Black+Decker 6.5-Quart Multicooker review – CNET
The Good The Black+Decker 6.5-Quart Multicooker performs a handful of tasks well, especially roasting and baking.
The Bad There’s no timer built onto the machine, and the slow-cooking mode made some disappointing pot roast. Plus, the multicooker is $130.
The Bottom Line Skip this multicooker in favor of other countertop products that are less expensive and do the same tasks.
Simplicity is part of the appeal of the Black+Decker 6.5-Quart Multicooker. This countertop appliance covers a handful of common cooking tasks, and it does a decent job at all of them. But that’s not enough to justify its $130 price, especially when there are similar countertop products that cost a lot less.
The cooker’s controls are easy to use, but there’s not a built-in timer.
Tyler Lizenby/CNET
This multicooker aims low with its promise to complete just three cooking tasks: sear/sauté, roast/bake and slow cook. I cooked food using each mode, and everything came out fine. Roast/bake was the multicooker’s sweet spot. The chicken I cooked fit comfortably in the 6.5-quart cooking pot and was just as good as roasts I’ve prepared in conventional ovens.
Baking was a bit trickier. The biggest challenge was finding a baking sheet or pan that would fit into the cooking pot. I improvised by wrapping the included roasting rack in aluminum foil before I baked chocolate chip cookies in the multicooker. The cookies were perfect when they were finished baking, but Black+Decker should include an appropriate-size pan for folks who want to bake for one.
This is where my praise for the multicooker ends. On a lower-priced product, the multicooker’s shortcomings would be relatively minor: there isn’t a built-in timer, and a pot roast that I slow-cooked wasn’t nearly as pull-apart tender I had hoped (something we’ve seen with other multicookers that opt for metal cooking pots over ceramic). But these are inexcusable drawbacks for a small appliance that costs more than $100.
The Black+Decker Multicooker is a decent product that would keep you from having to turn on a full-size oven all the time. But its average performance isn’t worthy of its $130 price. Consider less expensive products that can perform similar tasks, such as the basic, non-connected version of the Instant Pot Smart we’ve reviewed. And if you just want some countertop baking, the Panasonic FlashXpress Toaster Oven has a stellar performance and a comparable price.
Gourmia GCR1700 10-in-1 Multi-Function Robotic Cooker review – CNET
The Good The $299 Gourmia GCR1700 10-in-1 Multi-Function Robotic Cooker, aka the Cook-A-Riffic, has a removable arm that automatically stirs dishes like stews and stir-frys.
The Bad The promised cooking modes are misleading, temperature settings are wonky and the pot that cooks your food gets too hot too quickly.
The Bottom Line The cooker doesn’t perform its promised 10 functions well enough to earn a coveted spot on your countertop.
The Gourmia GCR1700 10-in-1 Multi-Function Robotic Cooker, aka the Cook-A-Riffic, makes a striking first impression. The multicooker’s exterior looks like a finalist for a new Daft Punk helmet. The name is so terrible that it somehow becomes cute. And most importantly, it comes with a removable arm that stirs dishes for you.
That’s no space helmet, it’s a multicooker.
Tyler Lizenby/CNET
But when it comes to cooking, this countertop appliance is a dunce.
The $299 cooker (it’s selling a lot cheaper on Amazon) claims to be able to perform 10 common kitchen tasks. In reality, the cooker only has four core functions — stir-fry, steam, stew and grill. From those functions, you have to tweak the default time and temperature settings to access the other six cooking modes — sauté, pan-fry, sauces, slow-cook, soup and bake. For example, if you want to slow cook, you have to use the stew mode, then change the time and temperature at which you want to cook your dish.
These workarounds are a pain, especially if you’re working with a recipe that doesn’t specify temperatures (a slow-cooker recipe usually tells you to cook something on low or high rather than, say, 350 degrees). To make matters worse, you can’t dial up or down to get exact numbers — the minimum temperature is 122 degrees, the max is 428 degrees, and there are seemingly random set temperatures in between. And be careful if you don’t adjust the default temperatures — the cooking pot gets hot quickly, which resulted in some burnt-bottomed chocolate chip cookies and a pot roast that looked like it was wearing a leather jacket.
The removable stirring arm is the one highlight of the appliance. You slip the arm into a part of the machine that extends above the cooking pot, and it will automatically rotate the arm when you’re operating in stir-fry or stew mode. The attachment rotates slowly enough to keep vegetables from burning, and some broccoli and carrots I chopped for a stir-fry turned out pretty tasty.
But the handy arm isn’t enough to save the Cook-A-Riffic from itself. It takes up a lot of space, even though the cooking pot is relatively shallow. Its design makes it hard to keep the lid clean and creates some hard-to-reach spots in the cooking pot. Skip the this appliance and go for a multicooker that can perform all of its promised tasks well.
Black+Decker 6-in-1 Stirring Cooker review – CNET
The Good The $70 Black+Decker 6-in-1 Stirring Cooker has an automated arm that stirs risotto for you.
The Bad The cooker does a lousy job at just about every other task.
The Bottom Line Skip this cooker — unless you’re really into risotto.
Risotto is a hard dish to master, mainly because it requires time, attention and a good amount of stirring to steadily let your rice absorb liquid. The $70 Black+Decker 6-in-1 Stirring Cooker addresses some of the tedium of this dish with an arm that automatically stirs the contents of the pot. The pot makes a decent risotto, but that’s about the only thing that makes it worthwhile.
The removable stirring arm sits on a knob at the bottom of the cooking pot. The knob rotates when the cooker’s on risotto mode.
Tyler Lizenby/CNET
The cooker has six settings — rice, pasta, slow cook, sauté, warm and risotto. That last feature was a surprise standout during testing. To use the risotto setting, you place a small stirring arm over a knob on the bottom of the cooking pot. Fire that risotto mode up, and the knob will start turning the arm.
I wasn’t sure how well the arm would stir a batch of mushroom risotto I made; the rice gathered into a pile as it expanded, and the arm just slowly scooted the mass of starch around the cooking pot. But the pile eventually collapsed, and the arm steadily stirred the expanding rice. The risotto was better than I anticipated; a little past al dente, but better than I could have cooked myself.
The cooker won’t alleviate all your kitchen woes, though. Even though you don’t have to stir your risotto manually, you still have to stand over the pot and gradually add your liquid until the rice absorbs it. And the cooker’s other settings were disappointing. It’s hard to sauté in the cooker because of the knob at the bottom of the pot. It also took more than 18 minutes to get water boiling for pasta, and water couldn’t get hot enough to sustain a boil after I added my noodles. This resulted in noodles that were still partially raw after cooking them according to package instructions.
The cooker does help when it comes to making risotto, but it’s not great at the other five tasks the product claims to tackle. Unless you just love a good risotto, pass on this cooker.
Google Daydream View review – CNET
The Good Affordable, portable and easy to set up. The bundled motion controller is convenient and easy to use. Exclusive YouTube, Google Street View and Google Photos feel like potential killer apps.
The Bad It only works with Google Pixel for now. The headset is front-heavy and frequently needs adjusting. There’s limited app selection at launch and you can’t walk around or grab things in VR.
The Bottom Line The Daydream View is the simplest, most affordable way to turn a phone into an immersive VR headset.
Cardboard is cheap. Gear VR only works with Samsung phones. The pricy Oculus Rift and HTC Vive require an expensive gaming PC and loads of setup, and the PlayStation VR needs a PS4.
Virtual reality is hard.
But for $79, £69 or AU$119, Google’s new Daydream View could be the break we’ve been waiting for.
It’s a soft cloth eyebox that turns any compatible phone into a VR headset, and it comes complete with its own Wii-like motion controller for manipulating objects and menus in VR.
It’s the easiest VR to use by far.
But does that mean you should run out and buy one? Not necessarily. Not yet, anyhow.
The Google Daydream View.
Josh Miller/CNET
Magical but murky
One of the pitfalls of most VR is the number of cords, ports and things you have to adjust. The Daydream View puts them all to shame. Here are the steps to set it up:
- Open the headset’s front door and remove the included controller
- Turn on your phone (if it’s off) and place it on the door
- Close the door, place the headset on your head and adjust until the image looks clear
- Adjust the straps
- Hold down a button on the controller to calibrate, and start playing.
That’s it. No adjusting the lenses, no fiddling with pairing procedures, no ports or cables to plug in. The phone automatically pairs with the headset and adjusts the screen to the correct position, like magic.
Once you’re inside, the included motion controller makes navigating menus a breeze. Just point where you want to go, and a little mouse cursor follows your motion quickly and accurately.
Modeling the Daydream View. (I’m trying to grow out my beard.)
Josh Miller/CNET
Just know that “easy” doesn’t mean “perfect.”
When I handed the Daydream View to my colleagues, many of them instinctively put it on the wrong way. The curved straps are supposed to rest on top of your head (like a crown) but it’s tempting to cinch them down like a pair of ski goggles — which isn’t terribly comfortable.
And though the Daydream View is almost entirely made of soft, cushiony fabric instead of hard plastics, that didn’t stop my wife and colleagues from complaining how front-heavy it was with a large Pixel XL phone inside. Even if it weighs less than a pound (roughly 0.85 lbs with the phone) there’s still potential for neck strain over time.
The image quality is good — I definitely felt like I was somewhere else! — but it’s not going to fool anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled. And I often found I had to recalibrate the headset and controller in the middle of a session (it’s easy — just hold down the home button).
I even found a bug that makes VR totally unusable until I reboot the phone — though I understands a software fix for that is coming soon.
Up close with Google’s Daydream View headset
See full gallery
1 – 5 of 18
Next
Prev
Here’s the rub: unless you have a Google Pixel or other Daydream-certified phone, the Daydream View won’t work at all. That’s by design: Google’s pitch is that Daydream can keep you from getting sick in VR by ensuring both phones and apps meet a certain quality standard.
I haven’t gotten sick — so far.
View full gallery
This handy bundled motion controller makes a big difference, and tucks into the headset when not in use.
Josh Miller/CNET
But that means a murky future for Daydream, because we honestly don’t know how many phone manufacturers and app developers will wholeheartedly support Google’s new platform — or if the results will be as good as these preliminary ones. Even the 5-inch Pixel offers a lesser experience than the 5.5-inch Pixel XL, because its screen is lower-resolution.
We tried another upcoming Daydream phone, the Huawei Mate 9, only to find out it may not be Daydream-ready until next year.
Microsoft Surface Book i7 (2016) review – CNET
The Good Improved speed, graphics and battery life in a similar design; detachable tablet comes included, as does the Surface Pen; crisp design; has USB ports and SD card slot
The Bad It’s also slightly thicker and heavier than last year’s version, and retains the odd gap on the folding hinge. Expensive compared to other options. Doesn’t meet minimum specs for VR gaming.
The Bottom Line The design remains mostly unchanged, but PC power users will like the extra power and battery life on the updated 2016 version of the Surface Book.
Order from Microsoft.
The Surface Book was Microsoft’s first-ever laptop, and now it’s back for an encore.
The Surface Book with Performance Base is an update to last year’s Surface Book, a laptop with detaching tablet screen that had an iconic look and some pretty good — and weird — design flourishes.
What the Surface Book isn’t is a Surface Pro sequel. The Surface Pro 4, released a year ago as well, hasn’t been updated in 2016 (and isn’t compatible with the Surface Book at all).
Sarah Tew/CNET
But the funny thing is, this year’s version of the Microsoft Surface Book is actually more everyday-practical than Apple’s MacBook Pro in some key areas. It has full tablet and stylus modes for art and creative work, and retains legacy ports like full-size USB 3 and an SD card slot, unlike Apple’s new MacBooks.
If you’re looking for a Windows laptop with good performance chops that can also double as a tablet on the fly, you’ve come to the right place. As long as you can afford the price. The biggest change to last year’s model is the base’s boost in battery, processor and graphics. “Performance base,” indeed.
Can you tell the difference between last year and this year?
Sarah Tew/CNET
Design: Staying the course from 2015
If you looked at Microsoft’s Surface Book last year, lusted after it, but wanted it to be a more powerful computer, this is your answer. It’s a better laptop, and a better experience. But in exchange for that power, it also gets a bit heavier.
The side edges feel the same, but there’s a clear curving bulge on the base now. You won’t notice it unless you stack these laptops side by side, but it’s there.
Last year, we remarked that the Surface Book size and weight was comparable to the then-current MacBook Pro models. This year, the MacBooks got thinner and the Surface Book got thicker. The new Book with Performance Base ranges from 13mm thick at the front to 22.8mm thick in the back, and it weighs at least 3.62 pounds. Last year’s version maxed at 3.5 pounds for the step-up model with Nvidia graphics.
It’s a slightly heavier feel, but it’s so close to last year’s concept that a newcomer probably won’t notice the difference.
Notice the thicker base on the right (the new one).
Sarah Tew/CNET
The problem is that it’s not just MacBooks that have gotten smaller and lighter: the new 13-inch MacBook Pro is down to 3 pounds. Thin is in for other Windows laptops, too. 3.6 pounds now counts as a heavyweight in the ultraportable world.
We had a few issues with the Surface Book design last year, which have unfortunately stayed: The futuristic magnesium hinge unfolded beautifully, but unlike with devices like the Lenovo Yoga it doesn’t flip over end-to-end. To turn it into a tabletop touchscreen, you detach the top and flip it around and re-dock into the base.
Sarah Tew/CNET
There’s also still a weird gap between the top and base when closed, as if the whole Surface Book was a sheet of metal curved and folded in half. A gap-free, slimmer design would still be preferred.
But at least the Surface Book retains its classic ports. Unlike the MacBook Pro’s crazy all-USB-C array, the Surface Book base has two USB-3 ports, a Mini DisplayPort and an SD card slot, plus Microsoft’s magnetic charge connector. USB-C would have been nice, too, but for pros this is probably the preferred arrangement for the present.
Google Daydream View Review
Would you believe that it’s been two years already since Google Cardboard was first introduced to the world during Google I/O 2014? The platform, which was developed by Google, provided nearly anyone and everyone with an Android-powered smartphone with the taste of virtual reality – and without having to invest such a huge sum of money in the process, something that made it accessible to a broad range of people. Fast forward now to the present, the mobile virtual reality experience is evolving with the release of Google’s next-generation headset.
The level of immersion is undeniably critical in making virtual reality believable, so it’s going to be intriguing to see how the advances with the Google Daydream View will make for a convincing argument for the segment. Mobile VR as we’ve seen thus far, has been largely static in comparison to what commercial VR systems, such as the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, have delivered for a decent time now. Let’s just cross our fingers and hope this next iteration is a leap forward – as opposed to just small step up from what we know and have.
- The Daydream VR titles available on launch day
Design
Sorry Cardboard, you were cheap and readily available to the masses, but the comfort and ergonomics weren’t there at all. Thankfully Google’s approach this time is more mindful about those two qualities, seeing that the Daydream View adopts a design that’s more agreeable to the styling of today’s clothing – rather than the monolithic, sometimes sci-fi looking designs of other headsets. In fact, its design is inspired by the clothes we wear, so to that degree, there’s a friendlier demeanor to its particular look and feel.
While we applaud Google choice for the material employed by the headset, this breathable fabric-esque material dubbed “textiles,” they missed the mark in terms of its fitting. To be fair, though, the soft fabric material feels good over the skin and surrounding area that goes over our eyes. And the uniformity it exudes is much more charming in appearance than the prototype-esque aesthetics of the Samsung Gear VR, or the crudeness of the Cardboard headset.
However, having only a single, adjustable strap that goes around our head with the Daydream View, it doesn’t seem equipped at keeping itself propped up while it’s worn. When you place the Google Pixel XL into the headset, the phone’s weightiness causes the entire thing to become front heavy – making it a nuisance because of the constant need of being propped up using our free hand. Of course, this particular design flaw could be ameliorated by simply adding another strap that would go over the head.
Sure, the decision to go with a fabric exterior is a great direction for the headset’s overall design, but when it cracks under the weight when the handset is positioned into place, it’s more of an annoyance than anything else trying to constantly adjust the straps. Nice design, but that one flaw is glaring.
Setup
Really, there’s nothing to it with the setup process of the Google Daydream View. Once the Google Pixel XL is fastened safely into place, the sensors automatically launch the Daydream app. After that, all that’s needed to complete the initial setup process is to press and hold the home button on the new controller that comes included with the headset.
We will mention, however, that Google manages to at least plan accordingly with the controller. Its diminutive size, in fact, allows it to be tucked away in the inside of the headset when it’s not being used. For what it does in the VR world, this new accessory adds to the VR experience by providing us with an expressive and intuitive way of interacting with things. Not only does it have a touch sensitive pad, as well as the usual home, back, and volume controls, it’s capable of sensing motion. Call it the secret weapon in its arsenal, it’s similar in premise to other motion sensing controllers – like the Nintendo Wii remotes, DualShock 4, and even the HTC Vive controllers.
Once the calibration is completed, we’re automatically brought to the Daydream Home portal, which is set in this forest world and it’s the area where we see all of our downloaded apps and content. Currently, though, this portal is the only way to initiate downloads for Daydream supported apps. Meaning, there’s no separate section yet in the Google Play Store to download apps – so you’re forced to use Daydream’s VR interface.
VR experience
Given that the Daydream View is still the vessel for the brains of the operation, the Google Pixel XL in our case here, its implementation doesn’t stray far from other mobile VR experiences – including Cardboard. In our time checking out the limited selection of Daydream apps and experiences, we can agree that it follows the same fundamental properties of what we’ve seen from mobile VR already. That means that it’s still a mostly static experience, one with limited range extended to looking all around us as we’re sitting or standing still.
Before we get deeper into its experience, let’s briefly talk about the two lenses in the headset that allow us to see into this virtual reality. There’s not a whole lot to complain about, especially when the handset’s Quad-HD resolution is the gold standard for mobile VR currently. Plus, the lenses have a wide enough coverage to never once make it feel narrow as we peer into them. And in our brief time using the headset, we never once felt nauseous using it, which can also be attributed to the processing power and smooth performance of the Google Pixel XL.
Going back to the overall VR experience, Daydreamstill can’t escape the static approach of current mobile VR implementations. Indeed, the addition of the motion controller does nicely to enhance the experience, but at the end of the day, we’re still confined to our space while just being able to look around. Unfortunately there’s no advancement in terms of spatial movement tracking, which obviously would involve a bit more hardware to achieve.
The controller acts as a pointer in the virtual world, and in some instances, it’s even virtualized for us to look at. From the looks of it, the motion tracking seems spot-on and responsive, as waving, tilting, and panning it are precisely tracked – so it very much works like other motion controllers. The caveat is that it’s tethered in the way that it doesn’t respond appropriately in the VR world when it’s raised above the headset. It’s a minor limitation, of course, but nonetheless one that we have to mention.
Don’t get us wrong, the motion controller absolutely enhances the mobile VR experience, but ultimately the overall experience is still very much like Cardboard and Gear VR. Therefore, its level of immersion still falls short of what’s achieved by the complex VR systems out there. For an on-the-go experience, it achieves the same result as other mobile solutions – just that it’s enhanced by the addition of the motion controller.
The games & content
We’ve been checking out a few games and experiences with the Google Daydream View, ahead of its official availability date of November 10th. It’s really tough to say after checking them out if it’s a home run for Daydream, especially when you know developers will no doubt create some cool and innovative content as time goes by. In the meantime, however, we will just say that this is just the beginning – so don’t expect anything extraordinary.
Google apps such as YouTube, Street View, Google Photos, and Play Movies all act as you’d expect, wherein they function in the same capacity to what we’ve been exposed to with mobile VR. Street View allows us to visit famous landmarks in far away places, or alternatively, visit the street where we spent the majority of our childhood. There’s nothing exorbitant with the VR experience, naturally, since it’s a static experience that lets us absorb the sights and scenery – while using the motion controller to quickly jump from one location to another. With Play Movies, it does nothing more than to replicate the big screen experience of a movie theater.
Again, we can’t stress enough about the static experiences here, which is due to the headset unable to measure spatial movement. The motion controller makes it more convenient with interacting with things in the VR world, such as pointing at dots to jump from one area to another in Street View. Despite its addition, it’s not doing a whole lot to move forward the experience – still, it’s better than having to press on some button on the headset, or something like that.
Moving onto the games, they make better use of the motion controller. Games like Wonderglade, makes it necessary to use the controller to play many of the mini games there. For example, it’s used to act as a firehose to douse flames, it becomes a golf club in mini golf, and even show off its motion tracking by tilting it in all sorts of ways to guide a ball through a maze. Wonderglade, by far, best showcases the potential of the motion controller’s implementation in the VR world.
Other games we’ve checked out also make use of the motion controller. In Mekorama, we use the motion controller to help guide out tiny robot friend through these puzzles by pointing it where to go, moving blocks with the motion controller to gain access to new levels, and much more. Endless shooters are being transformed as well with the Daydream View’s implementation. Hunters Gate in particular, utilizes the controller’s touchpad to navigate our player in the map, while using the controller at the same time to target enemies.
These games do a better job of showing how valuable the motion controller is with the overall experience. It’s a small tease so far, so we’re itching to see how other games and experiences try to innovate the overall VR experience.
Conclusion
Cardboard is so beloved not only because it exposed a vast majority of smartphone owners to virtual reality, for the very first time even, but also because of the minimum investment cost coming from users. With the Daydream View, of course, its new motion controller and breathable fabric design means there’s a significant cost attached to it over its Cardboard brethren. At first glance, the Daydream View’s cost of $79 might seem alarming, but it actually undercuts the competition – making for a presentable solution that’s priced effectively.
The bigger question we need to ask, though, is whether or not these new implementations add any value to the overall experience. Early on, it doesn’t seem likely, as we feel that only one game really manages to harness the power of the new motion controller. Then again, things might very well change rapidly once the headset launches and developers can go on to tinker with it more, fine-tune things, and eventually come up with some ingenious ways this system can really sell virtual reality to the masses.
One of the most pressing things, however, is just the continued static approach – something that hasn’t changed at all. The missing piece here is spatial tracking, something that has been the defining, also differentiating factor that separates mobile VR from the full-blown experience we see in things like the Sony PlayStation VR, HTC Vive, and Oculus Rift. We’re hesitant to recommend picking up the Google Daydream View right now, mainly because it’s only a small step forward from what we’ve seen in the mobile VR space over the course of the last couple of years. Then again, if you have a Pixel, it’s only $79 and so you’re not exactly investing a ton of money for the chance to dive a bit deeper with VR than you could with Cardboard.
Google’s Daydream View VR headset is promising, but just a start
It was only a matter of time until Google moved on from Cardboard and started taking virtual reality seriously. Say hello to the Daydream View, the company’s first mobile VR headset. Much like Samsung’s Gear VR, it’s powered by Android. But the big difference is that this $79 headset will work across a wide variety of Android phones that support Google’s Daydream platform; it won’t just be stuck on Samsung’s hardware. It also stands out from the competition with a more comfortable design made from cloth instead of plastic. There’s a lot riding on this headset and Daydream in general, but can Google really compete with VR companies that have been developing hardware for years? For the most part, it turns out it can.
Hardware
There are so many mobile VR headsets out there now that they’re starting to feel a bit boring. The Gear VR, built by Samsung in collaboration with Oculus, set the stage with its original design. It turns out when you’re doing mobile VR, you really just need a comfortable way to hold the phone to your face and some decent lenses to refocus the screen. The Daydream View changes up the formula a bit, though, with its soft cloth-covered case. That might seem a bit odd at first, but it makes a lot of sense. VR headsets are basically wearables, and fabric simply feels more comfortable than plastic. (We saw something similar with the PlayStation VR, which uses a soft cloth material around its eyepiece.)
Hooking up a phone to the Daydream View is also simpler than any other headset I’ve seen. You just need to open up the front latch, drop the phone in with the screen facing the lenses and then close up everything and secure it with an elastic band on the top. It might look a bit clunky, but it’s fairly secure. After that, tighten the headband, slip the Daydream View over your head, and readjust as necessary. Instead of using velcro straps, Google’s headset relies on a band that’s more like a messenger bag strap. It’s fairly comfortable, but adjusting it is a bit tougher than simply dealing with velcro.
Keeping the theme of comfort going, the eyepiece is also made out of a soft and cushiony material. Best of all, you can actually remove the eyepiece for hand washing. Which is a good thing: Based on my experiences with other headsets, you can bet it’s going to get sweaty and grimy quickly. Since it’s relying on fabric on top of a plastic frame, the Daydream View comes in at a feather-light 220 grams (0.48 pounds). The Gear VR, on the other hand, weighs 345 grams (0.76 pounds).
Another way Google aims to differentiate itself is with the Daydream View’s motion controller. Like a vastly simplified version of HTC’s and Oculus’s remotes, you use it to navigate around Daydream’s interface, play games and interact with apps. The motion tracking is generally pretty accurate, though I noticed some issues as its battery life drained down. The remote’s simple layout — touchpad on top, an app-specific button in the middle, a home button on the bottom, and volume controls on the sides — also make it easy to use while your eyes are covered. It charges over USB-C too, which is a nice touch since your Daydream device will likely charge that way as well.
Speaking of compatible phones, for now you can choose from Google’s Pixel or Pixel XL to power the Daydream View. Other manufacturers are currently working on their own entries, though there’s nothing you can actually buy yet. Google says Daydream phones will generally offer high-resolution displays (you can bet they’ll likely be AMOLED, since that works best for VR); “high-fidelity sensors” for head tracking; and “ultra smooth” graphics. You’ll also want to pay attention to resolution differences between Daydream devices. The Pixel XL has a 1,440p (2K) display, for example, while the smaller Pixel has a less impressive 1080p display. In general, the more pixels you can stuff into a screen the sharper your VR experience will be.
In use
I tested the Daydream View with the Pixel XL, likely because Google wanted to show off its VR headset in the best possible light. Since the XL is such a large phone though, it sticks out a bit when it’s attached to the Daydream View. It still fit just fine, but the setup looks a bit unpolished. (Then again, the Gear VR looks even worse with a phone plugged in.) On the bright side, the Daydream View’s single elastic band did a fine job of holding the Pixel XL in place, even when I shook the headset like crazy.
Once you launch the Daydream app and slap the phone into a headset, you’re presented with a fairly typical home screen. It features recently used apps and your own shortcuts up front, and a button on the bottom of the screen leads to your entire library. At launch, Google has a handful of its own VR apps to explore: With YouTube VR, you can view normal videos on a flat or curved plane, or dive right into immersive 360-degree videos. Street View lets you take virtual strolls around famous locations. And Play Movies allows you to you use the Daydream View like your own personal home theater. Third-party apps include the Wall Street Journal, Star Chart VR and games like Mekorama and Hunter’s Gate.
Quality-wise, VR experiences in Google’s headset look and feel just as good as the Gear VR. I had a blast sifting through 360-degree YouTube videos. And I’m pretty sure Mekorama could end up becoming a killer app for the platform. It tasks you with moving a robot around a small 3D space (similar to the hit mobile game Monument Valley), but being able to play it in virtual reality makes it truly addictive. The Wall Street Journal’s app places you in an expensive Midtown NYC apartment, where you can explore its VR content, watch videos, and, for some reason, read articles. (I’ll save words for my boring old non-VR screens, thank you very much.)
As with most VR headsets, games looked better than interactive videos, with sharp graphics and no noticeable slowdown in the apps I tested. Videos looked fine, but they’re still mostly held back by the lack of high-quality VR cameras on the market. And while I’m sure some people will enjoy watching traditional 2D videos in VR, that’s something I only find valuable when I’m stuck in a boring hotel room. The Pixel XL also warmed up quite a bit after my virtual reality sessions, so you should definitely keep battery life in mind. (In general, it burned through around 20 percent of battery life for every hour I played.)
The competition
If it isn’t abundantly clear by now, Daydream View is going squarely against the $100 Gear VR. I’m still a big fan of that headset, and if you’re a Samsung phone owner, it’s your only option. But moving forward, the mobile VR landscape is going to get more complicated. If you want the freedom to chose between different phones, rather than just Samsung’s, then you’re better off investing in the Daydream ecosystem.
Daydream’s big problem at the moment is its small selection of apps. There simply isn’t that much available on Google Play for the platform yet. Google says that’s going to change by year’s end, though, with the addition of Netflix, Hulu, and the New York Times, along with plenty of other apps. This is one area where the Gear VR has a big head start, since it’s been around for years and has a lot of content help from Oculus and Facebook. Still, Google is flexing its brand muscle a bit; it already has an exclusive VR experience for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the upcoming film set in the Harry Potter universe.
Wrap-up
While the Daydream View doesn’t completely reinvent mobile VR, it’s a solid first step for Google. It’s ideal for testing the waters of virtual reality without being locked into Samsung’s ecosystem. But its success depends on more Daydream phones being released, consumers being willing to pay for a headset and developers jumping on the platform.
Surface Book review (2016): The laptop to beat doesn’t come cheap
Last year, when Microsoft introduced its first-ever laptop, the Surface Book, the company proclaimed that this was the “ultimate laptop.” And it was — mostly. This two-in-one notebook offered long battery life, with a distinctive, well-constructed case, a comfortable keyboard, fast performance and a detachable display that worked well as a standalone pen tablet. Starting today, the company is shipping a refreshed version, and it’s mostly more of the same. The biggest changes are under the hood, with Microsoft claiming twice the graphics performance, a second fan and a larger battery, rated for either 12 or 16 hours, depending on the configuration. It’s more of a good thing, but do you need that kind of horsepower enough to spend $2,399 and up on one of these newer models?
Hardware
Like so many other second-generation devices, the refreshed Surface Book isn’t so much a “new product” as a refinement of the original that came before it. In this case, the exterior design is identical to the original, with none of the improvements visible to the naked eye. That’s both a good and a bad thing. To its credit, the Surface Book was always a striking piece of machinery, with its solidly built magnesium case, backlit keyboard and snake-like “fulcrum” hinge. Two generations in, I maintain that the chunky hinge doesn’t offer much of a functional advantage over conventional hinges — in fact, it makes the machine look fatter when shut. But it sure is pretty.
As ever, there’s a button on the function row, right next to the Delete key, that allows you to detach the screen from the keyboard base. From there you can use it as a tablet, or reattach the display facing outward and then fold it back to use as a sort of tabletop surface. Pressing the button to release the display still makes for a neat party trick, though lining up the docking guides when it’s time to reattach it to the base can feel slightly clumsy.
Indeed, I’ve wondered at times why Microsoft didn’t just rip Lenovo’s “Yoga” design and go with a 360-degree hinge that allows the screen to flip back into tablet mode. But the answer is obvious: At 3.34 pounds, the Surface Book and dock would make for one heavy tablet. Meanwhile, as it stands, the tablet portion weighs a scant 1.6 pounds, and that’s despite having a 13.5-inch screen and Core i7 processor inside. If you’re going to use a Windows PC in tablet mode, then, it may as well be like this.
But back to the total weight for a minute: The Surface Book feels heavier than I remember. That’s because it is — the second-gen model comes in at 3.68 pounds, up from 3.34 pounds on the original, and a good deal more than, say, the new three-pound MacBook Pro 13. As it turns out, I can forgive the weight, largely because the battery life is so phenomenal (much more on that in a moment).
Also, getting to test the new MacBook Pro recently has reaffirmed my preference for laptops with actual ports (i.e., ones I can use without an adapter). Whereas the MacBook Pro offers just two or four USB Type-C connections (depending on the configuration), the Surface Book still rocks two full-size USB 3.0 sockets, a Mini DisplayPort, a headphone jack and a full-size SDXC reader. If having a thicker, heavier machine means getting all the ports I need, along with potentially twice the battery life, I’m all in.
I’d also like to point out the proprietary magnetic power connector — the same one used on the last-gen Surface Book, as well as the last couple of Surface Pro tablets. I don’t like how much space the corresponding plug takes up, and I often find that it doesn’t stay put the first time I try to click it in. Also, the accompanying power brick is kind of heavy, but at least you can consider leaving it at home, what with the 16-hour battery life and all.
Finishing up our tour, there’s an 8-megapixel camera around back and a 5-megapixel one up front that supports Windows Hello facial recognition. More on that later.
In use
While I can manage the weight, however, I wish Microsoft would do something about the weight distribution. Though most of the weight is inside the keyboard dock, the 3:2-aspect-ratio screen is taller than most, which makes the machine feel slightly top-heavy when I rest it on my legs. Compounding matters, the touchscreen wobbles when poked. Rest assured, the notebook didn’t once tumble off my lap, but the base didn’t always feel as steady as I would have liked. One way to deal with this was to dip the display slightly forward, but that’s not my favorite screen position. The best angle for my eyes is the one where I push the panel back as far as possible, though this exacerbates the wobbliness. Womp, womp.
On the flip side, that 3:2 aspect ratio makes for a better standalone tablet experience. Indeed, Microsoft has designed its last few generations of Surface Pro and Surface Book devices with 3:2 screens precisely so that they’d have the same shape as a pad of paper. As ever, the pen comes included in the box and recognizes 1,024 levels of pressure sensitivity, even faint drags across the display. The pen has an eraser on top too, similar to a real No. 2 pencil. When you’re done, the pen attaches magnetically to the laptop’s right side.
Whether or not you decide to draw, and regardless of whether you’re using it in tablet or notebook mode, the Surface Book’s screen is lovely. That’s partly a matter of pixels — its 3,000 x 2,000 resolution translates to a pixel density of 267 ppi, which is slightly crisper than the 13-inch MacBook Pro’s Retina display. Beyond that, though, it’s just pretty to look at, with good contrast, pleasant white balance and a color gamut that covers the full sRGB spectrum. Just as important, that color and white balance holds up even when you adjust the screen angle (read: no washout here).
I’m a bit less impressed with the speakers: Though they’re loud, the sound quality is fairly forgettable. Passable for Spotify streaming, but not the best laptop audio I’ve enjoyed either.
To end this hardware section on a positive note, the keyboard and trackpad are the same as on last year’s model, and that is A-OK with me. At a time when Apple is going out of its way to make all of its keyboards shallower, the Surface Book’s cushy buttons feel refreshing. Not only did I type most of this review on it, but I also carried on with my normal workload, editing reviews, pounding out emails and so on. As before, though, my one complaint is that when I “pound” out said emails, I wish the keys would make less noise.
As for the trackpad, I happened to be testing the Surface Book at the same time as the newly updated HP Spectre x360, and the difference was stark. While HP’s touchpad is jumpy and occasionally unreliable, the Surface Book’s trackpad (made by Microsoft itself!) pretty much always does what I want it to, whether it’s drag the cursor across the screen, highlight text, scroll with two fingers or pinch to zoom.
Performance and battery life
Battery life
Surface Book with Perfomance Base (2016)
16:15
Surface Book (Core i5, integrated graphics)
13:54 / 3:20 (tablet only)
Surface Book (Core i7, discrete graphics)
11:31 / 3:02 (tablet only)
Apple MacBook Pro with Retina display (13-inch, 2015)
11:23
iPad Pro (12.9-inch, 2015)
10:47
HP Spectre x360 15t
10:17
HP Spectre x360 (13-inch, 2016)
10:03
ASUS ZenBook 3
9:45
Apple MacBook (2016)
8:45
Samsung Notebook 9
8:16
Dell XPS 13 (2015)
7:36
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
7:15
HP Spectre 13
7:07
Huawei MateBook
6:35
Dell XPS 15 (2016)
5:25 (7:40 with the mobile charger)
Make that “battery life and performance.” That’s right: I can’t wait to tell you guys about the long runtime here. Microsoft rates the new Surface Book’s battery for up to 16 hours of video playback. Though some other companies are sometimes guilty of embellishing, I have to say, Microsoft’s estimate here is on the nose. In my own test, in which I looped a video with the screen brightness fixed at 65 percent, the machine lasted a stunning 16 hours and 15 minutes. Just how long is that? Long enough for me to start the battery life test before going to bed on a Friday night and finding it still kicking when I woke up — and awake still when I returned from brunch later that afternoon.
To be clear, there’s barely anything else like this on the market. (I can remember a few machines that were advertised as having something like 20-hour battery life, but these all required a bolt-on slice battery and were aimed at corporate customers anyway.) If you’re shopping around, you’ll see Apple’s newest MacBook Pros have a rated battery life of 10 hours, not 16, and even then, I’m seeing around eight hours on the entry-level model I’ve been testing these past couple of weeks (full review coming soon). Even last year’s Surface Book had much “shorter” battery life, achieving 11 and a half hours with discrete graphics under the same testing conditions.
Just keep in mind that most of the Surface Book’s battery power is located in its keyboard base, which means you won’t get nearly the same mileage in tablet-only mode. With the keyboard detached, the machine lasted precisely four hours in the same video playback test. That’s an improvement over the first-gen Surface Book, which lasted between three and three and a half hours in tablet mode, depending on the processor. Obviously, you still shouldn’t expect to make it through a full workday without the keyboard base, but you should be able to watch a movie and still have some power left to spare.
| Surface Book (2016, 2.6GHz Core i7-6600U, 2GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M) | 5,452 | 4,041 | E8,083 / P5,980 / X2,228 | 11,362 | 1.71 GB/s / 1.26 GB/s |
| HP Spectre x360 (2016, 2.7GHz Core i7-7500U, Intel HD Graphics 620) | 5,515 | 4,354 | E2,656 / P1,720 / X444 | 3,743 | 1.76 GB/s / 579 MB/s |
| Surface Book (2.4GHz Core i5-6300U, Intel HD 520) | 5,412 | 3,610 |
E2,758 / P1,578 / X429 |
3,623 | 1.6 GB/s / 571 MB/s |
| Surface Book (2.6GHz Core i7-6600U, 1GB NVIDIA GeForce graphics) | 5,740 | 3,850 |
E4,122 / P2,696 |
6,191 | 1.55 GB/s / 608 MB/s |
| ASUS ZenBook 3 (2.7GHz Intel Core-i7-7500U, Intel HD 620) | 5,448 | 3,911 | E2,791 / P1,560 | 3,013 | 1.67 GB/s / 1.44 GB/s |
| HP Spectre 13 (2.5GHz Intel Core i7-6500U, Intel HD 520) | 5,046 | 3,747 | E2,790 / P1,630 / X375 | 3,810 | 1.61 GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Dell XPS 13 (2.3GHz Core i5-6200U, Intel Graphics 520) | 4,954 | 3,499 | E2,610 / P1,531 | 3,335 | 1.6GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Razer Blade Stealth (2.5GHz Intel Core i7-6500U, Intel HD 520) | 5,131 | 3,445 | E2,788 / P1,599 / X426 | 3,442 | 1.5 GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (2.4GHz Core i5-6300U, Intel HD 520) | 5,403 | 3,602 |
E2,697/ P1,556/ X422 |
3,614 | 1.6 GB/s / 529 MB/s |
As I said, I tested the best configuration of the Surface Book that Microsoft has to offer: a $3,299 beast of a machine with a 2.6GHz dual-core i7-6600U processor, 16GB of RAM, a 2GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M GPU and 1TB solid-state drive. As you’d expect, the benchmark scores are very, very good. I’ve listed them above.
In particular, the Samsung-made disk drive was quick to copy files off a USB drive, but hard numbers might be more helpful to you there. In the ATTO test, I logged average max read speeds of 1.71 gigabytes per second, with writes topping out an average of 1.26 GB/s. That is hard, though not impossible, to find on a notebook these days — especially those write rates.
The Surface Book proved itself to be a fairly capable gaming machine too, thanks to its dedicated NVIDIA GeForce 965M graphics card. In Overwatch, senior editor and avid gamer Devindra saw speeds between 60 and 75 frames per second with medium-quality settings. Bumping up the resolution to 1,280 x 1,024, which suits the Surface Book’s screen size a bit better, dropped things down to around 45 frames per second. That’s playable, but not as silky smooth as 720p.
Unfortunately, Devindra couldn’t get the new Hitman title to get speeds beyond 5 fps via Steam, even at 720p. There’s likely some sort of driver issue causing that, and I’m hoping that Microsoft makes sure to give gamers access to the latest NVIDIA drivers. I couldn’t install the appropriate GeForce drivers from NVIDIA’s website, which makes me think there’s something special about the Surface Book’s configuration.
Throughout, the laptop mostly stayed cool. In fact, I sat for hours with it in my lap while I wrote this review. The only time I felt it heat up was when running graphics benchmarks, which isn’t surprising. I should note too that, while last year’s Surface Book took a credibility hit after reports of crashing, my experience was stable throughout. Here’s hoping you never see the ol’ Blue Screen of Death either.
In day-to-day use, the above specs were more than enough to keep up with my daily routine, which involves over a dozen open Chrome tabs, work in Google Docs and Sheets, Slack running in the background, and a near continuous stream of music from the Spotify desktop app. Boot-up was brisk too — it took about nine seconds to get to the Windows Hello screen, and around three for the machine to approve me and let me in.
Speaking of the sort, that front-facing 5-megapixel camera generally did a good job recognizing me, though it failed just about every time I happened to have eyeglasses on. Assuming I was wearing contacts, however, and remembered to look at the camera, not the blank screen in front of me, the Surface Book was quick to recognize me. When it didn’t, I entered a PIN code, which is still more convenient than entering a password.
Configuration options
As of this writing, the last-gen Surface Book is still listed on Microsoft’s online store, starting at $1,499 with a Core i5 processor, 8GB of RAM and 128GB of storage. Just so you know, that was the same starting price a year ago, so spending that kind of money for an already outdated machine might not be the smartest move.
To get one of the brand-new configurations, you’ll have to pay a lot more: at least $2,399. For that price, you get a Core i7 processor, 8GB of RAM and a 128GB solid-state drive. For $2,799, you can double both the storage and the memory, and get a 512GB drive paired with 16GB of RAM. Lastly, there’s the top-of-the-line edition that I tested, which steps up to a full terabyte of storage. That costs $3,299.
The competition
Obviously, the Surface Book is competing with the MacBook Pro. And that’s not just because I keep saying so in this review — Microsoft has a “Compare to Mac” page on its online store, and Apple went out of its way to unveil its new MacBook Pros the day after the Surface Book launch, which I don’t think was a coincidence.
I’ve already addressed some of the tradeoffs of the Surface Book vs. MacBook Pro, but to summarize: The Surface Book is considerably heavier but offers much longer battery life and a wider array of ports (including full-size ones) and is available with discrete graphics, which the 13-inch MacBook Pro is not. (Only the 15-inch model has a dedicated GPU.) The MacBook Pro is thinner and lighter, has better audio and has a lower starting price of $1,299 with key specs similar to what you’d get on the entry-level $1,499 Surface Book. In any case, I’ll soon have a review of both MacBook Pros, at which point I’ll be able to bring this comparison full circle.
Other than the MacBook Pro, it’s hard to find something that competes with the Surface Book quite as directly. Dell has its high-end (and well-reviewed) XPS line, but only the 15-inch model ($1,000-plus) has discrete graphics. The XPS 13 ($800 and up) remains one of Engadget’s favorite laptops, but we only recommend it for people who can settle for integrated Intel graphics. It’s a similar story with HP, whose 13-inch Spectre x360 is one of our favorite laptops but doesn’t offer the kind of horsepower you can find in the Surface Book. ASUS’s ZenBook Pro UX501VW has discrete graphics, but its 15-inch form factor means it weighs a lot more: 4.54 pounds, to be precise.
Wrap-up
The new Surface Book is but a minor upgrade over the original, but that’s still enough to help it hold its rank as one of the best laptops available. Yes, there are some purpose-built notebooks that are still better at certain things: gaming PCs that are better at gaming, and ultraportables that are better at … being portable.
But taken as a whole, the Surface Book continues to offer a remarkable all-around experience, ticking off not all, but many, boxes for many shoppers. That includes fast performance, premium design, long battery life, a great screen, a comfortable keyboard, a relatively decent selection of ports and even a smooth trackpad. Yes, you will pay for the privilege of using it, but there also isn’t anything else quite like it.
Devindra Hardawar and Aaron Souppouris contributed to this review
Beats Solo3 Wireless review – CNET
The Good The Beats Solo3 Wireless is a well-built wireless headphone that sounds good in both wireless and wired modes and is relatively comfortable to wear for an on-ear headphone. Its battery life is best-in-class (40 hours) and has a remote control built-in to the right earcup that’s easy to operate by feel. The new W1 chip makes it supersimple to pair with Apple devices.
The Bad It’s expensive, and doesn’t sound quite as good as other wireless headphones that cost $300.
The Bottom Line Beats has taken the same headphone that so many people know and love and improved its battery life dramatically, but the price is still too high.
Beats’ Solo3 Wireless on-ear Bluetooth headphone ($300/£250/AU$400) looks nearly identical to the Beats Solo 2 Wireless because — on the outside at least — Beats hasn’t updated its design. The big change is on the inside: The Solo3 uses Apple’s new W1 custom Bluetooth chip, which improves battery life drastically and makes pairing the headphone with Apple devices dead simple.
The headphone works just fine with Android and other Bluetooth-enabled devices and the battery life rating is the same for iOS and Android — a whopping 40 hours. That’s a huge jump over the 12 hours that the Beats Solo2 Wireless is rated at and this has the best battery life of any Bluetooth headphone I’ve tested so far (I used it for a week without recharging). It also features Beats’ Fast Fuel feature, which gives you 3 hours of battery life from a 5-minute charge.
The Solo3 Wireless in silver.
Sarah Tew/CNET
However, unlike the new BeatsX, which uses a Lightning cable for charging, this model sticks with a Micro-USB charging cable.
On the plus side, my wireless connection using the headphone was rock-solid and the W1 chip makes it easy to switch between Apple devices you’ve paired the headphones to. Overall, the headphone performs very well, and I’ve always liked its compact size and how it folds up to fit into a relatively small carrying case (yes, that carrying case is included).
For better or worse, Beats hasn’t upgraded the sound. The Solo3 Wireless sounds very good for an on-ear Bluetooth headphone and will appeal to bass lovers who prefer a sound profile that accentuates the bass but manages to avoid being too boomy. However, it doesn’t sound quite as clean as Beats’ more balanced Studio Wireless over-ear model, which has come down in price and I find more comfortable (the Beats Solo3 Wireless offers a very snug fit — the headphones do stay securely on your head, even while running — they end up pressing down on your ears somewhat firmly).
This is a headphone that’s designed to be worn outdoors, and the extra bass did come in handy when I was walking the streets of New York and was competing with a lot of ambient noise, including the subway when I went underground. The headphones passively seal out a good amount of sound, but some ambient noise does leak in and the extra bass doesn’t sound as accentuated outside (you really hear it in quiet rooms, however) and the headphones comes across as a little more balanced.
Sony XBR-X850D series review – CNET
The Good The Sony XBR-X850D offers cutting-edge 4K HDR features, accurate color and solid video processing. Its minimalist design looks understated yet futuristic. Android TV’s large app selection means you might not need an external streamer.
The Bad Worse contrast and overall image quality than many competitors we’ve tested.
The Bottom Line The midpriced Sony XBR-X850D gets the features, style and smart parts right, but falls short where it really counts: picture performance.
The name Sony is synonymous with high-performance televisions, but the X850D series isn’t one of them. Compared to its peers from Vizio and Samsung in side-by-side comparisons, this relatively affordable bearer of the company’s “XBR” moniker fell well short, with worse contrast and impact overall.
In my book contrast is the most important aspect of image quality, and image quality for the price is the most important factor in choosing a TV. If you judge it by other factors, however, the X850D brings a lot to the table. Its features include 4K resolution and high dynamic range (HDR); its sleek, minimal design goes with pretty much any decor; and its Android-based smart TV system is one of the best — good enough that you probably won’t need to connect an external streaming box.
Sony XBR-X850D series
See full gallery
1 – 5 of 22
Next
Prev
If that stuff, along with the cachet of the Sony name, are enough for you, then the X850D could be a worthy choice. But in my book there are plenty of better choices, including the slightly more expensive Samsung UN65KS8000 and the cheaper Vizio M series, both of which beat this XBR’s picture. If you want a TV that truly lives up to the Sony pedigree, you’ll have to pay extra for a model like the X930D or something even more expensive.
Series information: I performed a hands-on evaluation of the 65-inch Sony XBR-65X850D, but this review also applies to the other screen sizes in the series. All sizes have identical specs and, according to the manufacturer, should provide very similar picture quality.
View full gallery Sarah Tew/CNET
Design: Thin and sleek
This is one sharp-looking television. Its thin frame is flat black and all sharp angles, classy understatement ruling the look. Seen from the side the TV is even more impressive, almost as razor-slim as the X930D — the 65-inch size measures 1.73 inches deep at its thickest point and 7/16-inch at the thinnest.
Like other Sonys this year the edge is banded with a thin metallic strip, chrome in this case rather than the higher-end sets’ gold, providing the only bright spot beyond the blue power LED under the logo.
The silver stand base angles up for an unusual and attractive alternative to the staid pedestal. I much prefer a single central stand to the splayed-leg designs on some other sets.
View full gallery Sarah Tew/CNET
I like the remote a lot, although it’s more traditional than some competing clickers. Instead of separate buttons, the entire face is rubberized with raised sections that correspond to buttons. They’re pleasantly tactile, a feel reinforced by the rounded sides and Sony’s typically excellent arrangement and differentiation. Downsides include relatively hefty size, numerous buttons, lack of backlighting, and a big Google Play shortcut key that pales in usefulness next to the Netflix key.
The new clicker also has a prominent voice search button up top that doesn’t require you to aim at the TV to work. That’s smart, because most people will hold the top of the remote up to their mouths to speak into the mic, screwing with that aim. Unlike most voice remotes, however, you do have to aim it to perform any other function, from power to volume to the Home button. You also have to manually activate the mic button using the TV’s setup menu, an annoying extra step that seems like classic Android (that is, needlessly complex).
View full gallery Sarah Tew/CNET
Android TV brings on the apps
Sony’s sets run Google’s smart TV system, and it beats the home-brew solutions from Samsung and LG (if not Roku TV) in the most important area: app coverage.
Unlike external Android TV boxes such as the Nvidia Shield and Xiaomi Mi Box, Sony TVs have an Amazon Video app, complete with its substantial library of 4K and HDR content. So does the X850D’s Netflix app. The TV also comes with Sony’s own Ultra app — the latter offering 4K and HDR movies by Sony Pictures on a purchase-only basis (typically $26-$30 each). There’s a Vudu app (as of press time it hadn’t been updated to support 4K or HDR), an UltraFlix app with some niche 4K content and, of course, 4K support on the YouTube app.
Other apps abound, from PlayStation Vue to CNNGo to HBO Now to Plex to PBS Kids to Sling TV to Watch ESPN to CBS All Access to MLB.TV to Spotify, and of course numerous lesser apps and games are available via the Google Play Store (don’t get too excited, it’s specific to Android TV, and much less extensive than the one on your phone). Speaking of phones, many more apps can be cast to the Sony via its built-in Google Cast functionality, which works exactly like a Chromecast. And speaking of speaking, voice search using the remote works very well to find stuff.
View full gallery Sarah Tew/CNET
While it may lack Samsung’s cool universal remote control feature or LG’s motion remote control, Android TV on Sony is better than either of them overall thanks to its variety of apps, Along with Roku TV it’s the one system that’s so good, you probably won’t need to connect an external streamer.
Key features
| LED LCD |
| Edge-lit |
| 4K |
| HDR10 |
| Flat/Curved |
| Android TV |
| Standard |
| No |
The one feature that consistently improved LCD TV image quality the most, local dimming, is absent from the X850D. In theory such an absence leads to lighter black levels and less contrast, and in practice that’s exactly what we found. The more expensive X930D, which has significantly better image quality than this TV, does have local dimming.
The set supports HDR (high dynamic range) content in HDR10 format only; it lacks the Dolby Vision HDR support found on Vizio and LG’s 2016 HDR TVs. It’s still too early to determine whether one HDR format is “better” than the other, and I definitely don’t consider lack of Dolby Vision a deal breaker on this TV; instead it’s just one more factor to consider. Check out my article on the HDR format war for more.
Other image quality specifications are suitably high-end. The TV uses Sony’s Triluminos wide color gamut technology for more realistic colors, and has its MotionFlow XR 960 processing and a 120Hz native panel. Unlike the X930D, the X850D does not support 3D.
Plenty of connectivity
- 4x HDMI inputs with HDMI 2.0a, HDCP 2.2
- 1x component video input (another shared with component)
- 1x composite video input
- 3x USB ports
- Ethernet (LAN) port
- Optical digital audio output
- Stereo audio output (minijack)
- RF (antenna) input
View full gallery Sarah Tew/CNET
Sony’s input selection is solid, including four state-of-the-art HDMI inputs (all are HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2) and a good selection of other jacks.
Picture quality
Given how well the Sony XBR-X930D performed, and Sony’s claims of improvement over last year’s XBR-X850C, I expected more from the X850D. I didn’t get it.
The TV’s image quality has some strengths, including accurate color and solid video processing, but it simply can’t compete against other comparable sets from Samsung and Vizio. Its black levels and contrast are poor, washing out both standard and high dynamic range material, and its uneven uniformity causes noticeable bright spots across the screen.
Click the image at the right to see the picture settings used in the review and to read more about how this TV’s picture controls worked during calibration.
AIVAnet 