Except then it just pretends that part of the screen doesn't even exist and makes it into a thicc bezel phone. 

It baffles me that no one has thought of a happy medium like this

Like, that space is never going to be used for anything other than the system icons anyway, obviously (and if it is the system and/or app designer should be shot) so may as well get the use, but there's no need to show off that there's a massive cutout.  Hide it with black.  This seems incredibly basic to me.  People like to think of the notch not as a normal screen with a chunk bitten out, but as a normal screen with extra lumps added on.  Well, then act like it and do this ^

@dizmo yes there is a reason to complain. All the options about the notches in the phones software are stupid and look ugly. Look at the bottom picture that ryan provided. Especially on an oled screen that option looks a lot better than just disabling the notch.

I call it a happy medium but personally I think that's the only option that should exist, or needs to exist.  You get the benefit of the extra screen space, but without a hideous chunk removed from your display.  Win-win imo.  Either current solution is terrible.

@Ryan_Vickers Probably did it on purpose. I know I would have. If you don't like the way we designed it, then see what it's like without.

Does having the notifications up there still affect full screen content though? For example, does opening an app make the app think "hey, there's space here I can fill" because it's already filled with other elements?

@Origami Cactus From what I've seen of the full phone, the notch at the top isn't that much larger than the chin at the bottom. If they're symmetrical, then it's fine.

Quote

Probably did it on purpose. I know I would have. If you don't like the way we designed it, then see what it's like without.

That would be hilariously arrogant and stupid to a degree that not even Apple would do, not to mention incredibly ironic considering both are an inferior option to what I showed

Quote

Does having the notifications up there still affect full screen content though? For example, does opening an app make the app think "hey, there's space here I can fill" because it's already filled with other elements?

Yes.  Linus talked about this recently.  Currently, the system and apps treat the actual top of the screen as the top, rather than the bottom of the notch as the top, so content gets covered under it.  It's actually hilariously terrible.

@Ryan_Vickers So then really hiding the elements up there doesn't do anything...since the problem most people have with the notch still exists. If it was simply them not liking screen beside their cameras, they could use a black background *shrugs*

It just seems like such a childish thing to get upset over.

I don't follow...

@Ryan_Vickers If when you open the app in the second example you gave, and it still fills the portion of the screen where the clock and notifications are, then you still have the same problem with the notch as if it wasn't blacked out. It solves nothing other than you don't see it when looking at the phone on the home screen, and if that's the problem most people have, it just seems like something really sad to be upset about.

Oh, no, I'm saying that would not happen in my theoretical design.  That happens currently, but it should not.  That extra area needs to be absolutely and exclusively reserved for those icons.  As for everything else, as far as it's concerned that part of the display doesn't exist.

@Ryan_Vickers Your suggestion is exactly what Huawei allows for with the P20 Pro. I personally appreciate the notch, only app that I've encountered that messes around with the notch is Snapchat, and I've just disabled it anyways. You run into issues with fullscreen video content that you've set to fill the screen, but that's stupid as shit because it chops off the top and bottom of the video anyway. Auto does an almost perfect job of dealing with troublesome apps (once again just Snapchat in my case).

Though disabling the notch makes it so that the top corners of the display *below* the notification tab are square, no curving added, which is not great when absolutely everything else is curved on and around the display. 

In any case, I agree with dizmo, if you don't like it, don't deal with it, and if the phone basically removes the top section of the display when you disable the notch, than that's just shitty design on the brand's behalf. 

I'm pretty sure the notch trend will fade, Apple with their infinite wisdom is pushing less and less 'innovation' onto other brands. Or rather other brands are just doing better things by themselves. 

Yeah there's no question that no person or company actually wants this, it's just the best they can do in terms of maximizing screen to body ratios in the mean time.  Eventually they will figure it out.  If the rumours are to be believed, Samsung will be pushing hard in that direction soon.

Well Oppo with their Find X has an interesting way of going about it, and as you mentioned, Samsung has their under-screen stuff going. I foresee without a doubt that sensors and speakers will be built in under the display within not so many years. 

Not sure exactly how a camera under the display would work though. 

It should be possible.  I've heard that OLED can be made transparent, so that should work.  Just turn the screen off in that one spot while the camera is active.  I'm sure I'm greatly oversimplifying it but I feel it should be doable.

Sounds very possible. 

Also an update on the notch situation with my P20 Pro, I set it to disabled in general, and the top part of the display below the notification bar is curved, weird how they don't do that when it's done for specific apps. It's generally useless the background being displayed in the notification bar, but hey, more of my neato wallpaper is a plus for me. 

Anyways, I'm done talking about notches, played enough Minecraft when I was 15 way back when.

@DIV1D3 My question is what you mean by this 

Quote

I personally appreciate the notch

I would be fine with an improved version of a notch if it improved the device in some actually useful way, but I haven't seen any worthwhile improvements.

Standard smartphone cameras are better than a lot of dslr cameras. The iphone X has a 12/7 back/front megapixel ratio. My galaxy s8 with no bezel has a 12/8 ratio. so the selfie camera on a notchless phone beat the selfie camera on a notched phone. And the s8 has barely any bezel to speak of. It's a gorgeous phone and simply doesn't need a notch to be both functional, high quality and aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure I would get used to the notch if it had one, but what benefit am I gaining? WHY am I being forced to get used to something? That has to be a reason to lose usable screen space, but as of yet, I don't see anything that I'm getting out of the deal.

@Jtalk4456 There are several problems with everything you just said...

Quote

Standard smartphone cameras are better than a lot of dslr cameras.

That's gonna need a colossal "source please".  Which ones?  And in what way?  Any semi-modern DSLR (even a cheap one) will completely stomp every cellphone in every photography test you can possibly give it.  It's just a matter of basic physics.  The sensor is like 60x larger so that gives it an insurmountable advantage in many situations.  The fast mechanical shutter and exchangeable lenses makes up the rest.  In video, the cellphone might win (in good light at least), but only due to DSLRs traditionally not having good software/firmware for video.

Quote

The iphone X has a 12/7 back/front megapixel ratio. My galaxy s8 with no bezel has a 12/8 ratio. so the selfie camera on a notchless phone beat the selfie camera on a notched phone.

Again, better in what way?  I seriously hope you've taken into consideration more than just the megapixel count since that's just one tiny portion of the total story that makes a camera good.  Try dynamic range, low light performance, shutter type (mechanical vs electronic), bit depth, sensor stabilization, view finder (optical vs electronic, and how good is it?  How many useful pieces of information does it let you overlay, and In the case of optical, how much of the image does it cover, can you adjust diopter, or in the case of electronic, how high is the resolution, how good is the colour accuracy, etc.), maximum shutter speed, maximum FPS while shooting stills, lens compatibility, (or, in the case of a camera with an integrated lens, everything that makes a lens good, like range of focal lengths, vignetting, sharpness, distortion, chromatic aberration, maximum aperture, and if significantly different, the transmission/t-stop), battery life, ergonomics, weight, storage system (SD cards vs something else, multiple of them, etc.), autofocus system (how many points, how many modes, how well does tracking work, etc.), buffer size, price, and yes, megapixel count.  You know, everything that makes a camera, be it an DSLR, or a smartphone, good or not.

Here's one very simple example of why at least some of those other things matter (in particular, the sharpness of your lens).  Consider these two images:

Both are 0.09 MP, but as you can see, one has considerably more detail.  Resolution is necessary but not sufficient.  Rating a camera by resolution alone is like judging an entire computer on the dpi of its mouse.

@Ryan_Vickers Ahh, ok that makes more sense.

@DIV1D3 I believe the camera catches the image between screen refreshes. I very vaguely remember it being something like that for under display cameras. Who knows though, maybe they'll have come up with some other way to do it by the time it's actually released.

@Jtalk4456 I can't help but think you saying that a smartphone is better than a DSLR is just to insight rage They're clearly vastly inferior. They're better than most pocket cameras, but far from being better than APS-C sensor equipped cameras.

@Ryan_Vickers While I certainly don't know everything about photography, I would argue that you're not evaluating the market right. I said better than a lot of dslr cameras, because as @dizmo said, there's a bunch of crappy pocket cameras that have been on the market for the average consumer. Of course there are dslr cameras that stomp a pixel into the ground, I own a high powered one after all. Then again the average consumer doesn't care. Most people don't get past the stage of being a smartphone photographer. While megapixel isn't the only thing that's important, smartphone cameras already overpower what most people need. That combined with sophisticated software means we have consumer devices that nearly eliminate the need for cheap digital cameras on the market. So when someone says they can fit more cameras into a notch that will reduce my usable screen I have to ask why? As for the comparison

Quote

The iphone X has a 12/7 back/front megapixel ratio. My galaxy s8 with no bezel has a 12/8 ratio. so the selfie camera on a notchless phone beat the selfie camera on a notched phone.

Both are more than good enough for the consumers they are designed for, and the samsung has a better megapixel count without needing a notch to shove sensors into. 

Quote

Rating a camera by resolution alone is like judging an entire computer on the dpi of its mouse.

I would argue it's more like judging a computer based on the display, and I'd then argue that while content creators need more than a $70 dell monitor, the average consumer they are marketed towards don't need anything better. why would the work at home consumer using email, word and internet only waste money buying a $200 gaming monitor. It will be better than the Dell, but then again, they don't need better than the dell, so there isn't enough value in it to justify the extra cost they will pay. So when the offer is a S8 for $600 with a great camera and no notch or an iphone X for $1000 with a great camera, but I need a notch and loss of usable screen to get there, outside of all other preferences, the no notch makes more sense.

Despite having a really nice camera my dad gave me, I don't pretend to be an expert with cameras. But I still haven't heard a reason to have the notch. Tom's hardware did a comparison of the iphone x vs s8, and the cameras were tested in multiple situations. some the iphone was better at, but some the s8 was better at. more importantly there's not a single picture that I would consider to be BAD by any stretch. I didn't mean any disrespect for quality dlsr cameras, but the days of the average consumer NEEDING a mechanical shutter to take a decent picture are gone. The notch is not needed to hit a picture quality that is good enough for most consumers. And for those who need more than a good enough quality, they aren't the average consumer and likely already have a dslr or plan to get one. 

I think I see where the confusion is coming from now.  You don't actually know what a DSLR is do you?  It doesn't mean any camera device that's only a camera, it has a specific definition.  It means Digital Single Lens Reflex.  You will not find one bad enough to be beaten by a smartphone unless it is quite old.  The crappy "pocket cameras" you're referring to are not DSLRs, they are "mirrorless" and specifically they are cheap versions.  You can get professional mirrorless cameras that rival or beat DSLRs in certain tasks.  I stand by by statements in regards to the gap between actual DSLRs and smartphone cameras.  I may even agree that smartphone cameras are overall "better" for the average person than those point and shoot consumer mirrorless ones, perhaps still not in quality (but even then, perhaps) but the other advantages and conveniences make up for any shortcoming there and then some.  But do not confuse those with DSLRs.

That was my mistake, as I said I'm not an expert. Having said that, taking the pocket cameras out of the way, that further makes me believe that there is no need for smartphone cameras to be marginally better than they already are at the cost of usable screen. 

Also since you seem to be more of a camera buff, what technical type of cameras are used in smartphones?

Its operation is most similar to a mirrorless.  Which "type", in terms of DSLR, mirrorless, etc. is determined by the overall function - they all share the fact that it's a sensor behind a lens.  In a DSLR, what comes in the lens is by default redirected up a sort of parascope to the optical viewfinder, and when you snap a shot, that flips out of the way and exposes the sensor for the duration of the photo.  In a mirrorless camera, which is more familiar to people that have used common cameras in the last 20 years (point & shoot, phones, etc.), the sensor is always exposed and the feed is continually processed and sent to a display.  In professional mirrorless cameras, they typically feed it to an electronic viewfinder, because pros will be most used to shooting like that having used SLRs for decades already.  In point and shoot cameras, as well as phones, it is just sent to the display.  Pro mirrorless can use the display too but the difference is point and shoot viewfinders are generally little more than a hole in the body.  You're looking through a separate lens, and thus getting an approximation of what the camera sees, but not a true representation.

There's pros and cons to both.  With a mirrorless (assuming the software is any good), what you see is what you get.  No need to check your photos after because you are already seeing how they will turn out before you take the shot.  However, this burns battery like a mofu...