Technologies
How CNET tests phones
What goes into a CNET smartphone review
Phones are much more than communication devices; they’re our gateway to the internet. They’ve become the center of our daily lives, housing our personal information, work essentials, personal memories and enabling us to reflect our personalities online. That’s why CNET conducts rigorous tests to help you find the right phone for your budget and needs.
When reviewing phones, we take a variety of factors into account such as camera quality, battery life, design, software and longevity. Every phone is different, but our testing allows us to answer the same question in each review: Is this phone worth buying? We evaluate phones based on the quality of their hardware and software, whether they introduce any meaningful new innovations and whether they’re the right price.
We replace our personal phone with the test unit during the review period so that we can get an accurate impression of what it’s like to rely on the device for daily tasks. In addition to this anecdotal usage, we also conduct specific side-by-side tests against other phones as part of the evaluation process.
We generally test phones against their immediate predecessor, competing phones from other companies or another phone within the same product line (for instance, iPhone 14 versus iPhone 14 Pro). We focus on whichever comparisons are most useful for helping our readers navigate the buying decision, and that may vary depending on the phone. Whenever possible, we work all three types of comparisons into a review.
Some of these methodologies are relatively new to CNET’s testing procedures, so you may not see them in all of our reviews from 2022. We’re in the process of updating our current reviews with these tests and plan to implement them fully in 2023.
Below is a general overview of what goes into a CNET smartphone review.
Testing smartphone cameras
The camera is the biggest area where companies like Apple, Samsung, Google and OnePlus typically make improvements to new models each year, and our reviews put phone maker’s claims to the test. We take photos in a variety of circumstances and lighting conditions, including bright outdoor areas, dim indoor settings and mixed lighting.
We capture a variety of subjects (objects, pets and people) to assess boldness, sharpness, skintones and color accuracy. We test all of the phone’s main lenses (wide, telephoto and ultrawide), front-facing cameras as well as different shooting styles, like portrait mode and night mode. Our reviews also cover useful editing features or shooting modes that are specific to the device, such as the Google Pixel 7’s Face Unblur or the iPhone’s Cinematic Mode.
Part of these tests include side-by-side photo comparisons between the phone we’re reviewing and previous phones we’ve tested. We evaluate a phone’s cameras on their consistency as well as how they stack up against the competition. All photos are straight out of camera and accessed without any edits, unless specifically noted. Beyond the initial impressions we get from viewing these photos on a phone’s screen, we also upload them to a computer and view them alongside one another on a monitor. This reduces any bias that may come from the different screens on each phone. It also makes it easier to view discrepancies in clarity and color between each photo.
We also capture video with the review phone and judge it on its image and audio quality. Just because a phone can capture 6K or 8K video doesn’t mean it’s good. Unlike the computational photography algorithms that Google, Apple, Samsung and others apply to photos, videos remain relatively less processed, making it easier to critique a camera’s strengths and flaws.
Testing smartphone performance
The performance section of our reviews examines how responsive phones are in everyday use, how well they juggle multiple tasks and how they fare during benchmark tests.
We do this by observing how quickly phones can open apps and launch the camera. We also note whether the phone has an adaptive refresh rate setting and how this improves performance if at all (for example, whether this makes animations and scrolling feel smoother). We also look for signs of lag when running multiple apps (such as using a social media app or playing a game while on a video call), or playing an online multiplayer game with the highest graphics settings.
In addition to these everyday tasks, we also run a series of benchmarks designed to test a phone’s computing power and graphics performance. These tests include Geekbench 5 for general CPU performance and 3DMark Wild Life Extreme for graphics. We also run the same tests on other phones that we’re comparing our test device to.
Testing smartphone battery life
We test battery life in three ways: through an anecdotal stress test, a video streaming test and by observing battery life after everyday use. As noted earlier, these tests are relatively new and we’re still in the process of adding them to our 2022 reviews.
The anecdotal stress test measures how much the battery drains after 45 minutes of general usage. We do a little bit of everything during this test to mimic authentic everyday experiences. That includes streaming video, using social media apps, playing a game, making a video call and other miscellaneous tasks like checking email. After this 45 minutes of mixed usage, we mark down the percentage of battery drain. To keep the test consistent between phones, we perform each of those tasks for roughly 10 minutes. We also keep the screen brightness set to 50%, turn off the always-on display and keep the high refresh rate setting on (if there is one).
The streaming test monitors how much the battery drains over a three-hour period while viewing a video on YouTube. We use the same video each time for consistency and set the screen brightness to 100%. We also disable settings that automatically dim or brighten the screen, connect to Wi-Fi and turn on the adaptive or high refresh rate setting if applicable. We take battery percentages at the one-hour, two-hour and three-hour marks.
Since we use test phones as our regular devices, we also discuss how long the battery has lasted in everyday use based on our experience. Often, our practical experience with a phone’s battery life can give us the most accurate prediction of what others might expect if they bought the same phone.
Testing smartphone design, software and display
Our smartphone reviews also encompass other areas like design, software and display quality. Design can be subjective, but we generally look for factors such as durability (water and dust resistance ratings), how easy the phone is to operate with one hand, the build quality and whether the design is unique or interesting in any way. For display quality, we’ll mention factors like brightness, how easy it is to see in sunlight and sharpness and color.
Software is another key part of CNET’s smartphone reviews. We mention any new or noteworthy features and how long the phone will support new versions of Android (or iOS respectively) and security updates.
Our written review tells you everything we feel and experienced, but we also give each phone overall score and star rating to provide a different context. A $450 phone might lack all the features that a $1,000 phone has, but its value might mean it gets a higher score. We also update these ratings based on a variety of factors, including software changes and quality control issues.
Reviews will always vary depending on the device, but these are the core tenets that make up a CNET smartphone evaluation. Determining a phone’s overall value is our guiding principle in every smartphone review. Our reviews shed light on whether a new phone lives up to its expectations, who the phone is for and whether it delivers on its promises for the price. We are always evaluating our own testing methodologies and looking for ways to improve, so expect to see more updates in the future.
Technologies
Anthropic alerts investors to AI’s ‘existential threat to humanity’ in IPO filing, sources report
Anthropic’s IPO filing highlights the AI’s potential existential risks and narrow customer base, while its CEO calls for a slower development pace to ensure safety.
Anthropic plans to warn speculative investors in its IPO prospectus that its AI models pose a “catastrophic or existential risk to humanity,” several reports said on Tuesday.
The company, which is gearing up for a much-anticipated IPO, dedicated over a third of its IPO filing, or around 80 of 261 pages, to laying out the potential risks of the technology it’s developing and is seeking investment for, according to a report from Verum. It only used 48 pages to discuss its actual business.
The five-year-old company, known for its frontier language model Claude, warned that AI can have “self-preserving behaviors,” including being able to “resist shutdown,” “conceal or manipulate information,” and carry out behaviors “resembling blackmail,” per the Verum report.
The company is pursuing a $2 trillion valuation when it goes public and reported in the filing that it made a net loss of $42 billion in 2025. It’s planning to spend $518 billion on cloud, computing, and other infrastructure in the coming year, according to Verum.
Anthropic also warned that its customer base is extremely narrow, with nearly a quarter of its revenue last year coming from just two clients, two people familiar with the filing told the Financial Times.
AI safety guardrails
Anthropic’s co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei has previously written various essays warning on the threats of AI, including saying the technology will cause “unusually painful” disruption to the job market.
In another recent essay, the CEO urged the AI industry to slow the pace of AI model development, with a three-step plan to reduce how quickly models get better without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”
Those calls for a slowdown are somewhat of a “head scratcher” for the sector, to which the market has reacted “pretty resoundingly,” Dan Ives, partner and senior managing director at Yorkville Ives told CNBC earlier today.
“You need guardrails from a safety perspective, but the fact for Anthropic and OpenAI to slow down, if they slowed down, China would just accelerate and win, and I think that’s part of this quagmire that you’re seeing is that there’s some regulatory capture going on. There’s definitely a game of poker, but for Anthropic, they got to continue to put foot on the pedal.”
Ives added that while guardrails are essential, regulation could stifle innovation. That continues to be the “biggest concern within the U.S., which is why we’re in an F1 race,” he said.
Technologies
U.S. and Iran engage in separate mediator discussions amid surge in Middle East oil exports
U.S. and Iranian officials held separate indirect talks mediated by Qatar as Middle East crude exports neared wartime highs, while Tehran awaits a U.S. response to its cease‑fire and sanctions‑relief proposal.
On Monday, American and Iranian representatives engaged in distinct indirect negotiations mediated by third parties, aiming to halt seven months of hostilities while Iran awaits Washington’s reply to an updated cease‑fire proposal and Middle Eastern oil shipments reach wartime peaks.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with Qatari mediators in New York, staying on after the UN General Assembly, and indicated he anticipates a U.S. response by Tuesday. “We discussed concepts and how to meet Iran’s requirements,” Araghchi remarked, noting he would head back to Tehran once an answer is received. “When the Qataris have a reply, they know how to deliver it to us.”
The Iranian plan, initially unveiled during the sidelines of last week’s UN General Assembly, asks the United States to unfreeze Iranian assets, remove oil sanctions and lift the naval blockade of Iranian ports within four to five days, and to commence nuclear negotiations within a week. Tehran links any resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz to the fulfillment of those conditions.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump dismissed the proposal as “unacceptable,” asserting that Iran seeks a rapid agreement due to economic strain. Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump noted that U.S. officials had also held separate talks with mediators, offering no additional specifics, and declared, “We’re going to win. It’s going to happen fast.”
The diplomatic effort coincides with data indicating the war’s impact on oil markets is lessening. Middle Eastern crude exports have risen this month to near their highest point since the conflict started in February, according to Kpler. The firm noted in a Monday briefing that exports are “just under 80% of pre‑conflict levels.”
The Strait of Hormuz remains far from usual activity. Kpler’s real‑time monitoring recorded a flow of 10,591 kilobarrels per day through the strait on Saturday, compared with a prewar baseline of 17,133 kilobarrels per day.
The ongoing impasse is influencing U.S. fuel markets, where retail diesel prices linger close to a record $6.53 per gallon. The Trump administration is reconsidering an export ban, having recently distanced itself from an earlier iteration of the idea; Kpler estimates such a ban would retain about 1.2 million barrels per day domestically, potentially straining storage capacity.
Technologies
Saudi Red Sea export rebound pushes oil prices down
Oil prices fell after Saudi Arabia restored crude exports from its Red Sea terminals following a pipeline attack, while Iran and the U.S. continue talks over the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil prices fell on Tuesday as Saudi Arabia’s crude exports from its Red Sea ports recovered from an attack on a key pipeline earlier this month. The decline reflects renewed flow from major loading points.
Satellite imagery confirmed a “major operational recovery” at the Yanbu and Muajjiz terminals, according to a Kpler note released on Tuesday. The data shows that 12.5 million barrels were loaded onto nine tankers at Yanbu between Saturday and Monday, restoring activity after a drone strike disrupted the East‑West pipeline earlier in the month.
Riyadh has brought the pipeline’s throughput back to roughly 3.5 million barrels per day, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News on Monday. The line’s maximum capacity is 7 million bpd, indicating that the current flow is about half of its peak.
Meanwhile, U.S. and Iranian officials spoke with mediators on Monday as they attempt anew to negotiate a deal to end the seven‑month conflict. Iran offered last week to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if the United States accepts the terms of the failed June memorandum of understanding, but President Donald Trump rejected Tehran’s proposal on Saturday as exports through the waterway recover.
Oil flows through Hormuz have averaged 13.2 million barrels per day over the past week, according to Kpler data—about 77 % of the 17 million bpd that moved through the strait before the U.S.–Iran war. The U.S. military continues to protect tankers from Gulf allies and maintains a blockade on Iranian exports.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies4 years agoBest Handheld Game Console in 2023
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
