Mobile Phones
Posted on May 21st, 2012 by ChrisClark
Information about mobile phones here.
Posted on May 21st, 2012 by ChrisClark
Information about mobile phones here.
Posted on May 21st, 2012 by ChrisClark
Information about screen protectors here.
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Samantha
Top iPhone 4 Screen Protector Review For The Halo And CaseMate Models
Here, I will be comparing two varieties of low-priced screen protectors. Both of the varieties of protector tested here come three to a pack and are essentially “disposable”. These protectors are ideal for users who are tough on their phone since they cost very little and can be replaced quickly. The two varieties that are being compared here are the “Halo Protector Film Invisible Clear Matte (Anti-Glare)” and “Case-Mate Clear Screen Protector”.
Halo Protector Film Invisible Clear Matte (Anti-Glare) Features:
Case-Mate Clear Screen Protector Features:
Both of these products include 3 individual protectors, at a fairly low price point. This is something I really appreciate with low-cost protectors, since a poor application can mean you have to throw one or more of them away, and their lifespan is typically not as long as a higher end protector. Case-Mate’s product offers the three protectors for $10. Halo provides three protectors for $5.95. Both the Halo and Case-Mate protectors are made of a thin plastic film. Since these are not of a hard plastic or glass construction, they’re unlikely to take very much abuse. However, one would hope they’d be adequate for keeping the valuable iPhone screen safe. In my testing, I found both of them had a nice texture, but it’s still somewhat obvious that a screen protector has been applied. If you need your protector to feel exactly like the original screen, you will most likely need to invest in a more expensive product.
Installation of the Halo screen protector was quite easy. The manufacturer recommends using a credit card to smooth out the protector as you apply it, and as you peel off the adhesive cover. Then, there is a second protective layer to peel off. As long as you install this protector correctly, it doesn’t look like one is installed. The texture, however, is not exactly the same as the iPhone’s original screen. The Case-Mate protectors, on the other hand, I had a somewhat harder time installing. I had to throw the first one away because I kept ending up with air bubbles underneath. Once applied, however, it does look quite nice.
Durability is not the greatest with these low-cost protectors. However, the Halo protectors did a good job of keeping the phone safe from typical damage, such as key scratches. The Case-Mate protector, on the other hand, was easily torn by keys. It’s better for the protector to tear than for the screen to be physically damaged, but don’t expect these to take much abuse at all. Due to the lesser durability of the Case-Mate protectors, despite their price being nearly twice that of the Halo protectors, it’s difficult to recommend the Case-Mate product. If you need multiple inexpensive protectors for your iPhone, opt for the Halo model.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on'] http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/samantha.jpg [/author_image] [author_info] Samantha Antonia is an award winning journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of publications internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Samantha
iPhone 4 Screen Protector Review For Clarivue And MagicScreen
Today I will be comparing two screen protectors in the mid-range tier. At about $12 each, these protectors are presumably of higher quality than “disposable” protectors like the Case-Mate and Halo protectors. Let’s take a look at the “Clarivue” and the “MagicScreen”.
Clarivue Features:
MagicScreen Features:
Applying both of these protectors was very easy. Their adhesive is of a variety that doesn’t fuse itself instantly to the screen, so you have some time to align it just right. Once applied, both protectors look like they’re nothing there, and don’t much affect the screen’s texture and appearance. They also both reduce the amount of fingerprints and oil that stick to the screen. In durability testing, I found that both of these protectors did a good job of protecting the screen from scratches, even the infamous key scrape test. They’re not indestructible, but they will stand up to typical daily wear.
The only major difference between these two protectors is that the Clarivue includes a second protection film for the back of the iPhone, whereas the MagicScreen does not. However, it also costs a couple of dollars more. If you are looking for a mid-range screen protector for your iPhone, either of these will do the job just fine. Pick the Clarivue if you need protection for the back, though.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on'] http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/samantha.jpg [/author_image] [author_info] Samantha Antonia is an award winning journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of publications internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Samantha
BodyGuardz And SGP Glas.t iPhone Screen Protector Review
Today I will be comparing two screen protection options for the iPhone 4/4S: The BodyGuardz “UltraTough” priced at $15.95 and the SGP GLAS.t at $27.99.
BodyGuardz Features:
SGP GLAS.t Features:
The BodyGuardz model comes with two protectors for the price, which I appreciate. I was able to install the protector correctly the first time, but it’s great to have a spare. The SGP GLAS.t was also easy to install. You only get one shot at it, though. The company warns against reusing the adhesive. The BodyGuardz protector comes as two pieces. One is for the screen and the other is for the back of the phone. This gives it a bit of extra grip. The SGP GLAS.t, on the other hand, protects only the screen. If you opt for the GLAS.t, you may want to invest in a protective sleeve to keep the rest of the iPhone’s chassis scratch-free. The BodyGuardz protector appears to be made of a hard plastic, and seems quite rugged. It’s extremely scratch resistant.
I even took my keys and rubbed them against the protector and there was no effect. That’s quite impressive. BodyGuardz claims these protectors are good for three to six months. Since my installation went fine the first time, I’ll have a spare all ready to go if the adhesive wears out or the protector does get scraped up somehow. The SGP GLAS.t also feels extremely strong, but instead of plastic, it’s literally made of glass. In fact, it feels exactly like the iPhone’s original screen. Due to its price I did not intentionally scrape the display with keys, but I think it would stand up to some light abuse. BodyGuardz claims that their material is oleophobic, meaning it resists fingerprints. It doesn’t seem to smudge as easily as the bare screen, but it can’t completely resist fingerprints. In my experience, nothing is 100% oleophobic. However, they include a nice little microfiber cloth that’s perfect for wiping the protector clean. The SGP GLAS.t seems to pick up fingerprints about as easily as the original screen did. It wipes clean very easily, however.
I would recommend the BodyGuardz for most users, due to the superior value with two protectors at a lower price. However, if you insist your iPhone feel like there is no protector on it, the SGP GLAS.t is definitely the way to go. Whichever option you choose, your screen will be safe, and that’s what matters most.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on'] http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/samantha.jpg [/author_image] [author_info] Samantha Antonia is an award winning journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of publications internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Samantha
Best iPhone 4S Screen Protector
Today we will be comparing two screen protectors for the iPhone 4S, namely the ZAGG invisibleSHIELD and the SGP Steinheil Ultra Series Ultra Oleophobic model. Because the SGP protector covers only the front of the unit, only the front-facing model of the ZAGG invisibleSHIELD will be reviewed here.
ZAGG invisibleSHIELD Features:
SGP Steinheil Series Features:
The Matchup:
First we tested out the ZAGG invisibleSHIELD. We chose the “Front Coverage” option for a fair comparison to the SGP model. This unit only covers the face of the phone to keep the screen safe from scratches, dirt and dust. After a painless install, we found it did that just fine. The protector is quite clear, however, it has a noticeable colored tint to it that the manufacturer calls “orange peel finish”. More to the point, it’s not completely clear. However, it is their claim that this helps reduce glare on the screen, and it appeared to do just that. The iPhone screen didn’t have much glare to begin with, but it does help somewhat in outdoor conditions where it’s just a little too bright. We can’t lend any credence to the “military grade construction” or “self-healing” claims, which all sound like marketing hocus-pocus. However, this protector did the job quite well. We just wish its price tag were a little lower. Next, we tried the same iPhone with the SGP Steinheil Series protector. We found it to be crystal clear, and did not exhibit the orange tint of the ZAGG model.
This means there isn’t glare reduction built-in, but we never found glare to be much of a problem in the first place with this phone. We’d rather the screen protector be clear so that on-screen colors are accurately represented. The manufacturer claims that the material this protector is made from is “ultra oleophobic”, meaning it is resistant to fingerprints and oil. We found that was the case when we first started to use the unit, but it seemed as though it must have been a finish that wore off with time. After just a few days of use, we found it became just as prone to fingerprints as any other surface. In fact, it seemed a little harder to wipe off than the iPhone screen itself. However, due to its low price point and extreme clarity, it’s easier to recommend than its competition from ZAGG.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on'] http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/samantha.jpg [/author_image] [author_info] Samantha Antonia is an award winning journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of publications internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Richard
Targus And Realook Ipad Screen Protector Review
Next up, I have for you a comparison of two “mid-range” screen protectors for the iPad. The two in particular I will be reviewing are the Targus Screen Protector with “Bubble-Free Adhesive” and the REALOOK Apple iPad Screen Protector. How do they fare against each other?
TARGUS “BUBBLE-FREE ADHESIVE” SCREEN PROTECTOR FEATURES:
REALOOK APPLE IPAD SCREEN PROTECTOR FEATURES:
Application of the Targus protector and the REALOOK were both very easy. True to advertisement, I had no trouble with bubbles. I like that the REALOOK comes with an alcohol pad to prepare the screen for application and ensure there’s no dust or dirt on it. They also bundled a nice little microfiber cloth. Neither protector gives the impression that it’s there once you’re done installing, as long as you do it right. I was quite impressed by the REALOOK’s ability to keep fingerprints and oil off the screen. It’s not 100% resistant, but it makes quite an effort. The REALOOK doesn’t do much of a job of reducing glare, however. I’m puzzled by their claim that it eliminates UV light. Why would an LCD display produce ultraviolet rays? Do they mean reflections from the sun?
If you need to eliminate glare, the REALOOK won’t be able to do that for you. The Targus does cut down on glare a little, but it’s not a very dramatic difference.
As far as durability, the Targus and REALOOK seemed about equal. I wouldn’t go scraping it with a rock, but it should stand up to a little contact with change or keys in your bag, the errant prongs of an AC adapter, etc.
Which of these iPad screen protectors provides a better value? These are both fairly solid products. However, the Targus model comes in at about six dollars less than the REALOOK. In addition, it seems to provide some protection from light glare, which the more-expensive REALOOK doesn’t manage to do. In addition, Targus is also a company I am familiar with for providing a wide range of portable electronics accessories. REALOOK, on the other hand, I’ve never heard of. Perhaps you have, but that’s a new one on me. Both products seem quite solid, but the Targus wins this match-up.
Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Richard
3M Natural View And iVisor from Moshi Ipad Screen Protector Review
Today I will be comparing two fairly high-end screen protectors for the iPad 2 and 3. The two models are the 3M Natural View Screen Protector for iPad 9.7 and the iVisor from Moshi. Both of these products promise to help keep your investment safe and scratch-free. Just how well do they do the job? Let’s find out.
3M NATURAL VIEW SCREEN PROTECTOR FEATURES:
IVISOR SCREEN PROTECTOR (MODEL 99MO020908) FEATURES:
Application of the 3M “Natural View” protector proved very easy. There is an included tool that helps keep air bubbles out when you are applying it. After application, it looks very clear. However, it does not appear to provide any glare prevention. The iVisor was similarly easy to apply, and I did not encounter any problems with bubbles after doing so. It doesn’t sit perfectly flush with the screen, but it’s not a deal-breaker. You need to be sure to get the right color to match your iPad. The iVisor does provide some glare reduction. There is less reflection once it’s applied, and there is a minor “rainbow effect”, but it is minor in nature.
Both protectors felt solid and it seems that they should withstand some decent wear and tear. They should do a good job of keeping your expensive device safe. If any damage comes to the screen protector, you can pull it off and replace it without any harm done to the iPad’s display. The iVisor advertises that it can be removed for cleaning and applied again.
Which you get here will likely come down to if you need an anti-glare protector or not. If you do not have glare problems, you might be better served with 3M’s offering. It costs about six dollars less, and you get a spare protector to either use down the road or in case the installation of the first doesn’t go well. With either protector, however, your iPad’s screen will be kept safe.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on']http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/richard.png[/author_image] [author_info]Richard Lamosky is an award winning writer and journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of venues internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]
Posted on May 8th, 2012 by Richard
Best Ipad Screen Protector AcaseView Verse Splash MASQUE Screen Protector
It’s that time again- iPad screen protector time! I’ll be comparing two varieties of cheap, low-end screen protectors. In particular, the two models I will be reviewing are the Acase AcaseView Screen Protector Film Clear (Invisible) and the Splash MASQUE Screen Protector Film (Anti-Glare Anti-Fingerprint). Both of these protectors come three to a pack. Let’s jump right into it.
ACASE ACASEVIEW FEATURES:
SPLASH MASQUE FEATURES:
Both of these protectors apply by static cling, which is quite unusual. With no adhesive, you shouldn’t run into any problems with using up a protector by applying it wrong and getting air or dust trapped underneath. Using the included applicator card makes things easier. With three to a package, both products provide a very good value. However you cannot reasonably expect something this thin to protect the iPad against any serious damage. It’s certainly better than nothing, though. Just go easy on it.
How do they look? This is what really sets the two apart. The MASQUE looks quite clear. I have no real complaints about the visual appearance once it’s applied. The Acase, on the other hand, seemed to add a yellowish tint and a rainbow effect that can be quite bothersome. With as nice a screen as the iPad provides, you really don’t want your protector ruining its appearance.
You get what you pay for, and that seems especially evident here. For the seven dollars extra you’ll spend on the Splash MASQUE protector over the Acase model, you get a significant difference in visual quality. Be sure to shop around before you pick up either, though. You may be much better suited with higher-end protectors that come one or two to a pack rather than these cheap ones. If you need serious protection for your iPad and not just something to avoid minor scratches, you’ll want to look elsewhere.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on']http://www.screenprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/richard.png[/author_image] [author_info]Richard Lamosky is an award winning writer and journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of venues internationally. Formerly a contributing editor to Electronics Daily, a columnist for TechMania, and a regular contributor to such publications as DigitalWires, VentureHub, Consumer Shopper, and the Journal of Technology Today.[/author_info] [/author]