Tech / Technology

Zuckerberg shot down multiple initiatives to address youth mental health online, claims a new lawsuit

Posted on:

Newly unsealed documents in a lawsuit against Meta outline a history of rejecting opportunities to address youth mental wellbeing.
A blue and black illustration of Mark Zuckerberg in profile.

Still embroiled in lawsuits over the company’s slow move to address its platforms’ effects on young users, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is now under fire for reportedly blocking attempts to address Meta’s role in a worsening mental health crisis.

According to newly unsealed court documents in a Massachusetts case against Meta, Zuckerberg was made aware of ongoing concerns about user mental wellbeing in the years prior to the Wall Street Journal investigation and subsequent Congressional hearing. The CEO repeatedly ignored or shut down suggested actions by Meta’s top executives, including Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri and Facebook’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg.

Specifically, Zuckerberg passed on a 2019 proposal to remove popular beauty filters from Instagram, which many experts connect to worsening self image, unreachable standards of beauty, and perpetuated discrimination of people of color. Despite support for the proposal among other Instagram heads, the 102-page court document alleges, Zuckerberg vetoed the suggestion in 2020, saying he saw a high demand for the filters and “no data” that such filters were harmful to users. A meeting of mental health experts was allegedly cancelled a day before a meeting on the proposal was scheduled to take place.

The documents also include a 2021 exchange between Clegg and Zuckerberg, in which Clegg forwarded a request from Instagram’s wellbeing team asking for an investment of staff and resources for teen wellbeing, including a team to address areas of “problematic use, bullying+harassment, connections, [and Suicide and Self-Injury (SSI)],” Insider reports.

While Clegg reportedly told Zuckerberg that the request was “increasingly urgent,” Zuckerberg ignored his message.

The Massachusetts case is yet another legal hit for Meta, after being lambasted by state governments, parent coalitions, mental health experts, and federal officials for ignoring internal research and remaining complicit in social media’s negative effect on young users.

On Oct. 25, a group of 41 states and the District of Columbia sued Meta for intentionally targeting young people using its “infinite scroll” and algorithmic behavior and pushing them towards harmful content on platforms like Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Messenger.

In 2022, Meta faced eight simultaneous lawsuits across various states, accusing Meta of “exploiting young people for profit” and purposefully making its platforms psychologically addictive while failing to protect its users.

Meta’s not the only tech or social media giant facing potential legal repercussions for its role in catalyzing harmful digital behavior. The state of Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection (UDCP) filed a lawsuit against TikTok in October, claiming the app’s “manipulative design features” negatively effect young people’s mental health, physical development, and personal life. Following a similar case from a Seattle public school district, a Maryland school district filed a lawsuit against nearly all popular social platforms in June, accusing the addictive properties of such apps of “triggering crises that lead young people to skip school, abuse alcohol or drugs, and overall act out” in ways that are harmful to their education and wellbeing.

Since the 2021 congressional hearing that put Meta’s youth mental health concerns on public display, the company has launched a series of new parental control and teen safety measures, including oversight measures on Messenger and Instagram intended to protect young users from unwanted interactions and reduce their screen time.

Tech / Technology

‘Scavengers Reign’s alien ecosystems: Everything you need to know

Posted on:

‘Scavengers Reign’ co-creator Joe Bennett discusses Vesta’s real-world inspirations and secret alien names.
A robot and a human woman lean against a bike in a red desert on an alien planet.

When it comes to science fiction onscreen, there are some worlds you want to get lost in and others that fill you with deep fear. With the planet Vesta, Scavengers Reign manages to do both.

The series, co-created by Joseph Bennett and Charles Huettner as an expansion of their 2016 short Scavengers, sees a group of spacefaring castaways stranded on Vesta. In their attempts to make it home, they’ll run into a wide variety of wonderfully weird alien life forms.

These creatures and the landscapes they inhabit are wonders to behold, at once familiar and totally strange, gorgeous and terrifying. Take the otherworldly beasts of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, mix them with the cosmic horror of Annihilation, and you’ll get an initial sense of what you can expect from the aliens of Scavengers Reign. (I say “initial” because there are still several surprises in store.)

To learn more about these aliens, Mashable spoke with Bennett about Vesta’s real-world inspirations, made-up ecosystems, and the aliens’ secret names that didn’t make it into the show.

Building an alien ecosystem

Animated still: a man and woman crawl into a cave with alien life forms crawling on the ceiling.


Credit: Courtesy of Max

While Vesta is an alien planet, a lot of the early inspiration for its flora and fauna came from nature documentaries about good old planet Earth.

“Charles and I realized that it was almost impossible to come up with something totally original that doesn’t exist in some way in nature,” Bennett told Mashable in a video interview. The process for creating Scavengers Reign‘s aliens became a matter of finding something fascinating in our world, then pushing it in a different direction. For example, in episode 3, Azi (voiced by Wunmi Mosaku) finds herself in the middle of a stampeding herd of aliens. Physically, these aliens resemble large lizards crossed with horses. But their behavior, including how they move across the plains as one, was originally inspired by birds.

“Birds will navigate and move according to wind patterns, so they follow who’s to the left, or to the right, or who’s in front of them. There’ a kind of choreography that plays into that,” said Bennet. “So [with the stampede] we were thinking of doing that, but in the world of sound. These things are going off of sound reverberations, and that’s how they’re shifting from left to right.”

Bennett and Huettner were also inspired by symbiotic relationships in nature and the Gaia theory — which posits the Earth and its inhabitants as being one living entity — to develop the networks of relationships between Vesta’s aliens. That sense of a network is already evident in the Scavengers short, in which two survivors on Vesta gather resources in a chain reaction: One alien’s waste causes plants to grow, those plants contain a vital ingredient for the next stage of the scavengers’ quest, and so on. Bennett described this unfolding of events in Scavengers as being similar to a Rube Goldberg machine.

In Scavengers Reign, he and Huettner take that Rube Goldberg machine planet-wide, from crimson deserts to underground forests. We witness symbiotic relationships and parasitic ones as well, as well as the interplay between predator and prey. In episode 2, sea creatures suck their eggs from a beach using a vacuum-like nozzle, all in order to shelter them from a storm. Not long after, bug-like predators take advantage of the eggs being in one place, sneaking down the very same nozzle in order to attack. That sequence is just one brief snapshot of life on Vesta, yet it’s still a brilliant, in-depth piece of visual storytelling that speaks volumes about Vesta’s food chain.

Experience versus exposition

Animated still: a man and woman walk across a dark forest with red earth; a dead alien creature lays in front of them with plants growing out of it.


Credit: Courtesy of Max

When it comes to learning about the ins and outs of life on Vesta, Scavengers Reign keeps its focus on the sensory rather than on verbal exposition. The series documents each creature as it flies or runs or crawls into frame, letting their natural states wash over you before humans crash through and interfere. And while these humans will use the aliens for their own goals, you’ll never hear them talk about their traits or habits, nor will you hear them give any alien species a name.

“I definitely feel very allergic to exposition, especially through dialogue. I just would rather not do it,” Bennett said. “It felt a little bit more natural and realistic to not have the characters giving [the aliens] names, because they’re just traversing this landscape.”

Even though the characters don’t name Vesta’s aliens, Scavengers Reign‘s team had to, especially for the sake of the script. The names were mostly descriptive, like naming a parasite that attaches itself to Sam (voiced by Bob Stephenson) “Parasite.” However, other aliens received more mysterious names: The toad-like alien who hypnotizes Kamen (voiced by Ted Travelstead) is simply known as Hollow.

According to Bennett, the name “Hollow” is a nod to early ideas for that alien’s design. Originally, he was meant to have see-through skin similar to the barreleye fish, whose translucent forehead allows you to see the inner workings of its eyes. However, the challenges of animating Hollow’s visible organs in motion — especially in 2D animation — proved nightmarish, and Bennett and Huettner reverted to opaque skin. In the end, the name Hollow stuck as a tribute to that first look.

Hollow is a Scavengers Reign standout.

Animated still: a grey alien with glowing lights on its forehead.


Credit: Courtesy of Max

Hollow remains one of Scavengers Reign‘s most fascinating alien creatures, even without his organs on display. “We wanted him to have the same kind of feeling as a toad — something that is a harmless little amphibian,” Bennett explained. Yet that unassuming exterior hides a mildly sinister hunting trick.

Hollow and his kind feed by tricking other small tree-dwelling creatures into getting them food. They lure these tree-dwellers in with their hypnotizing light-up foreheads — anglerfish, anyone? — before feeding them a dark goo that makes them do their bidding. That bidding is initially just picking fruit from a tree and bringing it back down to Hollow.


You’ve introduced human greed and gluttony into this animal kingdom, and it’s changed the game. What is the ripple effect of that?

– Joseph Bennett

However, Hollow’s feeding process changes drastically once humans enter the picture. As Hollow’s servant, Kamen doesn’t just procure fruit. He kills other creatures for Hollow, who begins to hunger for larger and larger prey. This relationship highlights the menacing nature of Hollow’s mind control abilities, but it also emphasizes that Hollow is growing into a monster because of human interference.

“You’ve introduced human greed and gluttony into this animal kingdom, and it’s changed the game,” Bennett said. “What is the ripple effect of that?”

Beauty, ritual, and the bushwall creature

Animated still: a woman looks at a glowing flower.


Credit: Courtesy of Max

Due to his control over Kamen, Hollow becomes the closest thing Scavengers Reign has to a traditional alien antagonist. Yet for every terrifying predator or parasite the show’s humans come across, Scavengers Reign highlights a beautiful creature in turn. One of the most memorable appears in episode 3, when Ursula (voiced by Sunita Mani) witnesses a small, wrinkly alien (named the “bushwall creature,” according to Bennett) pollinating the flower it calls home within a massive wall of branches.

The pollination plays out in an entrancing wave of glowing lights and vibrant plant tendrils. The bushwall creature wakes up within the flower, carries out its task, and then curls up and dies. The whole process — which has its roots in the Scavengers short — only takes a few minutes, but you feel like you’ve watched an entire world unfold in that short time. In a way, you have, but on a very micro scale.

“[Director Vincent Tsui, Huettner, and I] talked in depth about taking something that feels like a very small, seemingly mundane moment and making it feel sacred and epic in its own way,” Bennett said of the pollination sequence in the wall. “There is a ritual that this character has that looks very significant when you put a spotlight on it. But in the grand scheme of things, there’s like a million of these in that wall. It’s kind of the same thing in real life — we will overlook the brilliance of an ant colony, and how incredible that is, and just don’t think anything of it.”

That such a seemingly small moment can land so profoundly speaks to Scavengers Reign‘s deep love of (and investment in) the world it has created. The show’s characters may be in a hurry to get off-planet, but Scavengers Reign is content to linger on Vesta’s plants and animals, introducing us to intricate ecosystems not too far from our own.

“It was always just an exciting thing to really push as much as we can and make [a creature] feel like it has complexity and layers to it, even if you’re not going to be with it for more than a few minutes,” Bennett said.

Scavengers Reign is now streaming on Max.

Tech / Technology

‘The Buccaneers’ review: A gloriously brash period drama for ‘Bridgerton’ fans

Posted on:

Based on Edith Wharton’s final novel, AppleTV+’s “The Buccaneers” is a 19th century romance drama following five American ladies drawn to England.
Five women, one in a wedding dress, four in green bridesmaids dresses, cheers champagne.

If you like your period dramas with spirited heroines who swig champagne, sweeping coastal shots of brooding Dukes, and lavish ball scenes where secrets abound, you’ll love The Buccaneers.

Based on Edith Wharton’s final novel, the eight-episode AppleTV+ series is a 19th century romance drama following five young American ladies drawn to England after one of their high society weddings to an English lord. Arriving in London, the newcomers are faced with deep judgment while bringing their own — and one hell of a cover of LCD Soundsystem’s “North American Scum” sets the title credit tone. But there’s also a landscape of eligible suitors on the horizon, including a forlorn Duke standing on a clifftop looking for a wife. Whatever will he do?

If you’re craving the next season of Bridgerton, The Buccaneers will satiate your thirst with diabolical narrative twists, simmering romantic leads, savvy performances, a killer modern soundtrack, and the lavish design of our society ball dreams.

What is The Buccaneers about?

Five women in 19th century garb stand together.

Conchita Closson (Alisha Boe), Mabel Elmsworth (Josie Totah), Nan St. George (Kristine Frøseth), Lizzy Elmsworth (Aubri Ibrag), and Jinny St. George (Imogen Waterhouse).
Credit: Apple TV+

Set in the upper echelons of society in 1870s New York and London, the series revolves around five young women on the cusp of “marriages, men, and parties” in deeply patriarchal 19th century society.

There’s protagonist Nan St. George (Kristine Frøseth), the headstrong best friend of the vivacious Conchita Closson (Alisha Boe), who is getting married for love to English Lord Richard Marable (Josh Dylan) — much to his parents’ chagrin back home. Conchita’s bridesmaids are Nan’s older sister Jinny St. George (Imogen Waterhouse), who holds the weight of family responsibility on her shoulders, as does the eldest of the Elmsworth family, Lizzy (Aubri Ibrag), who endures a traumatic experience at the hands of a powerful man. And her younger sister, Mabel Elmsworth (Josie Totah) has her own secrets in this heteronormative society.

Following Conchita’s appointment as Lady Marable, the group are invited to England to meet the Lord’s family: the deeply judgy Brightlingseas. Debuted into society at the Queen’s Ball, the bridesmaids are introduced to a world of suitors, delightful and otherwise, including the heinous Lord James Seadown (Barney Fishwick). But while the ladies are getting settled in, it becomes apparent that Conchita’s acceptance into English culture is more difficult and sinister than she’d imagined. Instead of helping his new wife, Richard laments, “Will she work in England, will she fit in?” 

Meanwhile Nan, seen as the most “unruly” unwed young woman of the group, is sent to the seaside of Cornwall to avoid “distraction” from her sister, Jinny. Here, she meets the roguish Theo (Guy Remmers) who she believes is an artist but is actually the Duke of Tintagel, “the greatest match in England”. But there’s already another who has caught Nan’s eye, his best friend, Guy Thwarte (Matthew Broome), whose closeness to Nan has meant she’s revealed a personal secret that could ruin her.

A young woman in a blue dress stands in front of two men in suits with a horse.

Nan St. George (Kristine Frøseth), the Duke of Tintagel (Guy Remmers), and Guy Thwarte (Matthew Broome).
Credit: Apple TV+

Feeling more Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette than Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice, The Buccaneers takes liberties to allow its broad spectrum of characters more modern behaviour in their dalliances — a subtle brush of the hand is not enough for this series.

The ladies of The Buccaneers are gloriously brash

“There are women and then there are wives.” It’s the core philosophy of most of the male characters and the older generations in The Buccaneers, but the series allows its core female characters room to scorn it — even Nan and Jinny’s mother, played to perfection by Christina Hendricks, hopes her daughters “will always be tall” and true to themselves. The series reveres the silliness, intelligence, wit, creativity, beauty, and power of women and girls within a society that puts them on a pedestal then closes them into a purely domestic life. But the series importantly doesn’t make them all staunchly open feminists. This is the 19th century, after all.

A young woman in 19th century dress lounges on a sofa.

“Girls are taught to believe that if a story isn’t a love story then it’s a tragedy and I had no interest in being involved with either one of those.”
Credit: Apple TV+

As the protagonist, Nan feels the most modern of the characters, openly rejecting what’s expected of her in a barefooted assuredness that even Elizabeth Bennet would envy. Within minutes of meeting Nan, she’s climbing down the facade of a building to rescue her best friend’s earring, then blustering through a meet-cute with undeniable self-confidence. “Girls are taught to believe that if a story isn’t a love story then it’s a tragedy and I had no interest in being involved with either one of those,” she says through voice over. But involved she becomes, with both Theo and Guy on the horizon, all while her own sense of identity is thrown into the air.

If “young ladies of refinement” are what this society requires, the American ladies rattle the more subdued, conservatism of their English counterparts — they stomp around and giggle, swig bubbly, and raise their voices above a whisper. “You are the most beautiful thing I have ever seen,” Nan cackles to Conchita, currently drinking champagne on the toilet in her wedding dress. The script takes liberties with what would boot a young woman out of society — when Nan claps back at an English ball-goer for lambasting Americans as “outspoken and vulgar” she sparks the interest of the Duke instead of being kicked out. Conchita’s unchaperoned girls weekend in Runnymede sees the ladies going for a waterfall dip with her husband and his friends, which is as far away from Jane Austen’s distanced admiration as you can get. Much of the interactions between the characters happens unchaperoned with more physical contact than most 19th century novels — and it’s wildly welcome. 

The Buccaneers pits England vs America

At times, one could see the series as being distinctly anti-English, pro-American with modern sensibilities of self expression and feminism only allowed to the American characters. “Get used to an ocean of silence and swim about in it as well as you can,” Conchita warns her sisters on their arrival in England. “I haven’t drowned yet.”

A woman in elegant evening wear looks sad on the arm of a man in a suit looking concerned.

Lady Conchita Marable (Alisha Boe) and Lord Richard Marable (Josh Dylan).
Credit: Apple TV+

As her light threatens to be stamped out, Conchita becomes the embodiment of American defiance throughout the series, granted, something she’s privileged to do as a married woman in an influential family, but she’s also noticing a change in her husband since they left New York — he now expects the new Lady Marable to “be the wife” and “behave”. Hosting a girls weekend in Runnymede, Conchita pontificates about cultural differences: “Since when were we ever shy of a party? Girls, have you not noticed? We’re not them. We’re Americans. When did we ever care what people think of us? I mean, the English are so fascinated by their history. Well, we have a history of being fascinating. It’s time that they learn from us.”

Richard’s family is full of disdain for Conchita and her friends — “Before you know it there won’t be a family left in England without American poison in its veins,” scoffs Lord Brightlingsea. However, the series acknowledges that Conchita’s particular treatment is steeped in racism, not just English prejudice against Americans, and her character deeply struggles with this.

Unfortunately, one of the main issues I have with The Buccaneers is the general positioning of English women in the series as happily accepting of their restrictions, of “volunteering” to be dutiful and upholding patriarchal requirements of etiquette and behaviour. Though Conchita is allowed open laments over her frustration, Richard’s intentionally unwed sister Honoria Marable (Mia Threapleton) is not, though both women feel equally frustrated with their limitations, including Honoria’s closeted sexuality. “You’ve seen English girls. They just nod and obey and do embroidery,” says Conchita. “We’re like a whole other species.”

Two women playing croquet look at each other and smile.

Mabel Elmsworth (Josie Totah) and Honoria Marable (Mia Threapleton).
Credit: Apple TV+

It’s here the series also runs into problematic “not like other girls” territory, especially through the character of Nan, who quite literally says aloud, “I’m not one of those girls who gets in trouble and needs helping down from horses.” Jinny and Conchita also come to a head over what’s “proper” behaviour as a married woman, each throwing each other under the bus as “different”. Don’t get me wrong, I love The Buccaneers‘ representation of women and girls being exhausted and simply done with patriarchal bullshit, but it doesn’t feel great seeing it at the expense of other women like Jinny, whose responsibilities to their family see them sacrifice the freedom of expression and independent spirit Nan enjoys. 

The inescapable influence of Bridgerton

By no means the only period drama steaming up our screens in recent years but one of the most influential, Bridgerton‘s influence on contemporary 19th century romances cannot be understated — Shonda Rhimes’ series has defined the streaming era’s resurgence in pop music-fuelled balls, long courtships, and revisionist takes on the expectations of the time, particularly for women. 

Following similar modern takes like Persuasion, The Pursuit of Love, The Great, Sanditon, and more, The Buccaneers takes more than a few cues from Bridgerton, from the series’ conversations and representation of sex, but also its reliance on contemporary music, from Warpaint to Japanese Breakfast. In one particularly notable scene, Taylor Swift and Phoebe Bridgers’ duet “Nothing New” whirls as the camera pans through young women in white ready to make their debut at the Queen’s Ball. It’s straight out of Bridgerton and it’s glorious. Coppola’s Marie Antoinette rings through the halls too, from the series set design filled with peacocks, pink-dyed poodles, gilded mirrors, and cornucopias of fresh flowers, to the frank conversations the series’ female characters have about sex, marriage, and female pleasure.

Notably, the series goes where we’d love for Bridgerton to go, introducing closeted queer characters Horonia and Mabel and the lack of options for lesbians in 19th century society beyond covert relationships.

Able to run where its predecessors paved the way, The Buccaneers is a lavish period drama that feels fresh and modern, with a fast-paced, twisting narrative, grandiose set and costume design, and enough chemistry to keep you guessing between matches. It’s a little Gossip Girl, a little Marie Antoinette, and a lot of Bridgerton, and it’s gloriously impolite society.

How to watch: The Buccaneers is now streaming episodes 1 to 3 on Apple TV+, with a new episode every Wednesday.

Tech / Technology

Dyson Airwrap Complete review: Why it might not be worth it for you

Posted on:

The iconic, internet-famous Dyson Airwrap is $600. We tested it out to see who should actually be dropping the cash on it.
dyson airwrap case with five attachments

UPDATE: Nov. 7, 2023, 5:00 a.m. EST We’ve updated this review after testing out the Dyson Airwrap Complete Long Diffuse.

The thing about the Dyson Airwrap is, for a hair styler that’s $600, I expected it to perform some miracles.

It’s not even the price tag alone that built that expectation for me. The countless TikToks, YouTube videos, and its near-constant sold out status made me believe Dyson hit hair gold.

Then, considering I’m reviewing the updated iteration of the Dyson Airwrap that launched in June 2022, I imagined I’d be using an improved version of what already seemed to be a well-liked product worth the hype. And I love my Dyson vacuum, so my hopes were pretty high.

As it turns out, the Dyson Airwrap Complete multi-styler is just fine.

I’m not here to stir up a controversy or fish for hate clicks, but I’d be lying if I said that after using the Airwrap (and its many dupes), I don’t really understand why people act like this is The Hair Tool missing from their life (outside of course, than the confirmation bias of the TikToks, YouTube videos, and constant sold out status that seem to tell us constantly that this is The Hair Tool missing from our lives).

Don’t get me wrong, it’s an innovative and impressive hair tool that has clearly influenced the beauty tech space — I just don’t think you need to pay $600 to get the results it gives. I do think a lot of the Dyson Airwrap’s worth lies in what you want out of a styler, and what your hair is brings to the party sans heat and air styling.

When the Airwrap first dropped, I tested every single attachment over the course of a few weeks, and more recently I’ve tested the newer attachments from the Dyson Airwrap Complete Diffuse — so let’s get into the details.

What’s the difference between the Dyson Airwrap Complete and the original Airwrap?

In June 2022, Dyson released their second generation of the Airwrap, with a few upgrades.

The Coanda air tech (this is the fancy term that describes how the tool relies on air rather than heat to style) stuck around, but with some new attachments meant to optimize its use.

This updated iteration came in three models when it launched in 2022: the Dyson Airwrap Complete for short- to medium-length hair, the Dyson Airwrap Complete Long for hair that’s chest-length or longer (this is the model I tested), and the Dyson Airwrap Complete Coily/Curly for those with curly hair — as of Oct. 2022, this last model has been replaced by the Dyson Airwrap Complete Diffuse, which has a crucial new attachment (if you can guess from the name).

Dyson Complete Long attachments

The Complete Long comes with six attachments:

  1. Coanda smoothing dryer

  2. 1.2-inch Airwrap long barrel

  3. 1.6-inch Airwrap long barrel

  4. Firm smoothing brush

  5. Soft smoothing brush

  6. Round volumizing brush

All of these attachments come in a large storage case just like the original Airwrap. Mine lived on the floor next to my desk during the duration of my testing, since my bathroom simply did not have the space to accommodate it.

dyson airwrap case on ground in front of drawers

Where I stored my Dyson Airwrap case, with IKEA drawers for size reference.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

The new Dyson Airwrap Complete Diffuse

Finally, the Dyson Airwrap comes with a diffuser, allowing people with wavy and curly hair to dry to actually dry their hair (without losing their texture). Say hello to the Dyson Airwrap Complete Long Diffuse, which retails for $599.99.

dyson airwrap with diffuser attachment


Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

The Airwrap Diffuse is the exact same Airwrap, with a different selection of attachments. Here’s what’s included (brand new attachments are bolded):

  1. Diffuser

  2. Large round volumizing brush

  3. Coanda smoothing dryer

  4. Wide tooth comb

  5. Firm smoothing brush

  6. 1.2-inch Airwrap long barrel

The addition of a diffuser to Dyson’s lineup finally puts some pressure on the Shark FlexStyle (which is hands down the best Airwrap dupe), which had a diffuser in its original lineup when it was released last fall. The Dyson diffuser does have a fairly large circumference — since I’ve initially tested the Airwrap, I’ve chopped off my hair to my shoulders, so I was worried this larger diffuser could prove difficult to use.

Turns out, it doesn’t at all. The diffuser snaps on perfectly to the base, and sits at an easy-to-maneuver angle. It helped me achieve definition to my 2A/2B waves, and noticeably more volume than when I rely on an air dry. I tested this diffuser with different styling products (a mouse one time and a styling cream another), and both times it delivered. What ended up being my biggest gripe with the diffuser’s size is that it doesn’t fit into the storage case alongside the rest of the attachments.

back view of woman's shoulder length wavy hair

The diffuser helped me get more definition and noticeably more volume than my air dried hair.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

Though I do think the FlexStyle’s diffuser is a bit more versatile, with adjustable length prongs and the swiveling base, Dyson did a solid job with what it came up with. If you don’t want to buy an entirely new Airwrap, the brand will be selling the diffuser separately soon for $39.99.

The Airwrap Diffuse also comes with a new large volumizing brush, which is sold separately for $39.99. Though it’s not leaps and bounds away from other Dyson round brushes (or any round brush for that matter), the larger size is welcome.

With the original round brush, which has about a 1.5-inch diameter, I could get nice bouncy ends, but had more trouble achieving noticeable volume at the root, which isn’t an issue I’ve encountered when using larger round brushes.

dyson large volumizing brush and round volumizing brush

The new Dyson large volumizing brush (left) and the round volumizing brush (right).
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

The Dyson large volumizing brush, on the other hand, has a 2.2-inch diameter. It’s definitely targeted toward people with longer and thicker hair. As my hair currently sits on the shorter side, it’s hard for me to test effectively, but the bristles feel exactly the same as the smaller brush, which moved through my hair with ease.

The biggest attachment upgrades

When it comes to what’s noticeably improved from the first generation, the attachments are by far the standouts.

Direction changing curling barrels

Maybe the most obvious flaw of the first generation Airwrap was that to alternate the direction of your curls, you had to swap out your barrel, which meant if you didn’t want perfectly uniform curls, you’d have to use two barrels while styling.

The new Airwrap provides a fix in the form of a switch at the tip of both the 1.2-inch and 1.6-inch barrels, which allows you to change the curl direction with a simple twist of the very top of the barrel. Originally, I thought having to switch the barrels would ruin any convenience factor they offered, but after testing the Shark FlexStyle, it turns out having a barrel for each direction isn’t all that annoying.

the dyson airwrap 1.2-inch curling barrel

For those of us without patience, Dyson provided a crucial fix on the curling attachment.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

Still, if you have the first gen Airwrap, use the curling barrels most days, and have $39.99 to spare, buying the newest barrels separately is likely worth it for you. For those with long hair, you’ll also likely appreciate the greater surface area of the “long” style barrel.

The dual purpose smoothing dryer attachment

The Coanda smoothing dryer was my sleeper hit of the updated Airwrap. While one end blows out a surprising amount of hot air for an overall dry, a quick twist redirects the air out of the smoothing end, which tames frizz as it dries and grabs sections of hair similar to the curling wand attachments. It actually worked great for smoothing sans any brushing, and it would dry my very long hair in 10 to 15 minutes. It’s a definite step up from the pre-styling dryer that came with the first Airwrap.

two airwrap dryer attachments

The new Dyson Airwrap smoothing attachment (left) replaces the pre-dry attachment (right) of the first generation Airwrap.
Credit: Mashable Photo Composite / Dyson

There are also some slight design changes on the smoothing brushes, but nothing as significant as the above two attachments.

If you already own the first generation Airwrap and want of the upgraded attachments, each is available (when in stock at least) for $39.99.

And as you would expect from a tool that costs this much, all the attachments snap into place easily and feel snug and firm when in use.

Still, the Dyson Airwrap learning curve isn’t nonexistent

When I first tested the Revlon One-Step (the original Airwrap dupe), I found it relatively easy to use, despite my middling hair styling skills. I expected much of the same with the Airwrap, especially since it’s seen as superior to the One-Step.

This held true when it came to every attachment but the curling barrels. The TikToks lied to you. It doesn’t just grab the ends of your hair, easy-peasy, no matter where hair is sitting. I found that it was really important to grab the right sized section of hair, hold out it out from the rest of my head so the barrel didn’t grab any extra hair, then let the ends hang limp so the styler would actually grab it.

Once I figured that out, it became much easier, but finding the right tension and sized section (which can be tricky with longer hair), takes some skill.

The curling attachment left much to be desired during and after the styling process

Before we even get into it, I want to be clear — I read the literature (Dyson’s help guides), I delved into the texts (YouTube tutorials), I assembled my most trusted confidants (heat protectant, styling cream, and hair spray) — I could not get the curls from the Dyson Airwrap to last in my hair for a full calendar day.

Maybe this could be forgiven in some cases, but styling these curls takes a good chunk of time, especially if you have longer and thicker hair. The first time I used the 1.6-inch curling barrel, I took 30 minutes to curl my hair, and this was after the six minutes it took to bring my hair from towel dried to the 80 percent damp state that’s recommended for curling the hair.


I read the literature (Dyson’s help guides), I delved into the texts (YouTube tutorials), I assembled my most trusted confidants (heat protectant, styling cream, and hair spray) — I could not get the curls from the Dyson Airwrap to last in my hair for a full calendar day.

That doesn’t sound bad, but then I realized a decent chunk of curls had fallen while I’d been curling. So I went back in, and about 20 minutes later, it looked somewhat better. Overall, I spent about an hour in my bathroom, and a few hours later when I drove to a friend’s birthday dinner, I realized the curls had mostly fallen. I had bouncy, flippy hair that was pretty, but not the loose waves I wanted.

woman with curled hair

1.6-inch barrel curls immediately after being styled.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

woman sitting in car with styled hair

1.6-inch barrel curls about 4 and 1/2 hours later, in glorious car-selfie lighting.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

I decided that although the 1.6-inch barrel says it can achieve loose curls and waves, maybe for my hair, it would create more of a blowout-esque look. So, I turned to the 1.2-inch barrel. Again, I dutifully followed the steps Dyson recommends for curls: I sectioned my hair, blasted it with hot air for 10 to 15 seconds, then blasted it with cold air for an additional five to 10. I even did 20 to 25 seconds of hot air and 15 of cold, but my patience once again got in the way, and it didn’t make too much of a difference in the end anyway.

woman with extra curly styled hair

1.2-inch barrel curls immediately after styling, giving some bottom-heavy volume realness.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

back of woman's curled hair

Two hours later, these curls had fallen into very soft waves, with the middle of the hair straightening almost completely.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

Don’t expect curls that’ll last all day

While I eventually got to the place where this process moved a bit faster, the curls still fell while I styled and continued to fall throughout the day. Forgoing hairspray (which I can sometimes do with a curling wand) wasn’t an option if I wanted my style to last beyond an hour or two.

In fact, I found that styling one side, hair spraying it, then moving on to the other was key for longevity.

Some people say that they can get the curls to last for more than one day — even with a classic wand frying my hair, this isn’t possible for me, so I never had this expectation. However, watching the curls fall within the 45 minutes it took to style them — not once did I have to brush out even the most coiled Founding Father-esque curl — was a bit disappointing.

back of woman's curled hair

After much more practice, I was able to achieve prettier and more consistent curls.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

back of woman's curled hair slightly fallen

But 30 minutes after styling, they had already started to fall slightly. By night time, only a slight wave remained.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

As a fun experiment, my roommate also tested the curling barrel on freshly washed and 80 percent dried hair. Her hair, though incredibly straight, is happy to curl (and stay curled for multiple days) with a flat iron. Her hair is even longer than mine though, so she did struggle some to get it to wrap around the barrel at first. By the end of the experiment, her hair was pretty much straight again. For both of us, we found that our long hair meant that the curls, even when intact, were pretty bottom heavy, too.

woman with slightly wavy but mostly straight hair

My roommate ended up re-curling her hair with a curling wand after her first attempt with the 1.6-inch barrel yielded these results.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

One of the big draws you see about the Airwrap is the curling attachments, and they were certainly what I was most excited to try. Maybe it is just a matter of them not loving my hair type, or that I still have some learning to do, but in any case, they were by far the most disappointing part of the Dyson.

Hair-friendly heat styling is possible

I know we just spent some time going over why the curling barrel was less than great, but what I will say was a huge plus, is that even through hour-long styling sessions, my hair never felt like it was taking on all that much heat damage.

Not once did I smell that signature singed hair scent that accompanies the use of pretty much any hot tool, including the Revlon One-Step. This was true for every single attachment included with the Airwrap, which made me see why someone who regularly uses hot tools would want to pay to protect their hair a bit more. Sure, it might mean certain styles are locked in less, but for long term use, I definitely see the merit.

The Dyson also has great customizability when it comes to how much heat you want blasting your hair. In addition to the cool shot switch, there are three different heat levels, and three different air speed levels. All were easy to adjust mid-styling.

close up of the dyson airwrap handle

The heat and air settings are easy to adjust mid-styling.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

As an added bonus, every single time I styled my hair with this product, I got compliments, which is an especially nice feeling for someone who used to struggle brushing their hair when they were a kid.

The smoothing power is unreal

Since my hair runs a little on the dry side, I’m no stranger to frizz. Though I’ve never been a fan of completely straightened styles on myself, and therefore usually let my waves air dry, I actually found myself most happy with my results when using any of the smoothing attachments.

I’ve already spoken some about the new Coanda smoothing dryer, which was great for getting a quick, rough dry and flipping around to smooth out some frizz on the top of my head.

The attachments that surprised me the most with how much I liked them, especially since they looked the most boring, were the soft and firm smoothing brushes. Both are meant for straightening, but the firm brush has less flexible bristles meant to tame frizz a bit better. I used that one on the top layer of my hair where I get most frizzy, and the soft one for the rest of my head. By the end of styling, the frizz wasn’t nonexistent, but it was way less than what I usually deal with.

two smoothing brushes from the dyson airwrap

The two attachments that took me by surprise, the soft and firm smoothing brush (pictured left to right).
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

In both cases, they actually worked as well normal brushes, too. I never ran a comb through my hair beforehand, as I would with a round brush, and my tangles came out easily.

What was also nice was that though I could get my hair perfectly straight, I could also brush through the very ends of my hair quicker to get it dry, but leave some of my natural wave. That gave me a look my roommate described as “styled, but like you didn’t style it at all,” which is ultimately the Peak Goal of quick styling. And I do mean quick, since these brushes dried my hair in 10 minutes. Overall, it gave much more body and movement than a standard hair straightener.

back of woman's head with straightened, slightly wavy hair

My hair went from towel dried to this in under 15 minutes thanks to the smoothing brushes.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

woman in a striped shirt with styled hair

The smoothing brushes tamed my frizz and gave me great volume at the root.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

The attachment we’ve yet to talk about is the round volumizing brush. It’s pretty standard, not too large, and does provide pretty flips at the end of the hair. As for the volume it provides at the root, I honestly got better results with the smoothing brushes somehow. This could be a learning curve thing, but it was also easier on early passes with the Revlon One-Step to get bigger volume due to the larger brush size, though the One-Step definitely introduces more heat damage.

the dyson airwrap with the round brush and revlon one step plus next to each other

The Revlon One Step Plus round brush by far has the larger diameter.
Credit: Bethany Allard / Mashable

Again, if you’re a fan of a bigger volumizing brush, it’s probably worth it to invest in the new large volumizing brush that came out with the Airwrap Diffuse.

Is the Dyson Airwrap worth it?

On value alone, for most people, the Dyson Airwrap is probably not worth it. There are honestly too many good dupes out there to earnestly recommend this multi-styler as the only way to achieve the styles (and protection) it offers.

If you already own the first generation Airwrap, you 100 percent do not need to upgrade. If you want some of the benefits of the newer model, grab a couple of new attachments, but save your money — you’ve already made the big investment.

In other cases, it depends. If you occasionally want a blowout look, the Revlon One-Step or Amika blowout babe thermal brush are fantastic and a fraction of the cost. Yes, you’ll pay a bit with heat damage, but if you’re not using it super frequently, it’ll be okay.

If you just want great curls on some days, this might be a skip for you, too. Honestly, every time I curled my hair with the Airwrap, I thought about how much I would prefer using a Dyson blow dryer and then my classic curling wand, to achieve better results in less time.

With that said, I could see this working great for people with shoulder length or shorter hair. The styling time would be cut in half, and the curls would probably take up more of the strand. As someone who’s had shorter hair, I also know that some form of daily styling is usually necessary, so the plus of less damage isn’t negligible.

If you are heat styling your hair every single day, this product could very well be worth it. The other important thing to note is that the Airwrap works best when you style from wet hair, so if you’re not a morning shower-er, that’s another big point to consider. It could just mean making a lifestyle change, but I’m personally a nighttime shower person at the end of the day (literally!), so I didn’t love having to rewet my hair every morning.

It is, first and foremost, a luxury

For everybody else, unless you’re really dying to spend $600, you don’t need the Airwrap. It’s fancy, it’s fun, but you shouldn’t expect (like I did) that it’s going to drastically change your hair game. And if you’re looking for an incredibly similar, and in certain cases superior, experience at a lower price point, the Shark FlexStyle is a great option.

Now that we have a diffuser, what I’d personally love to see the most from the Airwrap — and this is straight out of Shark’s playbook — is a build your own kit. With Shark’s kit, it comes with fewer attachments (three compared to four), but you choose exactly which attachments you want — and the whole package costs less overall. Imagine if Dyson pretended a budget-conscious audience existed! (But I guess, considering the Airwrap’s frequently sold out status, they don’t have to).

Ultimately, the Airwrap has some huge benefits, but the hefty price tag, time investment, and issues with the curling attachment kept it from completely blowing me away.

Tech / Technology

iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro camera comparison: the results shocked me

Posted on:

We compared the cameras on the iPhone 15 Pro Max and the Pixel 8 Pro. Which is better?
iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Google Pixel 8 camera shot of Washington Square Arch

This iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro camera face-off came to be because I kept hearing “Pixel phones take the best photos!” among mobile tech enthusiasts.

“Even better than the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S series?” I’d ask. “Yes!” they’d often reply.

In the words of Marcia from The Brady Bunch, “Sure Jan.”

Now, I’m not saying I don’t believe ‘em – I’m just skeptical. However, I’m trying to be a little open-minded here. I’m well-versed in the iPhone space as I’ve been reviewing them for several years, but I’m green when it comes to the Pixel line. 

That being said, I managed to secure a Pixel 8 Pro and I pit it against the mighty iPhone 15 Pro Max. See for yourself which phone – the Apple device or the Google handset – takes the best photos.

iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro: Wide photos

Take a look at these two wide shots of the Washington Square Arch in Greenwich Village, NYC. Which one do you prefer?

Google Pixel 8 Pro wide shot of Washington Square Arch

Do you prefer this wide-lens picture?
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

iPhone 15 Pro Max wide shot of Washington Square Arch

Do you like this wide-lens shot?
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

I sent these photos to my circle of tech journalists without telling them which smartphone took ’em. Among my network, which includes Mashable’s Tech Reporter Alex Perry, most preferred the top photo (Pixel 8 Pro) over the bottom one (iPhone 15 Pro Max). 

The Pixel 8 Pro processed a brighter, more illuminated photo, which is more pleasing to the eye. However, Jason England, Tom’s Guide’s Computing Editor with years of mobile-tech experience, told Mashable that the Pixel 8 Pro’s wide photo is too bright for his tastes.

“This one,” England said, pointing to the Pixel 8 Pro photo during the blind test, “is too drained of color, and loses some detail by being too bright, so the HDR is not as good.”

England makes a good point. At first glance, the Pixel 8 Pro’s wide shot might be more aesthetically pleasing, but if you take a closer look at the details, the Google phone lost some of the structure’s weathered, time-worn details.

iPhone 15 Pro Max wide shot of Washington Square Arch

Left:
iPhone 15 Pro Max
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable
Right:
Google Pixel 8 Pro
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

The rusty, reddish-orange hues that are prominent on the base of the arch – as well as the more intricate carvings on the architectural marble masterpiece – are less conspicuous on the Pixel 8 Pro’s wide photo. 

The Washington Square Arch on the iPhone 15 Pro Max is more true-to-life, capturing more of its aged, weather-beaten details, including its slight yellow tint. And do you see the man with the cap? He’s got a power blue shirt on the Pixel 8 Pro, but on the iPhone 15 Pro Max, it’s more teal-like. I was actually there, so I’d argue that the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s shot is more realistic.

When I told England that he was the only one who chose the iPhone 15 Pro Max during the blind test of seven tech journalists, he jokingly said, “They should never be trusted with a camera comparison again. Do they even have eyes?”

It’s worth noting that England owns an iPhone 14 Pro and is a mega Apple fan.


  • iPhone 15 Pro Max wide-camera specs: 48MP, f/1.8,1.22µm

  • Pixel 8 Pro wide-camera specs: 50 MP, f/1.7, 1.2µm


iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro: Selfie photos

I took selfies (Portrait Mode) in Madison Square Park and the winner here, among my tech-journalist circle, was unanimous. Which one do you prefer?

iPhone 15 Pro Max selfie

Which selfie do you prefer? And can you guess which phone took it?
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

Google Pixel 8 Pro selfie

Do you prefer this selfie snapshot? Can you guess which phone took it?
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

The top photo is the iPhone 15 Pro Max while the bottom one is the Pixel 8 Pro. Every single tech journalist preferred the iPhone 15 Pro Max during the blind test.

I’m disappointed with the Google Pixel 8 Pro here. The lens flaring in the selfie is out of control. At first, I thought there was some smudging on the front-facing camera that was causing the stray-light artifacts, but even after wiping the selfie lens with my microfiber cloth, lens flaring continued to plague our selfies.

iPhone 15 Pro Max selfie

Left:
iPhone 15 Pro Max
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable
Right:
Google Pixel 8 Pro
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

During the Made by Google 2023 event, Google’s Product Management Director Shenaz Zack said the company is continuing to expand its “image equity efforts,” claiming that the Pixel 8 series should now accurately portray the vast range of human skin tones. 

I can’t say I agree. Our skin tones look a bit washed out on the Google Pixel 8 Pro. Perry’s navy-blue hoodie is, well, less blue on the Pixel 8 Pro. Plus, my lipstick – shout out to Fenty Beauty’s H.B.I.C shade – looks less vivid on the Pixel 8 Pro.

England isn’t a fan of the Pixel 8 Pro’s range of colors either. “The software’s trying too hard to balance the light and dark tones,” he said. “It doesn’t look natural.” 

Interestingly, there’s some odd distortion regarding our facial features, too. I theorize this may have something to do with the Pixel 8 Pro’s 20mm focal length, which is less ideal compared to the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s 23mm focal length. Longer focal length is better – and more attractive – because it makes your facial features look more proportionate.

Conversely, the iPhone 15 Pro Max selfie doesn’t feature irksome light artifacts that ruin the photo. Our complexions are more accurate, colors are richer and more true-to-life – and there aren’t any awkward shadows that seem to come out of nowhere.

The clear winner here is the iPhone 15 Pro Max.


  • iPhone 15 Pro Max selfie camera specs: 12MP, f/1.9, 23mm

  • Pixel 8 Pro selfie camera specs: 10.8 MP, f/2.2, 20mm


iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro: Zoom

I couldn’t wait to test out the telephoto on both the iPhone 15 Pro Max and the Pixel 8 Pro. The former is now capable of 5x optical zoom, and it’s exclusive to the Pro Max, which is an upgrade from its predecessor’s 3x optical zoom.

The Pixel 8 Pro has 5x optical zoom, too, but it isn’t new; it’s been around since Google launched the 7 Pro. The Pixel 8 Pro can zoom digitally up to 30x, which exceeds the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s 25x max digital-zoom range.

In Madison Square Park, we zoomed in some yellow flowers at 5x on both phones. Which one do you prefer?

Google Pixel 8 Pro yellow flowers

Zoomed-in photo of flowers at 5x
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

iPhone 15 Pro Max yellow flowers

Zoomed-in photo of flowers at 5x
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

The top photo is the Pixel 8 Pro while the bottom one is the iPhone 15 Pro Max. I prefer the latter. The petals appear to be sharper. Colors are richer, too, from the woman’s green jacket to the bright, yellow-orange hue of the eye-catching flowers.

Max-zoom test on iPhone 15 Pro Max and Google Pixel 8 Pro

Spotting the Con Edison building, we decided to zoom in on its funky green steeple. To give you some perspective on how far we were from this edifice, here’s a wide photo of it.

Picture of the Con Edison Building with Pixel 8 Pro

Wide snapshot of the Con Edison building with Pixel 8 Pro
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

We decided to zoom in to the max on both phones. That’d be 25x on the iPhone 15 Pro Max and 30x on the Google Pixel 8 Pro. No, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I thought it’d be fun to see which results we’d get by capping out their zoom capabilities.

Here we have the iPhone 15 Pro Max:

Telephoto of Con Edison Building steeple with iPhone 15 Pro Max

iPhone 15 Pro Max 25x zoom
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

And this is the Google Pixel 8 Pro:

Telephoto of Con Edison Building steeple with Pixel 8 Pro

Pixel 8 Pro 30x zoom
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

As expected, the iPhone 15 Pro Max is sharper and produces more details. After all, it’s at 25x zoom while the Pixel 8 Pro is at 30x zoom. However, you can see how much further the Pixel 8 Pro can get.

Telephoto of Con Edison Building steeple with iPhone 15 Pro Max

Left:
iPhone 15 Pro Max
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable
Right:
Google Pixel 8 Pro
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

If someone – or if you believe in the supernatural – something was peering out of that window, the Pixel 8 Pro would be better equipped at capturing it.


  • iPhone 15 Pro Max (telephoto specs): 12MP, f/2.8, 1.12µm

  • Pixel 8 Pro (telephoto specs): 48MP, f/2.8, 0.7µm


iPhone 15 Pro Max vs. Pixel 8 Pro: Ultrawide photos

Back at the Washington Square Arch, we tested the ultrawide shooters of both phones. Which photo do you prefer?

Ultrawide photo of Washington Square Arch on iPhone 15 Pro Max

Ultrawide shot of Washington Square Arch
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

Ultrawide photo of Washington Square Arch on Google Pixel 8 Pro

Ultrawide shot of Washington Square Arch
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

The top photo is the iPhone 15 Pro Max while the bottom one is the Google Pixel 8 Pro. The latter’s ultrawide photo preserves more detail, which makes sense considering that it has a 48MP shooter compared to the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s 12MP lens. For example, you can see more scratches, rust and other weathering details on the lamp post.

I can say the same for the ground – you can see more cracks, fissures, and erosion on the Pixel 8 Pro’s ultrawide shot. However, the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s ultrawide lens is better at reproducing colors and textures.

Ultrawide photo of Washington Square Arch on Google Pixel 8 Pro

Left:
Google Pixel 8 Pro
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable
Right:
iPhone 15 Pro Max
Credit: Kimberly Gedeon / Mashable

For example, do you see the woman in the funky purple jacket? On the iPhone 15 Pro Max version, it captures more of its metallic material as its rich violet hue. Conversely, on the Pixel 8 Pro’s ultrawide photo, her jacket is slightly more washed out.

However, because the Pixel 8 Pro has a wider field of view (126 degrees vs. 120 degrees), it captures more scenery compared to the iPhone 15 Pro Max.


  • iPhone 15 Pro Max (ultrawide specs): 12MP, f/2.2, 120-degree field of view

  • Google Pixel 8 Pro (ultrawide specs): 48MP, f/2.0, 126-degree field of view


Final thoughts

Would I agree that the Pixel 8 Pro is better than the iPhone? No. However, I’m surprised at how well it performed in some of our tests, particularly when it comes to shooting ultrawide shots.

If I could build the perfect phone, it’d have the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s selfie camera, the Pixel 8 Pro’s ultrawide shooter, the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s telephoto hardware, the Google Pixel 8 Pro’s 30x zoom, and the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s wide lens.

If you’re big on selfies and capturing the most realistic version of you, opt for the iPhone 15 Pro Max for uploading to Instagram, Twitter, and more. If you’re a traveler and you love snapping photos of grandiose landscapes, lean toward getting the Pixel 8 Pro.

It’s worth noting that some tech journalists who participated in blind test own iPhones – and they were shocked that their preferred wide photo is a Pixel 8 Pro. To leave you with a rhetorical question, were you shocked by the photos you liked better?