intel 7980XE with its 18 cores, absolutely demolish more conservative core count chips like the 9900K, and if an application can handle its ludicrous core count, the 2990WX can pull ahead significantly over even the Intel competition.

That isn’t always the case though, as some applications simply don’t know what to do with the 64 threads that the 2990WX puts out. In some cases, comparable performance can be achieved with much more affordable CPUs in the range, like the 2950X. In applications which favor individual core power over a larger multitude of threads, comparably priced Intel CPUs can pull ahead instead. While we weren’t able to test it against the second-generation Ryzen chips, the 9900K demolished last year’s Threadrippers in our Handbrake video encoding test.

What about gaming?

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

We said these chips aren’t really designed with gaming in mind, and while that’s true, it doesn’t mean they’re terrible at it either. Because modern games rely much more heavily on the system’s GPU, a 32-core processor might not make as big an impact on gameplay as you might assume.

There is a reason that all of the top 3DMark Time Spy Extreme results utilize CPUs from Intel and AMD that cost thousands of dollars: Because they’re amazingly powerful. That’s not necessarily a perfect comparison for gaming scenarios, though. Out of all of the Core i9 and Threadripper CPUs, we would recommend the Intel Core i9-9900K over all of the others for your extreme gaming needs, as it performed far better than the competition in our testing. In CPU-heavier games like Civilization VI, the 9900K outperformed processors with much higher core counts.

It’s not that the other chips in the series can’t game, they just aren’t really worth the extra cost.

Efficiency

If you look at a detailed specification table of the Intel’s Core i9 CPUs and AMD’s Threadripper CPUs side by side, you’ll see a lot of numbers. Those numbers tend to be higher on the Threadripper side of things, and that’s typically a good thing. More cores, more clocks mean more power. But power is the important word here, as the Threadripper CPUs need more power to run than their Intel counterparts. For example, the Core i9-9900K is only a 95-watt processor, but has a higher boosted clock speed than a 180-watt Threadripper 1920X.

The most power hunger of Intel’s CPUs have a thermal design profile of 165 watts, and the somewhat entry-level options like the 7900X and 7920X require just 140 watts. Threadripper on the other hand, pulls a lot more. The first-generation required 180 watts across the board and the second-generation 2920X and 2950X demand the same. The top-tier 2970WX and 2990WX however, have a TDP of 250 watts. That means big power draw and big cooling requirements.

Pricing

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

As is quite typical of the AMD versus Intel debate throughout the last decade or so, AMD CPUs are the most cost-effective and that same scenario plays out much the same even at this extreme end of the spectrum. First-generation Threadripper CPUs can be had for between $320 and $600, while the second-generation varies between $650 and $1,800 — though the more budget-conscious 2920X and 2970WX have yet to be made widely available at the time of writing.

In comparison, Intel’s 9900K might have a reasonable (although still expensive compared to more mainstream CPUs) price of $530, but the more extreme Intel CPUs are far more costly. The entry-level 7900X still costs $900 a year and a half after it was released, and the 7980XE, with fewer cores and lower clocks than its Threadripper counterpart, is $2,050.

Prices are a little lower for the planned Intel refresh later this year, maxing out at $1,980 for the 9980XE, but no firm release date for those chips has yet been announced.

It’s also worth mentioning that Threadripper’s TR4 socket design will be used in all upcoming motherboard generations until at least 2020, meaning CPU upgrades won’t require a new motherboard too. Intel is doing the same for the refresh of its Core i9 7000 CPUs, but the 9900K requires a new motherboard and its successor will do as well.

Pay for what you need

All of the top-of-the-line CPUs from AMD and Intel are amazing pieces of hardware. They have performance and specifications that almost nobody needs, but for those that do, there are some takeaways from our comparison that are worth taking note of. In certain applications that can take full advantage of the extra cores AMD’s Threadripper chips offer, they have a big advantage over even Intel’s best.

In many applications that isn’t the case though. These chips aren’t designed with everyone in mind. There’s a reason our guide to the best CPUs looks more at the mid-range than anything else.

Even within the realm of high-end users, the top Threadripper and Core i9 CPUs cost close to $2,000 each, so aren’t typically recommended for anyone but the most extreme of cases. In terms of cost, AMD chips do tend to be much more affordable and that goes doubly so if you’re looking at first-generation Threadripper CPUs which massively undercut their counterparts in Intel’s Core i9 lineup. They do require more power though, so factor that into your long-term cost projections.

If you’re looking to game only, the Core i9-9900K is the only CPU here really worth recommending as the others don’t offer enough of a performance improvement (if at all in some cases) for the added cost to be worth it.

Editors’ Recommendations

• AMD vs. Intel
• Intel Core i9-9900K review and benchmark
• Here’s everything you need to know about Intel’s 9th-gen chips
• Ready to upgrade? Intel announces the Core i9-9900K processor
• Leak shows Intel’s 9th-gen Core i7 desktop CPU won’t have hyper-threading

A Fitbit for your cat shit: Automatic litter box tracks your kitty’s health

Sometimes a Kickstarter project comes along that captures the zeitgeist in such a way that it rakes in close to 10 times its $50,000 funding goal within just a few days. Sometimes that Kickstarter project is a futuristic cat potty which resembles a high-tech teleportation chamber from a 2018 update of David Cronenberg’s The Fly. Today is one of those days.

Called Footloose (because why wouldn’t you name a feline toilet after a beloved teen musical starring Kevin Bacon?), it’s a potty that promises to be the most cutting-edge way imaginable for your kitty to take a dump. After using this sci-fi-style litter tray, your beloved Mr. Bigglesworth won’t be able to so much look at your neighbor’s lawn without turning its nose up in disgust.

“Footloose is the first smart cat potty that cleans itself automatically, and also monitors the wellness of felines,” Byron Fan, founder of Footloose manufacturer Petato, told Digital Trends. “The patent-pending self-cleaning mechanism is a nifty and efficient way to dispose of cat waste. The tech can distinguish litter from cats, recognize multiple cats, and detect any motion such that human intervention is reduced to a minimum. These features are possible thanks to onboard computing cores embedded with a dimensionality-reduction algorithm which fuses data from a dozen sensors. Footloose is also the first litter box integrated with a proactive deodorizing unit. The result is a box that requires little owner maintenance, but delivers information including a cat’s body weight, waste volume, toilet frequency, and duration.”

Prior to dedicating his life to cat toilets, Fan spent three years working at drone maker DJI. He describes the goal of the smart litter box as being both to lessen the daily chores of cleaning up after your cat, and also to monitor the subtle differences in your pet which could be difficult to spot for an owner, but may have potential health implications.

“I think people have been waiting for a solution like Footloose,” Fan said, responding to our question of why this project has struck such a chord with would-be customers. “One backer mentioned her cat would require special attention also because of urinary problems, which isn’t uncommon as cats age. What I love about the Kickstarter community is that they actively contribute ideas for possible add-ons that could further elevate the experience. As a parent to six cats, I can totally relate.”

As ever, we offer our usual warnings about the potential risks inherent in crowdfunding campaigns. However, if you’re aware of these and still keen to get involved, head over to the project’s Kickstarter page to pledge your cash. Prices start at $299, with shipping promised for June 2019.

Editors’ Recommendations

• The best GPS for your car
• How to calibrate your TV
• The best humidifiers for your home or office
• The best wireless phone chargers for your iPhone or Android
• MIT’s creepy-crawly robot can help monitor your health

Despite serious security flaws, D-Link will (again) not patch some routers

Piotr Adamowicz

For the second time in roughly a year, D-Link has failed to act on warnings from security researchers involving the company’s routers. The latest incident arose after Silesian University of Technology researcher Błazej Adamczyk contacted D-Link last May about three vulnerabilities affecting eight router models. Following the warning, D-Link patched two of the affected routers, but did not initially reveal how it would proceed for the remaining six models. After further prompting from Adamczyk, D-Link revealed that the remaining six routers would not get a security patch because they were considered end-of-life models, leaving affected owners out in the cold.

“The D-Link models affected are the DWR-116, DWR-140L, DWR-512, DWR-640L, DWR-712, DWR-912, DWR-921, and DWR-111, six of which date from 2013, with the DIR-640L first appearing in 2012 and the DWR-111 in 2014,” Naked Security reported. Though these are not current models in D-Link’s portfolio, many of the listed models are still likely to be in use.

As a result of this impasse, Adamczyk released details about the security flaws, following responsible security protocols after giving D-Link notice and the opportunity to address the issues. Of significance is that this is the second time in about a year that D-Link has failed to address security vulnerabilities affecting its products after being notified by researchers; the last time this happened was in 2017 and involved a different set of vulnerabilities.

Adamczyk published a video showing how the vulnerabilities could be used together to achieve a path traversal attack on the affected routers. The security researcher noted that the new flaw arose after D-Link reported that it had fixed a prior security flaw. Also known as “directory traversal” or “dot dot slash” attacks, these flaws allow a malicious attacker to gain access to system files with a simple HTTP request.

Despite D-Link’s spotty history with supporting older router models, the manufacturer is not alone in leaving routers unpatched. The American Consumer Institute reported that of the 186 routers it had tested, 155 contained firmware vulnerabilities. In total, ACI discovered more than 32,000 known vulnerabilities in its study. “Our analysis shows that, on average, routers contained 12 critical vulnerabilities and 36 high-risk vulnerabilities, across the entire sample,” ACI noted in its report. “The most common vulnerabilities were medium-risk, with an average of 103 vulnerabilities per router.”

For shoppers who are in the market for a new router, it’s probably best to also check with the manufacturer to see what the supported lifespan of the router is. If the router is nearing its end of life, as in the case illustrated here, you may not get patches, regardless of how serious a security vulnerability may be. If you have an older router, you may want to consider checking out our guide for the best router options before you decide to upgrade.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Is your router vulnerable to attacks? New report says odds aren’t in your favor
• ProtonVPN and NordVPN patched up vulnerabilities before they became known
• Security flaw on modern PCs could leave your encrypted data exposed
• Wi-Fi vulnerability could allow attackers to steal your data on unencrypted sites
• Google to shut down Google+ after exposure of 500,000 users’ data

Apple’s latest feature ensures MacOS apps are safer than ever

MacOS is mythically known for being more immune viruses and other problems when compared to Windows, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to make the operating system safer. In the latest development, Apple is using an app notarization feature in macOS Mojave to protect users from downloading malicious apps, originally noted by Mac Rumors.

The new feature builds on the existing GateKeeper functionality and adds in “streamlined dialog” for the user to see that a downloaded app is not a form of malware. Under the hood, the process involves the use of XCode, and scanning the network ID and performing security checks on the code.

Apple provides a technical step-by-step guide on the process over on its developer website, noting “give users even more confidence in your software by submitting it to Apple to be notarized.” The process only affects apps which are opened through an installer package, or disk image and will not impact other games or programs downloaded through the store.

GateKeeper was first introduced in 2012 and is on by default on all Macs. It sets security settings to high levels, only allowing apps from the App Store or identified developers to be installed. Users can always temporarily override the security settings and open or install apps as they please.

“The safest place to get apps for your Mac is the App Store. Apple reviews each app in the App Store before it’s accepted and signs it to ensure that it hasn’t been tampered with or altered. If there is ever a problem with an app, Apple can quickly remove it from the store,” explains Apple.

The feature has been somewhat controversial in the past. In two separate instances, GateKeeper was proven to be vulnerable. Once in September 2015, a researcher bypassed the defenses by using a trusted binary file. In January 2016, another researcher leveraged a man-in-the-middle attack on the security feature. Apple quickly patched the security flaws in both instances.

Apple recently pushed out MacOS Mojave on September 24. Along with the usual security patches, the free upgrade introduces a Dark Mode, improved App Store, group chat in FaceTime, and stacks for helping clean up the desktop. We found these to be excellent features, noting that the upgrade revamps the entire MacOS user experience.

Editors’ Recommendations

• How to download and install the MacOS Mojave
• Apple allowed spyware posing as anti-malware tool into its Mac App Store
• Apple’s unsafe Mac App Store is simply inexcusable
• Our favorite new and updated apps in iOS 12
• The best Mac apps of 2018

Camera shootout! Testing the latest Pixel, iPhone, and Galaxy Note in real life

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

Google’s Pixel 3 is one of the best camera phones you can buy, but the competition is stiff. The iPhone XS can take equally great photographs — sometimes even better — than the Pixel 3, while the Note 9 often excels in low light.

Can you really tell the difference? See for yourself. We’re comparing a handful of photos from the Pixel 3 XL, iPhone XS Max, Galaxy Note 9, and the Pixel 2 XL (for those of you thinking about upgrading). If you have an iPhone XS or a smaller Pixel 3 or Pixel 2, expect the same image quality because the cameras are the exact same between the smaller and larger phone.

A few notes: These smartphones all take excellent photographs, and we’re going to be nitpicking to find the best. We used the automatic settings for every shot, because that’s how most people take photos in real life. You also may not agree with some of our winners here, and that’s completely OK. There are technical reasons to like a photograph over another, but it’s also a very subjective choice. This also isn’t the most scientific of tests, but we tried to do our best. Either way, if you have one of these phones, you absolutely won’t be disappointed with the camera.

Daytime

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

You can expect almost any smartphone — even most budget phones — to take killer photos in broad daylight. All of these phones excel here in this photo of the downtown New York City skyline, but there are differences. It’s incredibly tough to pick a winner, but our least favorites are the iPhone XS Max and Note 9 photographs. The iPhone photo has a bit too much of a blue hue throughout, making the sky look a little unnatural and the buildings a tad washed out. The Note 9 photo has warmer toned buildings, but everything is slightly overexposed — look at the clouds, and you’ll see a lack of definition compared to the other photos. That being said, the iPhone XS photo has the best detail. Take a look at the Venmo billboard on the bottom left corner. You can read the Venmo logo on the card easiest on the iPhone XS.

But the Pixel 2 XL and Pixel 3 XL photos have good contrast, which is why we like them the most. We like the Pixel 3’s blue sky, and it has the best-looking clouds. We also like the Pixel 2 photo’s buildings, which are slightly brighter. If we had to choose a picture to share, we’d go with the Pixel 3 XL photo. Again, this is a very close test, and judging them alone, we’d share all of them.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

It’s a little easier for us to choose a winner here, and it’s the Pixel 3 XL again. The Note 9 and iPhone XS Max photos have too much of a yellow hue, taken from the walls, that extend to every part of the photo. Even the skin tone of the girl is unnatural, and the clothes have a yellowish hue. Zoom in on the face, and there’s some visible noise.

The Pixel 2 XL loses out because the photo is blurry overall. We’re not sure if it was due to camera shake or something else, but the optical image stabilization in the phone should have compensated for slight movement. That brings us to the Pixel 3 XL. The subject sharply sticks out from the background, thanks to the more natural colors in the photo. There’s excellent detail from the denim jacket to the subject’s face — and while some noise is still visible, it’s not as noticeable as the Note 9 or iPhone XS photo.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

In this portrait photo — which wasn’t captured with Portrait Mode — we see how each of these phones handle several components, from skin tone and depth to detail and color. The most detailed photos comes from the Pixel 2 XL and Note 9 — zoom in and the evidence is clear.  The most natural colors are in the Pixel 3 XL photo; the subject’s skin tone is too red in the Pixel 2, iPhone, and Note 9 photos. The photos with the best natural depth are from the Pixel 2 and iPhone XS Max, but the Pixel 2 XL photo has too much of a red tone throughout.

Overall, we like the iPhone XS Max photo the most. The colors aren’t as natural as the Pixel 3 XL photo, but it does a better job than the rest. It has good enough detail, but the natural blur and the background are the best out of all the photos.

Winner: iPhone XS Max

Indoors

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

This is a tough one. Once again, we love the Pixel 3 XL photo the most. It’s incredibly detailed with great white balance, very little noise, and the lights are well exposed. The Pixel 2 XL photo isn’t as sharp, and the Note 9 photo feels flat because it lacks punchy colors and the lights are overexposed. That brings us to the iPhone XS Max photo. It’s the most representative of what the store’s ceiling actually looked like, but it goes overboard in making everything look a little too orange. The glasses on the bottom right shelf, for example, were more white in reality.

Look back at the Pixel 3 XL photo now, and it looks a little too cold. It’s not as festive or fun as the iPhone photo. Our favorite would be somewhere in between, but since we have to pick a winner, we’d go with the Pixel 3 XL photo and edit it to warm it up a bit before sharing it on social media. We’d prefer to do this than tone down the iPhone photo because the Pixel 3 XL photo really has more detail — zoom in on the single large light in the middle left of the photo. Look at the steel bar. There’s more detail and less grain on the Pixel 3 photo. It’s the best one to edit.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

These photos were captured at the New York Coffee Festival, where the space is packed to the brim with people holding cups of coffee. It’s a good way to see if these phones can quickly capture photos in weird angles and not produce a blurry photo, because you’re often dealing with poorer lighting and a lot of crowds moving around you that could cause you to shake. We tried to minimize our movement as much as possible.

Zoom in on the coffee beans, and the Pixel 2 XL — the only 2017 phone on this list — does the best job. It’s the sharpest, and if you zoom out a little more, it has the most natural-looking beans. We’d say the Pixel 3 and the iPhone XS come in second and third place, respectively. The Pixel 3 is sharper than the fuzzier iPhone XS photo, but it also cranks the saturation but a little too high. The Note 9 lags — the beans look relatively sharp, but the tablecloth looks like it’s fading out of existence for some reason.

Winner: Pixel 2 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

First off, do not take the sharpness of the spinning wheel in this photo into consideration. It was spun in a few photos, and it may have stopped in others, so we’re not counting it as a major factor here. We like the neon sign in the iPhone XS Max photo the most, because it handles noise reduction the best, but there’s a lack of contrast here that makes the black wall not as black as we’d like. The Pixel 3 XL and Note 9 have the best details — look closely at the globe and you can almost make out “Mediterranean Sea” on both these photos — but the former is a tad too saturated.

The Pixel 2 XL has the most natural colors throughout, but zoom into the neon sign and it has trouble with noise reduction. The Note 9 handles the neon sign well, but there’s a lot of grain creeping in through the rest of the photo. If you look at the people in all of these photos, it’s the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3 that have the least grain and offer more detail. We think the win goes to the Pixel 2 for having slightly more natural colors, because the Pixel 3 is a little more saturated. This is a tough photo to judge because they all do a solid job, but also because people are constantly moving at this stall.

Winner: Pixel 2 XL

Low light

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

The iPhone XS Max stands out here. It lights up the scene well, it’s not too grainy, and it’s sharp. The Pixel 3 XL and Note 9 photos are certainly moodier, but the former is blurry, and the latter cranks up the saturation too high and doesn’t light up the wall above the sign at all. The Pixel 2 XL photo is simply overexposed and grainy.

Winner: iPhone XS Max

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

Each of these photos have flaws, but there’s only one that simply looks stunning: the Pixel 3 XL. Zoom in on the building to the right, and you can see it clearly has the best detail of the lot, with the least grain. The colors are also wonderful. The only flaw here is the sky on the left side is just a tad overexposed. The Note 9 comes very close, but it completely masks the buildings in the foreground. The iPhone XS Max has a great sky that isn’t overexposed, but the entire photo is drenched in yellow hues and looks murky. The Pixel 2 XL photo has a bluish tint, and it overexposes the sky on the left far more than the Pixel 3. You may have a favorite look here, but we can’t stop staring at the Pixel 3 photo.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

Let’s take out the Pixel 2 XL and Note 9 out of the running here. The Pixel 2 photo is too blurry, and the Note 9 — while sharp in some areas — loses detail in others, and it overall has too much of a strong orange hue. We think the iPhone XS Max photo has stronger detail here over the Pixel 3 XL: Look at the edges of hair around the dog and you’ll find you can identify individual hairs on the iPhone photo a little better. That being said, the iPhone XS photo is much darker.

With a bit of brightening, the iPhone XS Max photo is the strongest choice here. However, if you wanted to share a photo without any editing, the Pixel 3 is the way to go. We’re giving the iPhone XS the win here, because it has the best detail.

Winner: iPhone XS Max

Food and Portrait Mode on food

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

This bowl of ramen was delicious, and it’s something we had to photograph. The Pixel 3 XL takes the cake for having the best detail. Look at the bowl in the back and you’ll see it white balanced it and the wall really well. The Pixel 2 XL photo comes second, and while the colors are a little more realistic than the Pixel 3, the detail isn’t as strong. The bowl in the back is much darker, but we do like how it spreads the reflection of the neon light in the broth. The iPhone XS photo isn’t as sharp and has a lot of noise, and the Note 9 photo is sadly a bit of a joke.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From left to right: iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

If you try to take a Portrait Mode photo of food in not-so-great lighting, you’re going to have a very tough time with the Note 9 and iPhone XS. In fact, the Note 9 simply said it could not take a photo due to lighting conditions, which is why it’s missing here. The iPhone XS nearly didn’t make the cut, but we managed to get it to work after moving a good distance away from the bowl of ramen. The end result is decent photo, but it wasn’t the original effect we were going for. The Pixel 2 and 3 didn’t have any problems. Both are sharp, with the Pixel 3 having slightly punchier colors. We’re giving it a tie between the two here.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL and Pixel 2 XL

Portrait Mode and selfies

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

We’ve always found Google’s Pixel phones to have the best selfie cameras around, and that rings true here. The iPhone XS and Note 9 are knocked out easily. The iPhone photo is too soft, though it has nice colors and the best HDR work in the background. The Note 9 is also too soft, but it’s overexposed in the back, with poorer colors. It’s difficult to crown a winner between the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3, but we like the more natural colors from the newer phone. Both are equally well detailed though.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

The Pixel 3 XL and the iPhone XS Max come very close here, but we have to address the different styles of portrait mode between the two. Apple follows a different strategy with Portrait Mode over Google. You get a radial blur, with bokeh forming around the subject’s face and getting stronger further away. Google, on the other hand, tries to get the subject entirely in focus. Apple has a more traditional approach, but we like Google’s just as much because there’s a stronger emphasis placed not just on your face, but what you’re wearing.

We’re taking out the Note 9 here because the subject’s face is blurry and overexposed. While the Pixel 2 XL does a solid job, it messes up the hair over on the left side of the face. It also adds a slightly less realistic color tone to the face. We like both the iPhone XS and Pixel 3 photo. Both have lots of detail, and you can see the radial blur circling around the subject’s face in the iPhone photo, whereas everything about the subject is in focus on the Pixel 3 photo. So why does the iPhone XS get the win? The background is better white balanced, whereas it’s more yellow in the Pixel 3 photo.

Winner: iPhone XS Max

From left to right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

This one’s easy. It’s a low-light photo taken with the selfie camera with Portrait Mode. Let’s take out the Pixel 2 XL for being blurry. The Note 9 is out too, as detail isn’t as strong and the background is overexposed. The iPhone XS does a great job, but it’s grainy and not as sharp or bright as the Pixel 3 XL photo, which takes the cake.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

Three of these Portrait Mode photos are excellent. Can you guess the loser? Sorry Samsung, the Note 9 photo is simply too overexposed, and it has an unnatural hue. All three of the rest of the phones offer strong detail, with accurate cutouts of the subject. While the Pixel 2 XL does the best job not overexposing the light hitting the subject’s head, it comes in third for the background, which has a reddish hue. It comes down to the iPhone XS and Pixel 3 photos, and this is going to heavily rely on personal preference. We love the airy, cinematic look of the Pixel 3 photo. It brings out the character of the subject a little more than the iPhone XS photo.

All of these photos were taken standing in the same spot. The iPhone XS and Note 9 cameras just zoom in closer for Portrait Mode photos. Either the Pixel 3 or iPhone XS could win here, but we’re giving the edge to the Pixel 3.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

Here’s another easy win for Google’s Pixel 3 XL. The iPhone XS and Note 9 asked us to step back to get Portrait Mode working, but the end results are quite poor, especially the Note 9. The iPhone XS does a little better, but it’s still dark with weak details, and some parts of the blur are messed up. The Pixel 2 does an excellent job, like the Pixel 3, but it’s a little darker. The Pixel 3 wins.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

Zooming in

Google’s Pixel 3 has a nifty new feature called Super Res Zoom. Instead of adding a second camera for optical zoom, Google is using artificial intelligence to improve digital zoom by reducing noise and increasing brightness. The results are often surprising. Most of the time it can’t beat the 2x optical zoom on the Note 9 or the iPhone XS — especially in well-lit scenarios — but zoom in all the way and it’s a different story. The Pixel 2 XL will not get Super Res Zoom.

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

We typically don’t recommend zooming in all the way on your smartphone camera, because the results don’t often look good. Even with the Pixel 3 XL’s Super Res Zoom, don’t expect to magically get amazing photos. That being said, we’re surprised at how well some phones performed over others. The worst in this grouping is the iPhone XS Max. It’s too fuzzy overall. The Pixel 3 and Pixel 2 photos are similar with strong contrast, but the trees in the Pixel 2 photo are too dark. The Note 9, we think, does the best job here. It’s not as saturated as the Pixel 3 photo, but it manages to capture the detail in the letters of the words. Samsung nets its first win!

Winner: Galaxy Note 9

From top left to bottom right: Galaxy Note 9, iPhone XS Max, Pixel 2, Pixel 3

Here we test out the digital zoom on the Pixel 3 XL and Pixel 2 XL over optical zoom on the Note 9 and iPhone XS. This is a subject that was moving, so it’s tougher all around for the Pixel phones, especially since both cameras on the XS and Note 9 have optical image stabilization. We attempted a similar 2x digital zoom on the Pixel phones. We’re removing the Note 9 from the race here, because the photo is blurry. The iPhone XS does a good job, but the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3 edge out with slightly more detail on the man’s left hand. The Pixel 3 goes ahead to be the overall brighter image, and wins this one.

Winner: Pixel 3 XL

Conclusion

The Pixel 3 is the best camera phone, at least according to this test. But keep in mind that out of its 10 wins, the margins were thin for many, and the iPhone XS was often close behind. Apple’s phone comes second with four wins, the Pixel 2 got three, and Samsung’s phone only got one. All four cameras took some stunning photos, and while have many more photos to share, we’re calling an end to this comparison for now. We’ll be taking more comparisons over the next few months and you’ll be able to find them here.

Editors’ Recommendations

• Google Pixel 3 XL review
• The best Pixel XL cases and covers
• Google Pixel 3 review
• Verizon’s buy one, get one offer is the best deal on the new Google Pixel 3
• Pixel 3 XL vs. iPhone XS Max: Which plus-sized flagship reigns supreme?