It's Google Pixel time! After a flurry of news and opinions on the new iPhones, we have leaks of the Pixel phones launching on 4 October. This morning Droid Life reported that it has obtained the images of Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL.

From the looks of it both the versions have retained the design aesthetics of previous year's Google flagship phones. The pictures also suggest that the Pixel phones will not be having dual cameras this time around as well. Google seems to be playing a waiting game while almost everyone including Apple, Samsung and LG have boarded the dual camera ship. But that shouldn't hurt the sales because the last year's Pixel is still one of the best camera phones.

As per the report Pixel 2 will cost $649 for 64 GB version and $749 for 128 GB version. Pixel 2 XL will set you back $849 for 64 GB version and $949 for 128 GB version. Both phones will ship with Android's latest Oreo version.

Pixel 2 is supposedly made by HTC with edge-sense technology previously seen in HTC U11. Pixel 2 is reportedly made by LG. Both the phones would be running on Qualcomm Snapdragon 835.

Samsung оn Wednesday officially launched thе Galaxy Note 8, іn а return fоr thе South Korean smartphone major thаt recalled іtѕ Note 7 worldwide lаѕt year.This іѕ Samsung’s fіrѕt smartphone tо feature dual camera set-up аt thе rear wіth portrait mode аnd dual optical image stabilisation (OIS). It аlѕо соmеѕ wіth “Bixby” intelligent assistant, water аnd dust resistance аnd iris scanner.

Similar tо thе Galaxy S8 аnd thе Galaxy S8+, thе Note 8 аlѕо sports Infinity Display wіth аn aspect ratio оf 18.5:9. Thе 6.3-inch screen іѕ Super AMOLED wіth а resolution оf 1440 x 2960 pixels. Note 8 sports top-notch features ѕuсh аѕ 64-bit Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 octa-core chipset wіth 6GB RAM аnd 64GB internal storage. Galaxy Note 8 wіll соmе wіth 64-bit Exynos 8895 octa-core processor іn regions lіkе India аnd оthеr Asian countries.

Thе dual cameras аt thе bасk include а 12MP wide-angle lens wіth аn aperture оf f/1.7 аnd а 12MP telephoto lens wіth aperture оf f/2.4. Thе 8MP front camera аlѕо соmеѕ wіth optical image stabilisation. Thе “S Pen” stylus wіth Galaxy Note 8 соmеѕ wіth а latency оf lеѕѕ thаn 50 milliseconds.

Thе smartphone аlѕо соmеѕ wіth USB Type-C port fоr charging аnd data transfer. A 3,300mAh battery powers thе Note 8 wіth support fоr fast-charging аnd wireless fast charging.The handset аlѕо houses а microSD card slot fоr expandable storage. Connectivity options include 4G VoLTE, Bluetooth 5.0, Wi-Fi 802.11ac аnd GPS. Note 8 runs Android 7.1.1 Nougat OS wіth Samsung’s TouchWiz UI оn top.

Thе smartphone wіll bе аvаіlаblе іn Midnight Black, Orchid Gray, Deep Sea Blue аnd Maple Gold colour options. Tо regain thе customers’ trust, thе company іѕ believed tо hаvе enhanced safety checklist bу uѕіng in-house ‘8-point battery test’. Thе fiasco оvеr Samsung’s Note 7 caused thе firm operating losses оf ѕоmе $5 billion.

Dell’s XPS 13 has been one of our favorite laptops for the past couple of years because of its sleek, trendsetting design, great keyboard, and solid performance. When it debuted back in the spring of 2015, it was one of the first Windows laptops that really provided a solid alternative to Apple’s MacBook line.

Now there are a lot of great Windows 10 laptops available, many of which have cribbed the ideas first demonstrated on the XPS 13, like its compact size and almost borderless display. So while Dell is still making and selling the original, it announced a new 2-in-1 version of the XPS 13 in January to capitalize on the trend of convertible laptops.

What sets this model apart from its siblings is its ability to transform from a standard laptop to a tablet and everything in between. It’s the same concept as pioneered by Lenovo’s Yoga line and adopted by HP’s x360 line among others.

The XPS 13 2-in-1 (yes, that is the official name of the product, clumsy as it is) carries over many of the same features of the standard model, including the signature InfinityEdge display that pushes the screen to the limits of the laptop’s frame. But it slims down to a slightly thinner profile and its screen rotates a full 360 degrees. It starts at $999, which is a couple hundred dollars more than the fixed-screen version, and can be equipped much higher. I’ve been testing a $1,299 model that includes a fanless Core i7 processor, 8GB of RAM, 256GB of SSD storage, and a 1080p touchscreen display.

The question to answer is does the XPS 13 2-in-1 provide enough utility beyond the standard laptop functions to justify choosing it over the less expensive standard model? Based on my time with it, I don’t think there is much justification for its existence, and there are a few other reasons why I’m reticent to recommend this particular laptop.

The Essential Phone’s reviews might be turning out more mixed than Andy Rubin and his team would’ve wanted, but now it’s time for consumers around the US to see the Android smartphone up close. Sprint has announced that beginning tomorrow, September 14th, the Essential Phone will be available for purchase in all of its retail stores, online, and by phone.

So far, the Essential Phone’s “launch” has mostly been the company shipping out orders to customers who’ve purchased it at Essential’s website; the phone hasn’t yet formally launched at retail. Aside from Sprint, Amazon and Best Buy plan to offer the device. I’m not sure Amazon actually knows what’s going on; the listing for the black Essential Phone has gone back and forth on a firm release date and now says it “usually ships within 1 to 2 months.” Best Buy also still shows the device as “coming soon.” Hopefully this Sprint release will get things rolling for other sellers, as well.

Apple introduced three brand new iPhones yesterday. Three! They include the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, which have faster processors and better cameras than last year’s iPhone 7 — and now you can charge them wirelessly. And then there’s the iPhone X, a $1,000 smartphone that Apple is basically trying to market as a gadget from the future that arrived a little early. It’s the first iPhone ever to have an OLED screen, and even better, that stunning display basically runs edge to edge. iPhone X comes with other radical changes like the removal of the home button in favor of a new feature Apple is calling Face ID, which scans your face to unlock your iPhone instead of the traditional Touch ID method still used on the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus.

So since there are three new iPhones arriving (almost) at once, you’ve probably been putting some thought into which is the best choice. For the purpose of this article, let’s go into it from the perspective of someone dead set on buying a new iPhone within the next couple months. You’ve ruled out the Pixel 2s and Note 8s of the world and have decided on Apple. Well, where do you go from there?

The iPhone 8 is the first iPhone to support wireless charging. Apple changed up the iPhone’s looks a bit this year with a glass back instead of just making the whole thing aluminum. So you’ll be able to plop the iPhone 8 down onto any Qi-compatible wireless charger and it’ll start juicing up. Many of the places where you’d find wireless chargers (like Starbucks and inside some newer cars) already support the same Qi technology as the iPhone, so it’ll just work.
It has the same powerful A11 Bionic processor as the iPhone X. That sounds like something from a Mission: Impossible movie, but all you really need to know is that it’s the fastest chip that Apple has ever put in an iPhone — and the iPhone 7 already felt plenty fast. This new chip is also optimized for all the cool augmented reality tricks that you might’ve seen demos of. Soon, those will make their way to actual apps and games in the App Store. All recent iPhones can do AR, but Apple claims the 8 and X have been “optimized” for it.
You get the same primary camera as what’s in both the iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X. The 12-megapixel f/1.8 camera has a “larger and faster” sensor than the iPhone 7, says Apple, so if all you care about is having one good camera, this should be excellent. It’s got optical image stabilization and can record 4K video at 24, 30, or 60FPS — just like the other new phones.
The display supports Apple’s True Tone feature, which adjusts the screen’s appearance and color temperature so that it always looks pleasant and less blue / harsh to your eyes in a variety of lighting environments.
Unlike the iPhone 8 Plus, the regular iPhone 8 is still relatively easy to use in one hand. The iPhone X should be too, but it’s also hundreds of dollars more expensive.
iPhone 7 cases still fit.
Why you might not:

It’s only got the one rear camera, so you lose out on Apple’s Portrait mode and the new Portrait Lighting feature, which can change the lighting of a subject’s face in your shot.
The 4.7-inch screen is smaller and lower-res (1334x750) than the iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X. If you like things to look big on your screen and get lost in YouTube videos or your Instagram feed, the iPhone 8’s display might not be ideal.
It has the smallest battery of the three new iPhones. Apple has promised users will experience “about the same” battery life as the iPhone 7, so you might find yourself buying a battery case.

Aside from their different displays and dimensions/weight — and those are important — the iPhone 8 Plus offers pretty much every single major new feature that the pricier $1,000 iPhone X does. It’s got the processor. It’s got the wireless charging. It’s got dual cameras on the back and can do the same new Portrait Lighting effects as the iPhone X. The 5.5-inch LCD screen has True Tone.
It has the familiarity of a home button and the versatility of Touch ID. Maybe you’re not convinced the iPhone X’s gestures and virtual home bar are really an upgrade. Plus, sometimes people just want to unlock their phone without having to look directly at it.
It has the best battery life of all three new models.
iPhone 7 Plus cases still fit.
Why you might not:

This thing feels like a “Plus” phone more than ever before when compared to the all-screen competition from Samsung, LG, Essential, and now Apple’s top-tier iPhone X. Other smartphone designs are getting more efficient, but the iPhone 8 Plus remains just as unwieldy as its three predecessors.
Although the 5.5-inch 1080p LCD has superb color accuracy, it’s not going to be as vibrant or eye-catching as the iPhone X’s new OLED screen.
It’s not really all that much cheaper than the iPhone X. If you get a 256GB iPhone 8 Plus, you’re already inching very close to that $1,000 mark.

Visually, it’s Apple’s most impressive and futuristic iPhone design ever thanks to the 5.8-inch edge-to-edge OLED screen on the front and its stainless steel frame.
It’s a big screen in a small overall form factor. The iPhone X measures a bit bigger than the iPhone 8, but it’s nowhere near the dimensions of the iPhone 8 Plus. It should be fairly comfortable to use in one hand. And in that hand is pretty much all display.
The OLED screen has better contrast than the displays on iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, and it supports HDR video.
You can unlock your phone with your face. If you like being the first to try Apple’s latest technology, Face ID is the biggest adjustment that iPhone users will have to make in years.
Animoji and Portrait mode on the selfie camera. All of the sensors that make Face ID possible are also used for Animoji, which are moving emoji that mimic your facial expressions, and allow you to take portrait shots with blurred backgrounds (and Portrait Lighting) using the front-facing camera. Other iPhones can’t do that.
The telephoto portrait lens on the iPhone X’s dual-camera has a better aperture than the iPhone 8 Plus. (f/2.4 vs. f/2.8).
Both rear cameras have optical image stabilization, which should allow you to use the telephoto lens in darker conditions. On the iPhone 8 Plus, only the primary camera does.
Why you might not:

It’s the most expensive iPhone ever.
There’s no home button or Touch ID. Unlocking your phone requires looking directly at it. Every time. Unless you want to go old school with the passcode.
Apple’s gestures for going back to the home screen and multitasking look somewhat awkward in early examples and demonstrations. At the most basic level, they’re definitely not as simple as just hitting a button with your thumb.
The notch that houses the front-facing camera and other sensors. It’s just kind of there all the time, and Apple is embracing that. That should be perfectly fine in apps, but the notch is likely to obscure content from time to time. We’ve already seen that it sticks out into videos if you play them full-screen in landscape orientation. Are you the kind of person who can ignore that? I’m not sure I am.
AppleCare+ is more expensive than for previous iPhones.
It doesn’t come out until November.

Apple has unveiled the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus at its annual September event today, and thankfully, the less expensive iPhones of the three announced today won’t totally break the bank. The iPhone 8 will start at $699, while the iPhone 8 Plus starts at $799. Both will have 64GB of storage. That’s a price bump of $50 for both models, up from the 32GB models of the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, but it’s worth noting that the 7 didn’t have a 64GB option.

Apple is keeping its wireless future dream alive and is finally letting users charge their iPhones wirelessly. The new iPhones the company announced today — the iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X — all support Qi wireless charging, or the same standard as Samsung devices. Yay for harmony.

Although Apple made a big deal of the news at the event, it didn't announce any actual wireless charging hardware for the phones for this year.

Instead, the company gave us a preview: it's working on a charging mat, called AirPower, that'll charge not only iPhones, but also the Apple Watch and AirPods. All three devices can charge at once. Apple says it's working with Qi to incorporate this into the standard. The mat features fast charging, too. The AirPower charger will be available next year.

Today’s iPhone launch, coming a full decade after the release of the original iPhone, will feature a device quite similar to Apple’s first ever smartphone. The newest iPhone, whose name has already leaked out as iPhone X, will be like the original in that it will be higher in price than most people are used to paying for phones, it will be constrained in availability due to the difficulty of its manufacture, and it will serve as a status symbol for its owners. Some will purchase it to signal their wealth, many will acquire it as a totem of their Apple fandom, and almost all will desire it simply by virtue of its limited availability and exclusivity.

When Apple launched the original iPhone, it was wildly different from the devices we called “phones.” In 2007, Nokias with T9 keypads were doing battle with BlackBerrys sporting full, three-dimensional QWERTY keyboards. Today, it’s no longer possible for any company to break so far from the norm — the mobile market moves too quickly, leaks are abundant, and phone designs are too mature for such revolutionary change — but Apple’s goal with the iPhone X is to indeed signal a new path for mobile devices. Sure, the Cupertino company will have the usual iterative updates to its lineup in the shape of iPhone 8 and 8 Plus models, but the X version will be the one that tells us where Apple wants to go.

The most immediate and obvious change will be in the obliteration of the bezels above and below the iPhone X’s screen. Together with the round home button, those bezels have come to define the iPhone (and even smartphones in general) in simplified graphics and emoji. Apple’s decision to do away with them seems only cosmetic, but it also moves the company away from the fingerprint authentication technology that the iPhone’s Touch ID helped to usher into the mainstream. Where the iPhone X is going, it won’t be needing either a home button or a fingerprint sensor, and the rumors ahead of its launch indicate that Apple will move to less proven forms of biometric ID like facial recognition.

10. King Kong (2005)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cost of production: $250 million USD

No stranger to behemoth budgets thanks to Lord of the Rings, Jackson’s lavish take on the ’30s classic initially had a budget of $150 million, but it climbed higher and higher. Most of the money was spent on Kong himself. What’s more, King Kong gradually became substantially longer than Universal had anticipated and the extra length (mostly due to special effects needed for a convincing 25-foot computer animated gorilla) increased the budget by a third.

The film – given its longer length – was a cinematic risk, requiring the studio to reach for the kind of long-term audience that made hits out of three hour movies like Jackson’s Rings trilogy. Long movies receive far fewer showings per day and therefore, for King Kong to break even at the box office, it was imperative that the film did well. Luckily, when it was released in 2005, the movie made a total of $550 million, becoming the fourth highest film on gross revenue in Universal Pictures history. And the special effects really were fantastic. Unfortunately, when the humans started talking things started to go a little bit off track…Jack Black, really?

What else could you buy for that: Over six Empire State buildings at $40,948,900 USD each to construct.

9. Avatar (2009)

Director: James Cameron

Cost of production: $261 million USD

It’s a well-known fact that movie studios like being creative with their accountancy, to limit the amount of tax they have to pay – the bigger the costs, the lower the tax bill. Avatar was no different. After a directorial run-up lasting 12 years, Cameron took an almighty leap into the third-dimension with his digitally-created new world, hiring WETA for special effects and using super-sleek 3D which took the medium of cinema to the next level. No surprise then, that this movie didn’t come cheap. Ninety hours went into the production of every single frame for the movie, of which there were a whopping 24 per second, creating cutting-edge CGI like none ever seen before.

Let’s not forget the fact that creating a new language and teaching it to over 100 actors, hiring big names and fantastic, well-established scriptwriters, and producing the technology for 3D glasses added to the already huge production costs.  And to think that we once hyperventilated with astonishment at the realness of Jurassic Park’s dinosaurs.

What else could you buy for that: 17,411,607 gallons of blue body paint at $14.99 USD a pot

8. Waterworld (1995)

Director: Kevin Reynolds

Cost of production: $271 million USD

Kevin Costner lived on a trimaran in the middle of the ocean, that was once Earth before all the ice caps melted and dry land became a distant memory…Much like Hollywood blockbusters that cost less than $200 million USD. The Costner-starring flick of 1995 was the most expensive movie ever produced, at the time. Costner invested over $20 million of his personal funds into the film for which shooting took place aboard a gigantic 400-foot diameter atoll, specifically built for the production somewhere off the coast of Hawaii. The spectacular, 1000-ton floating set – over a quarter of a mile in circumference – also swallowed a lot of the movie’s budget given that it required aerial filming via seaplanes and helicopters. Not to mention the fact that whoever was on weather lookout duty at the time failed spectacularly in their job – the proof for which came in the form of three huge hurricanes that sank the entire set.

Despite Waterworld’s futuristic setting, critics were by-and-large unimpressed by the wet performances. In fact, it’s probably the most famous flop in recent film history; the post-apocalyptic movie took just $88 million at the US box office, despite it’s crazy production spend.

What else could you buy for that: 2,084,615 inflatable four-person dinghies at $130 USD each.

7. John Carter (2012)

Director: Andrew Stanton

Cost of production: $271 million USD

The cost of John Carter was – with no better way to say it – ridiculous. It left Disney somewhere around $200 million out of pocket, making it the company’s biggest flop of all time. The personal cost of the film also wasn’t so small. Rich Ross – the former chairman of Walt Disney Studios – decided to resign just a month after the movie was released, while Disney lost the rights to produce the rest of Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc’s back catalogue after refusing to produce any John Carter sequels (Disney probably had the right idea on that one…).

What’s more, director Stanton began shooting the movie with Taylor Kitsch as the eponymous lead. But, thanks to various problems in post-production, Stanton was forced to shoot much of the movie twice – which, of course – soon saw the budget spiral out of control. In fact, John Carterwould’ve had to make somewhere around $600 million just to break even. It didn’t even come close. Poor Stanton… Nobody wants to discover their own limitations on such a global stage.

What else could you buy for that: 16,941,176 leather loincloths at $17 USD a shred.

6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Director: David Yates

Cost of production: $275 million USD

White it’s not really surprising that Warner Bros. was willing to put up as many millions as were needed to bring the Harry Potter series to the big screen, the fact that The Half-Blood Prince was the most expensive of the series is. It was the least favoured film by fans and critics alike (yerp, money doesn’t always make a film better), but rumor has it that director Yates initially tried some pretty experimental stuff with the movie, before being forced to scale it back post-production so as not to anger hardcore HP fans.

What’s more, by 2009, the franchise’s stars had already become huge names in Hollywood and their salaries reflected just that. Still, $275 million for a Harry Potter film is probably one of the safest investments Warner Bros. could have made – and the results prove it: $302 million domestic and $632 million overseas for a worldwide total of $934 million.

What else could you buy for that: 1,285,046 annual passes to Orlando’s Wizarding World of Harry Potter at $14 USD a pop.

5. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Director: Joss Whedon

Cost of production: $280 million USD

This year’s superhero cluster flick – which included everyone from Captain America to Iron Man, to The Hulk, Thor, Falcon, Quicksilver and Black Widow – became the third-highest-grossing film in North America, behind Avatar and Titanic. But, superheroes don’t come cheap. Before production started, multiple members of the Age Of Ultron cast threatened to quit if their contractual demands (read: money) weren’t met, so Marvel had some serious work cut out for them if they wanted all the big names back on board for the Avengers sequel – all of whom were reportedly looking for $5 million on the table and a cut of the post-release profits.

On top of that, there were the far-flung international locations, the drone cameras used for some of the filming, and the CGI to make the titular villain with all the nuances that Whedon wanted to capture. Everyone knows that increased CGI is never a substitute for clean writing, but given that Age Of Ultron brought in almost $1.3 billion at the worldwide box office, that doesn’t seem to matter.

What else could you buy for that: 280,000 drone cameras at $1000 USD each.

4. Tangled (2010)

Director: Nathan Greno, Byron Howard

Cost of production: $281 million USD

Tangled was so expensive mainly because of how long it took to get the story right. It took about ten years of multiple aborted attempts at the movie, each of which got pretty far in before they scrapped everything and started again. Much of the budget included redesigning versions of previously-attempted flick Rapunzel, dating back to 2000, that were never produced. What’s more, extensive research was done to develop the animation process that allowed the CGI to evoke some of the qualities of traditional hand-drawn Disney characters – animating all of that blonde hair must’ve been quite the ordeal.

An entertaining if rather forgettable Disney animation that in no way earned its colossal budget, Tangled eventually bagged a profit when it was released in international theaters, but it’s still pretty mind-boggling how much cash they spent on this one.

What else could you buy for that: 2,810,000,000 crayons for $0.10 USD each.

3. Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Director: Sam Raimi

Cost of production: $293 million USD

When Spider-Man was released in 2002, it almost singlehandedly laid the groundwork for the current superhero boom. But, then they just started throwing money at the franchise…And unfortunately, making expensive, flagship superhero sequels is no small or simple feat. Production for the movie dragged on into late summer where it had been scheduled to conclude in June, pushing up the costs dramatically. On top of that, there was the huge cost of CGI, the web-slinging set pieces, the star salaries and – of course – the marketing and promotion campaign costs.

After Spidey 2 had a hard time convincing fans that an ageing arachnid fan was still living in a single bedsit and popping round to his Aunt May’s house for some home-cooking before climbing into the old red-blue Spandex for the evening, the studio probably didn’t have much of a choice on the whopping marketing budget. And, unfortunately, despite Spider-Man 2 costing $250 million to produce and Spider-Man 3 even more, the critical reception just didn’t pay off.

What else could you buy for that: 7,325,000 bungee ropes, at $40 USD a go.

2. Titanic (1997)

Director: James Cameron

Cost of production: $294 million USD

The cost to construct the Titanic set was somewhere between $120 to $150 million alone (in 1997 dollars). For that amount of money, you might feel ripped off with anything less than the “ship of dreams.” Remember that grand staircase scene, where the water comes crashing in as Rose and Jack try to escape? It only had one shot, because the set and furnishings were so hugely expensive to produce there was no room for error. And then there were the reams of other convincing special effects – in one apparently uninterrupted shot, we saw the ship from bow to stern, with flags flying and smoke coiling from its stacks, and on the deck hundreds of passengers strolling, children running, servants serving, and so on.

And it paid off. Titanic made its huge production costs part of its marketing campaign, promoting the rich value of the movie like none other at the box office; it went down swimmingly (pun intended). Despite it’s $294 million price tag, Roger Ebert described the film as “value for money” – every cent of that budget spent on production flickers on screen.

What else could you buy for that: 6,533,333 life jackets at $45 USD each.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Director: Rob Marshall

Cost of production: $397 million USD

Despite the very agreeable box office returns, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was no cheap date. 2007 and 2006’s Gore Verbinski-directed Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End cost $263 million and $341 million, respectively, with On Stranger Tides landing a slot as the most expensive long shot – with Jack Sparrow and Barbossa’s quest to find the elusive fountain of youth costing nearly $400 million.

Regardless of the huge production costs (Depp’s payment was an estimated $55,000,000…Well, hey, someone has to pay for that accessorising) the box office-busting Pirates of the Caribbean flicks have been the most extraordinary cash cow, and since the first time we saw Johnny Depp parading around with beaded dreads and guy-liner in 2003, the Disney execs behind the franchise have been simultaneously wading around in gold up to their armpits.

What else could you buy for that amount: 24,812,500 kohl eye pencils at $16 USD a pop.