Kalakshar US

We knew it was coming, and now it’s here. The iPhone Air, as rumored, is only 5.6mm thick and has fewer features than the base iPhone 17, which is $200 cheaper. Sure, it’s not the first slimline reinterpretation of a major smartphone — Samsung beat Apple to the punch with the Galaxy S25 Edge earlier this year — but the influence of Apple can’t be underestimated. It’s too early to tell if the iPhone Air will shake up smartphones as the MacBook Air did with laptops, but it’s definitely a safer evolution. And hey, perhaps the iPhone Air is merely a pit-stop on the way to the first Apple foldable.

Let’s go back to 2008. With the MacBook Air, Apple ditched the optical disc drive and many ports, leading to a device that was so thin Steve Jobs pulled it out of a manila envelope when he first revealed it. The first MBA had some issues; it was underpowered, used a tiny and slow hard drive and battery life was pretty awful. But Apple refined the formula, which led to countless slimmed-down laptops and even a new category, the ultraportable.

Sadly, Apple didn’t figure out an equally iconic way to reveal its super slim iPhone. In fact, it dropped it in a carefully prepared marketing video, presumably in a bid to show off how confident it is with the hardiness of the iPhone Air. But it felt like Apple trying to assuage durability fears in a way that doesn’t really work, since this was just part of a carefully-manicured marketing promotion.

That’s one of two concerns for thinner phones: durability. Apple’s iPhone Air has a frame made from recycled titanium – previously an iPhone Pro feature. The Air also has the company’s Ceramic Shield, which Apple says is now 3x more scratch-resistant than past versions. It feels like Apple has engineered a phone less likely to get damaged. And of course, the company is happy to offer a super-slim 1mm case for the paranoid among us.

The other concern is battery life. A slimmer profile in a smartphone means less space for the battery. Apple claims that the iPhone Air’s internal architecture “maximizes space for the battery,” but the company doesn’t share specific battery capacity figures. Regardless, Apple says the iPhone Air will deliver “all-day battery life,” which remains hugely subjective.

Apple also announced a new $99 MagSafe charging pack to ensure the iPhone Air can play back video for up to 40 hours. But that charging puck seems even thicker than the camera unit — with the two devices combined, that’s no longer a superthin smartphone, it’s an iPhone 17 with one camera. The fact that it exists at all should give people pause about the Air’s longevity.

Also: that big old camera module. Samsung’s S25 Edge has a 5.8mm thick body, but if you count the camera, it’s closer to 10mm. The iPhone Air is thinner than the S25 Edge, at 5.6mm. But the camera “plateau” adds a significant width on top of that, although Apple hasn’t said just how thick it is. Judging by images, it could be almost twice as thick as the iPhone Air’s body alone.

Compared to the MacBook Air, the iPhone Air is unlikely to shake up the world of smartphones. While packed with tech upgrades, there’s nothing revolutionary. For example, the iPhone Air still has a USB-C port – early rumors suggested it might ditch all ports for wireless connections and charging. That single camera will probably take great photos, but the utility may be limited without a dedicated telephoto lens — a point I’ve been emphasizing. Samsung’s S25 Edge attempted to address that with a 200-megapixel camera, allowing for substantial digital zoom by cropping in.

Despite these potential pitfalls, I’m intrigued to see how the iPhone Air fares. I’ve often returned to Samsung’s Galaxy S25 Edge, simply because of the lighter, slimmer profile. The weaknesses of slimmer smartphones I’ve outlined here didn’t result in a bad phone. Like Sam Rutherford put in his review, the S25 Edge is arguably a better phone than the S25+.

Are people desperate for a thinner smartphone? The $999 iPhone Air is cleverly priced between the base iPhone 17 ($799) and the iPhone 17 Pro ($1,099), and the lack of a plus model just might push people towards the Air.

I think there’s a place for the iPhone Air. It’s lighter, it’ll fit in pockets better and it’ll have all the features of iOS 26 at a time when new functionality has shifted from hardware to software. Apple has attempted to address many of the concerns with superslim phones, but the true test of battery longevity and durability will come with a few months of use.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/mobile/smartphones/welcome-to-the-era-of-thin-smartphones-whether-you-want-it-or-not-150729169.html?src=rss 

If you had told me five years ago that playing PC games over the cloud would soon look  indistinguishable from using a powerful rig, I would have called you a fool. But after diving into NVIDIA’s new RTX 5080-powered GeForce Now servers for several hours, I think we’ve reached a major milestone for cloud streaming. From a New Jersey server almost a thousand miles away from my Atlanta-area home, I was able to play Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K at 170 fps (with NVIDIA’s DLSS 4 frame generation) and Overwatch 2 at a blistering fast 360 fps in 1080p. I genuinely couldn’t tell the difference between this souped-up GeForce Now server and my own RTX 5090-powered desktop.

That got me thinking: What’s the point of investing thousands in a desktop when cloud streaming can look this good for $20 a month? That’s the price for GeForce Now’s top-end Ultimate plan, which is required to use the RTX 5080 servers. And if you don’t need that level of power, you can also get a pretty solid gaming experience with the $10 Performance plan, which is restricted to 1,440p/60 fps at best.

Cyberpunk 2077 on GeForce Now

During my testing, I was constantly astounded by how sharp every game looked. The neon lights and reflective surfaces of Cyberpunk’s Night City lit up my Alienware OLED monitor. A few minutes into my first session, I completely forgot I was streaming the game. There were none of the video compression artifacts or occasional stuttering I’ve seen on other streaming services. Hell, I was even able to rip through several Overwatch 2 matches without noticing much lag. I only noticed a bit of latency when I turned on multi-frame generation while playing Cyberpunk in 4K — that pushed my frame rate up to 160 fps from 70 fps, but those interpolated frames made everything feel more sluggish.

We’ve clearly come a long way from Microsoft and Sony’s foray into game streaming for consoles. I’ve used Xbox offering on and off over the years, and while it’s typically been easy to use, it always felt a bit low-res (it tops out at 1080p/60 fps) and filled with blotchy video compression. Even today, it’s obvious you’re getting a second-rate experience. Sony’s streaming for PS Plus Premium subscribers can now reach up to an admirable 4K/60 fps for some PS5 titles, and it also turned the PlayStation Portal into a more viable handheld. But Sony’s cloud gaming seems more useful for letting you play older PS3 games, instead of giving you a complete gaming experience untethered from its core console business.

Overwatch 2 on GeForce Now

GeForce Now has always had a technological advantage over the competition, as it’s easy for NVIDIA to stuff servers full of high-end GPUs. But it’s lagged behind a bit when it comes to usability, since playing games involves connecting to your accounts on storefronts like Steam, followed by downloading and installing those titles in a remote connection window. It’s not as easy as hitting a button on the Xbox Windows app. GeForce Now is clearly aimed at PC gamers who already have large collections of games and are used to suffering through the indignities of Steam’s interface.

For those players, NVIDIA’s latest upgrades have turned GeForce Now from a “nice to have” service to something that could be essential. There’s the raw power inherent in the leap to RTX 5080-level GPUs, which leads to higher frame rates and the ability to lean into demanding features like ray tracing. The actual “Blackwell” GPU hardware NVIDIA is using in its servers also sports a whopping 48GB of VRAM, a major leap from the 16GB of VRAM the consumer-grade RTX 5080 cards are stuck with. Technically, you could see better performance in GeForce Now compared to running a 5080 locally.

NVIDIA has also bumped its resolution and frame rate limits up to 5K/120 fps (which is currently only supported by one LG monitor), 4K/240 fps and 1080p/320 fps. That covers the gamut of people who want the highest quality possible, to those who demand the most frames for fast-paced shooters. 

And in an effort to make cloud gaming look a bit less like you’re just streaming video, NVIDIA has also developed “Cinematic Quality Streaming” features, including support for better color depth with 4:4:4 chroma subsampling. There are also “AI-powered” video filters to help make text clear, as well as support for AV1 encoders for efficient streaming that can adapt to network changes.

If you’re stuck with an aging video card, it may make more sense to subscribe to GeForce Now Ultimate for $20 a month, instead of shelling out $1,200 or more for a genuine RTX 5080. 

As usual for cloud streaming, though, the Achilles heel of GeForce Now is its exorbitant bandwidth demands. NVIDIA bumped up its maximum video bitrate to 100Mbps, which can add up to 45GB of bandwidth over an hour. You’ll need a beefy internet connection to stream games without slowing down the internet for everyone else in your home, and you can just give up on the idea entirely if you’re restricted by bandwidth caps. If you’ve been thinking of an excuse to upgrade to an uncapped gigabit internet connection, this is it.

Streaming Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K consumed 29.5GB over an hour of gameplay. GeForce Now hovered between 60Mbps and 80Mbps for most of the session, but it occasionally peaked to 100Mbps. I’ve got a reliable AT&T fiber connection in the suburbs, but I’d definitely be worried if I was still using a finicky cable internet in Brooklyn, where the overall bandwidth is shared with everyone on your cable node. A single GeForce Now session could take down internet speeds for your entire block, or you could find yourself without enough bandwidth to play smoothly during peak usage.

It’s also worth noting that GeForce Now also doesn’t support every PC game out there. You can access more than 4,000 recent titles, but you may run into issues trying to find obscure older games. NVIDIA is expanding its streaming library a bit with a new “Install to Play” feature, which lets you install some games in persistent cloud storage. I was able to set up and play 1000xResist without any trouble, and I’m hoping more indie titles will be added eventually.

The need for killer bandwidth and the reality of shoddy internet infrastructure are the biggest issues holding cloud gaming back from truly replacing local play. If my normally stable internet goes down, that means no gaming at all. And the same is true if NVIDIA’s servers get slammed. For most people, picking up a console or gaming PC will simply be more reliable.

Even with those caveats, GeForce Now still makes a compelling case for gaming away from your main rig. Perhaps you’re itching to put a dent in your Steam library while on vacation, or you just want to keep playing Mafia: The Old Country on your couch. It’s all possible, as long as your internet holds up.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nvidias-geforce-now-with-rtx-5080-gpus-is-a-cloud-gaming-revelation-130000231.html?src=rss