Conclusion & End Remarks

As we’re coming to the end of this partial review – preview for the time being, I just can’t help but to ask myself “why?”. Qualcomm’s recent marketing push for Snapdragon Insiders made somewhat of a sense as a social media push, however the Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders here is actually a hardware and product push. That’s an entirely different category of marketing, where when not executed or not done well, can actually backfire.

So, what is the SSI? In essence, it’s a crippled variant of the ROG Phone 5. Let’s break that down:

Things that don’t change is the display. The 6.78” AMOLED is essentially identical to that of the ROG Phone 5, from the panel up to the front glass of the phone, even up to the point of it still having a bottom front firing speaker indent even though this phone doesn’t actually have front firing speakers on both sides. The display was generally still adequate on the ROG 5, but that was a device at a $999 price point. For the $1499 SSI, it’s a rather lacklustre showing.

Performance of the phone is excellent, especially when it comes system performance, where the phone is likely the fastest Android device on the market. When it comes to GPU performance, having this as a Qualcomm Snapdragon branded phone with the Snapdragon 888 SoC at the core was a risky endeavour – either the phone would blow everything else out of the water, or it would fail to differentiate itself. The SSI ended up with the later scenario, unless you consider 59°C peak skin temperatures as a differentiation.

The single worst aspect of the SSI is its battery life. Although, yes, the phone is 29g lighter than the ROG Phone 5, it essentially comes at a +40% battery life hit, as the very aggressive performance settings and the downgrade from 6000mAh to 4000mAh causes it to fall from being one of the longest lasting devices on the market, to one of the worst battery life characteristics of any recent phone. This alone should be a complete disqualifier for the SSI versus the ROG Phone 5.

Qualcomm is making big promises on the camera department – however due to us not having access to that latest firmware update, this is an aspect of the phone that still remains an open question. Supposedly once this article goes live, DXOMark will publish their evaluation of the SSI with a very high score – if things indeed pan out for the device, then that would at least be a silver lining to an overall unbalanced package.

The $299 value ANC earphones included in the $1499 needed to be outstanding to be able to rationalise the whole cost of the overall package. Unfortunately, adequate ANC and mediocre audio quality was what we got. To add insult to injury, the SSI also drops the 3.5mm headphone jack which provides excellent audio quality on the cheaper ROG Phone 5.

Overall, the Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders is a project that should not have been greenlit, and should not have gone to market. The very aspects of the ROG Phone 5 which make it an attractive option, such as outstanding battery life, the whole gaming accessory ecosystem, and the 3.5mm headphone jack, are things that are not present on the SSI. While the camera remains to be seen, the phone essentially does nothing better than the ROG Phone 5 – and that’s bad for Qualcomm’s first hardware attempt, as it diminishes the Snapdragon brand, and it’s bad for ASUS, for them ever actually agreeing to design such a device and diluting their smartphone line-up.

My initial reactions, impression, and resulting concerns, unfortunately came true, and it’s simply a device that makes no sense, and has absolutely no place in the market.

 

Audio Quality - 3.5mm vs TWS Argument
Comments Locked

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Phones don't have true zooms, the 3x is in reference to the the 27mm equivalent main module. The telephoto is 80mm, anything beyond is crop magnification.
  • Arbie - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    One important use for my phone is audiobooks. No headphone jack means no sale - even at $500 more...
  • xTRICKYxx - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Same here!
  • flyingpants265 - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    Removing the headphone jack is a very obvious tactic to push people towards wireless headphones, which are worse in every way. More expensive, limited battery life, even inferior quality. I would be willing to accept that crap if they had unlimited battery life, but they don't. They should have tiny swappable battery cells that you can slide inside the phone to charge them (like the Note Stylus). I am not carrying some separate box and waiting for those things to charge, that is completely crazy.
  • 29a - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    Removing the headphone jack is a way to make the phone more waterproof.
  • s.yu - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    No it is not. Sonys are regularly waterproof and still have the jack.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    We've had the S7 to S10 all with 3.5mm and IP68.
  • drajitshnew - Wednesday, August 18, 2021 - link

    Galaxy S5 was also waterproof with a headphone jack AND a removable battery.
  • wr3zzz - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    You forgot to include that TWS has a hard planned obsolescence of recharge cycles. A $300 TWS is guaranteed to die after 3-4 years while a $300 wired headphone that sounds 10x better could last decades.
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Somehow they managed to charge more than Apple. Impressive.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now