1846 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: @ anonymous coward 'gullible people like me'...
That the Nexus 4 is cheaper than an S3/S4 isn't an argument, because you're comparing different phones - the point is that the Nexus 4 is much cheaper than comparable phones.
True, we shouldn't go by some made up quote on the RRP, but we should go by what the actual real cost of buying the phone is (the same phone that is, not some alternative cheaper one).
In my experience, it varies. Sometimes it is cheaper to buy outright, suggesting things aren't always really subsidised. Other times, it's cheaper to get on contract. This was my experience with the Galaxy Nexus - 24 month contract at £31 = £744. Compared to buying outright from Amazon at £400, plus £15/month for equivalent SIM only contract (exactly the same, on the same network), giving £760. (Although yes, it's a fair point to note that the subsidy here wasn't a huge amount, and the idea the phones are "free" is certainly a myth.)
And yes, it's possible the lower cost comes from a deal from the manufacturer, rather than being paid for by the network - who knows.
"20 million is still a huge amount of phones to ship."
Exactly - and people should remember, this is just one of a large number of phones that Samsung make. It's a bit sad the media can only focus their attention on one single model at a time.
For most companies, yes including Apple, selling 20-30 million phones in total is good going. Samsung achieve this with just one of their phones, even though they make loads of similar models, with who knows how many Samsung Android smartphones in total being sold now.
It's unclear whether this is:
* People still buying Samsung, but not necessarily the S4.
* People switching to other Android manufacturers - not a good thing for Samsung, but I think a healthy thing for the market not to be so dominated by just one company.
* People switching to other platforms - unclear why that would happen at this moment in time.
* A slow in growth in the market as a whole.
Re: I sort of agree.
I don't think that any application is "killer" - different people have different reasons. For me, I love having maps everywhere, from the Google Maps app in ~2006, to Nokia's (and later Google's) free sat nav.
As much as I hate to admit it, sites like Facebook and Twitter probably helped a lot. Although social networks existed in the early 2000s, these were sites like Livejournal where people were expected to write a lot more, and it wasn't so easy to do on a phone - so even though having Internet everywhere might have been something useful, most websites don't work well on a phone. Email might have been useful, but most people were probably happy to use texts, and wait until they got home for email.
But the obsession with reading or writing short status updates wherever you are suddenly made Internet on phones much more useful.
Another point may be that Internet data allowances used to be far more stingy. I was someone who wanted Internet, but rarely used a phone, but you could only get Internet years ago buy paying for a high end contract where you were paying for loads of hours and texts, things that I didn't need. The moment it was allowed on PAYG made it much more viable for me.
Also, I don't think there was really any sudden event - if you look at sales, there's been continual growth in Internet enabled phones (which remember isn't just so-called "smart" phones). It's more that as devices become more powerful, the technology is more usable. And web browsing - one of the most useful things - is also one of the most power hungry for most users. Around 2000, you had the spec that made them comparable to earlier home computers, but not very good for browsing. By 2005, this was more plausible. By 2008, this was much more doable, though it still wasn't completely smooth, and opening loads of memory hungry tabs might be a problem. By 2010 onwards, it's mature.
Re: I sort of agree.
Curious that people claim multitouch as the single most important killer app, whilst criticising large Android phones because you can't use them in one hand.
Tell me, when using your iphone one-handed, how do you using multitouch?
This probably from the same people who told us for years that two mouse buttons was too complicated.
Internet worked fine for me before 2007. The standard way to zoom in or out is to double click, and I still use that method now. The big benefit is having touch - multitouch is only a small improvement on top of that, and a well designed UI should work with singletouch, so you can use it one handed. (E.g., Google Maps has a method where you double click, hold, then slide to zoom in and out - I really wish they'd just make this standard on Android throughout, it's so much easier than the clumsy two fingered "pinch" method.)
Not sure what you mean by reformatting - fully functional web browsers existed on phone long before 2007. And it seems it's Apple that phones need websites reformatted into a special proprietary Apple-only exe "app" to view it, whilst other platforms can stick with the web.
Re: "fast enough"
But a phone that's more than fast enough now will have the advantage of lasting longer due to being more future proof. I'm not sure what you mean by stable platform, and people are free to keep their Android phones for 4 years too. It's not clear to me that the iphone platform is better in this regard. If you mean that older iphones can get the latest OS, that's a myth, as they don't get all the functionality.
Android barely existed 4 years ago so it's hard to compare that timescale. But I don't see that a 2 or 3 year old Android phone gives a worse experience than a 2 or 3 year old iphone, if we compare like with like (i.e., comparing two phones that were high end when bought). There are loads of people worldwide still using 4 year old Symbian phones, I'm not sure there are as many people on iphone 3G phones.
Most people want phones that work, and most people do that with Android phones.
"I was still paying too much so I traded it in for a flip phone that pretty much just makes a rare phone call."
Yes, exactly - if one doesn't one high specs, there's no need to spend high prices at all, S4 or iphone or otherwise.
Actually my old "feature" phone (2005, Motorola) had far worse battery life than either my Nokia 5800 or Galaxy Nexus (the Nokia having the best battery life). Battery life is one of those things that goes up and down, and there is little difference between feature or smart except for the label used in marketing. It's dumb phones that have much better battery life.
Re: so what?
"These numbers are going to change anybody's mind about what to buy as their next phone."
I'm not so sure. Firstly, maybe they can stop the media claiming the iphone as the best phone, even for hardware. And there are people who go "I want the best hardware, no matter what the cost", and then base it on what has been portrayed as top in the articles they've read.
More generally, people will wonder what they're getting for their money. Even if faster CPUs are entirely useless (not that I'd agree), people pay money to brag about it. Now they'll realise they'll look like mugs who paid more for something far slower.
And also the Note 2 was released September 2012.
(If people don't care about CPU or apps etc on a phone, then why consider one of the most expensive phones on the market in the first place? The low end Lumias do reportedly run well for a low cost - the point is that the iphone can't compete either on performance against high end devices, or on cost against low end devices.)
Sure it's good enough for most people, but if you just want good enough, why pay for one of the most expensive phones on the market? Samsung have plenty of cheaper offerings if you don't need a full S4. (Also consider future use - older iphones and Android slow down with the latest OS updates or due to more demanding software, don't you want one that will last better?)
It's also a rebuttal to all the years where the media have falsely assumed all along that the iphone was the best phone, including from a pure hardware point of view. It's long been known that it specs like resolution and RAM it's lagged behind, because we can easily compare these - but this shows even on CPU, it's not true either.
I wonder how the ipad mini compares to other Android tablets - again, we see the same thing where much of the media portay it as one of the most advanced tablets, despite poorer resolution and RAM (and at a higher price). Is it at least giving you the fastest CPU for the money?
"Some Apple users already have such a devices; there's many an iPod Nano seen on a wrist strap these days"
I think I've seen about one, even, and ugly it looked too.
Not that it's a smart watch - unless it runs applications, does Internet, integrates with a smartphone etc - and so isn't really wearable computing.
But yes, the idea of attaching technology is nothing new - from cassette personal stereos clipped to belts in the 1980s, to my Sansa player today that has a clip that I can clip to my clothing. I don't think of it as "wearable technology". And even as far as wearable computing is concerned, what about a smartphone in a case attached to someone's belt?
Re: it doesn't alter the market dynamics that nobody wants WP
Your history revisionism to place Apple on the top of everything is off:
"MSFT missed smartphones and first Apple ate its lunch, then Google knocked Apple off the table as has been eating ever since. WP is irrelevant."
Nope, Apple has never been number one (and actually even Windows Mobile outsold the original iphone). Symbian dominated until 2011, when overtaken by Android, not iphone.
"MSFT missed tablets, Apple ate its lunch, and Apple's still eating. It's even eating MSFT's core: desktop users. Macs and Macbooks are more popular than ever."
Yes I even saw one with one the other day. But wake me up when Macs outsell Windows. And when tablets outsell laptops, it'll be on Android (Apple's share collapsed in Q1 this year).
I don't understand these arguments. If popularity really matters, then you shouldn't ever be using Mac or iphone. If it doesn't matter, then why try to pretend they're more popular?
I don't think a Windows monopoly a good thing, but I'm confused when people suggest that everyone instead using Apple (no choice in hardware *and* software, and a much more closed platform on devices with no keyboard) would be a good thing. Your argument isn't "It's good to have more choice", it's "Haha MS are going to die".
Even if what you claimed was true, I don't see why you're cheering about it. You can still at least install Linux on your PC (made by your choice of company) if you prefer, but good luck having a choice for your Mac and ios world.
Re: Nobody trusts Google
I'm an Android lover, but that doesn't mean it's time to distort facts. Millions of people are buying WP. Millions more buy Android than iphone, but that doesn't mean "nobody wants iphones".
"even on the hardware side the Nokia 41Mp camera isn't compelling in a world where (as with audio) adequate is more than good enough for most buyers."
But then, you've just argued away the benefit of any particular phone, since just about all phones and platforms are "good enough".
I'm not sure any company is "hip", certainly not in technology. Unless you're actually a kid in the playground basing your argument on "But X is cool, and Y isn't cool!"
I agree it would seem sensible to eliminate the fee, and long term make money through downloads.
Re: What I learnt from this review
"Apple has a better app store. Samsung has a better camera."
No, the Galaxy Zoom has a better camera is what it said - and that's a dedicated smart camera. Whilst it is another option for someone wanting phone+camera, it's less likely to fit the bill for something that fits in your pocket, and you carry around all the time.
The point about apps was more if you wanted complete app coverage - basically the problem is that there are still companies only catering to the minority of Apple users, not even with an Android app. (Though personally I'd rather simply not do business with a company if they want to lock me out, rather than having it dictate what phone I have to buy. And on a real smartphone, a web browser works just fine for websites anyway.)
So yes, it is a positive review if those are the only down points - and one of those down points will likely be challenged with the Pureview announcement now just weeks away.
Re: Wasn't this the problem with Nokia's last generation?
I was a bit confused by the flagships comment - it's pretty normal for previous flagships to still be on sale (S3 is still on sale I believe; multiple iphones are on sale for years even though they're all classed as "flagships").
Unless Nokia are claiming something more specific, but what they say isn't quoted directly in the article.
Re: Did they say that with a straight face?
Nokia are ahead of Apple. It's only when you compare them to just their WP sales that they're behind.
Re: Freefall started after Elop
"Your problem is you are only going off sales figures to indicate the health of the platform"
Yes, that's because this is a debate on when Nokia went into "freefall", presumably referring to sales.
There may well have been other technical or economic reasons why they preferred to switch to WP. However, that doesn't change the point that there was no freefall in Symbian until after it was dropped.
Also I'm not sure what you're referring to buy different versions - which phones ran which different versions of Symbian?
Re: @ Jess
So your argument boils down to "I preferred a Galaxy S to an N8, therefore Nokia were doomed". Right. The statistics showing tens of millions still buying Symbian a quarter, enough to still outsell all Android phones together, is not relevant.
I liked things that the 5800 had over an iphone, I guess Apple were doomed too then.
Re: Freefall started after Elop
I'd take my 5800 over any iphone of the time. The 2007 iphone couldn't even *do* apps - that came later. Of course Symbian wasn't perfect, but then iphones were playing catchup in lots of areas too (back then even copy/paste was yet to be mastered; poor screen resolution until 2010; free satnav didn't come until 6 months ago and we know how well that worked; ios 7 finally brings proper multitasking).
The modern smartphone was defined by many companies, more so than just Apple (who defined it as a phone that couldn't even run apps, and had dial-up speeds slower than feature phones). Consider how the biggest criticisms against WP in these forums are the things that it took IOS ages to do also, and were Symbian had them years earlier.
The damage was done? If the Symbian^1 era 5800 was so bad, I wonder why they were still number one until 2011 (when they were overtaken by Android - and still outselling iphone). (Note, although their market share was falling, sales were increasing - percentage market share isn't a good way to compare over time when you have different sized markets. The Android growth in that period was mainly coming from phones that previously weren't counted as smartphones, and not that Symbian was losing sales overall.)
"They were late to the party on capacitive touchscreens"
Resistive screens are good too - each have their own advantages (resistive work with pens too, and can be used with gloves - we now have capacitive that support these, but this wasn't around in 2008).
"they persisted with thick candybar formats when thin was the new black"
With 4 day battery life on the 5800, that was fine by me. Phones tended to be thicker then.
"and they never seemed to understand the importance of screen size (so very high dpi for the time on the 5800 screen, but screen diemnsions that were laughable)."
Whilst I'd have liked a larger screen, it wasn't until Samsung started pushing larger sizes in 2010 that this changed; Nokia were no more guilty than Apple. Nokia did have higher end models that were 3.5" at that time. Also remember that Nokia were early adopters of 16:9 aspect ratio, which means thinner screens.
"They persisted with feature phones (ie restricted smartphones) when the margins were to be made offering more expensive phones with higher capabilities."
So Apple should stop making ipods? Samsung are in the wrong to make low end phones too?
"And despite an early lead in credible cameras they were too slow in upping the resolution to supplant compact cameras."
41MP not enough for you?
Re: Google apps optional
Symbian phones will cease production in a few months, and certainly won't be remaining, "feature" phone or otherwise. It's S40 that they use for their "feature" phones. There is also their new Asha low end smartphone platform (which has outsold Nokia WP sales in some quarters, I believe).
"Nokia only uses Windows. Why?"
I don't know, and nor do you. The "evil" thing that MS were meant to have done years and years ago would be enforcing conditions against other OSs as a requirement for licensing Windows - because not being able to sell Windows PCs would be a problem.
But then the very mention of HTC and Samsung proves your point wrong - it can't be due to any dodgy licence requirements, as why doesn't it apply to HTC and Samsung? And even if MS picked on Nokia, if it was really true they'd do better with Android, why wouldn't they just do that, if MS told them they had to choose between them?
Now, it may be that there is some other kind of agreement, perhaps involving money, but that's no longer "evil", that's a choice between two companies to form an alliance.
Other possibilities are that they don't have the resources to make two sets of high end phones on different platforms (even though Android is free and they could reuse similar hardware, they'd still need to port their applications, then there's testing, distribution, support, marketing...)
Re: Google apps optional
Gosh yes, because I've never ever seen a network operator try to advertise or push any other type of phone.
(Seriously - you'll hear or see a mention of an Apple product tens of times a day whether on TV or in the shops, but when MS dare to do marketing, it's seen as desperate.)
Re: Google apps optional
I don't get that point - if you mean that Nokia don't make Android phones because they make WP ones, and MS put "pressure" on them, the obvious counter examples are Samsung and HTC, who happily do WP and Android.
(Also with Samsung and Acer making Chromebooks as well as Windows laptops, I think the idea that companies are prevented from releasing alternative OSs no longer seems to be true.)
Re: So in other words
"I don't see any cases being made that Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it wants with the devices it sells, even when it was the dominant monopoly."
When was that, exactly?
Re: Note 10.1
"Why do some manufacturers release a tablet without GPS built in?"
Same reason they skip on cameras - most people buying them will have smartphones that already have GPS, and they'll have the phones with them all the time. Why do I need two GPSs/cameras? True, sometimes having location is useful for having applications, but it's not a fundamental requirement. And using sat-nav instructions means there's little advantage for a larger screen to look at a map, since you don't need to.
Though I agree high end tablets might as well include GPS as standard - but I can see why it's missed on some lower end ones.
Re: PPI - so what?
True, but those are still issues with resolution, rather than PPI. E.g., if I want to watch a Full HD film, I need Full HD whether I watch on a 5" device, 7", 10", or 50". A 50" TV doesn't need ten times the resolution, just because someone made up the metric of "PPI".
(I'm also curious how many people watch Full HD films on their tablets. I mean, how many Blu-Ray quality films can you fit on a 16GB tablet? Or if you're streaming, what kind of connection/data plan does one have?)
Re: PPI - so what?
I agree - I mean, there's the debate about whether super-high resolutions are really needed, but using "PPI" rather than looking at "resolution" and "size" separate is flawed, because it rewards devices for being smaller - which isn't necessarily what you want.
If someone took my Galaxy Nexus, made it smaller and reduced the resolution, but such that the PPI was higher, does that make it better? No, because you've just reduced the resolution and the size, both things that I don't want!
It also doesn't work as an argument for quality, because people tend to use larger devices further away - phone close to face, 7" tablet in hand, 10" tablet lower down, laptop on lap or desk, monitor further away, TV across the room. So a TV doesn't need the same PPI as a phone, when despite being much larger, it's taking up the same space in my visual field.
This nonsense started when Apple tried to spin their phones as being better displays than the competition, even when the resolution was lower, simply on the grounds that it was also a small display.
Re: Stylus, gimmick?
Although it's worth noting that the Windows 8 styluses are all pressure sensitive Wacom-style pens too. I guess it's unfortunate that MS have to advertise someone finger painting, to fend off the "oh noes, you have to use a stylus" reaction.
Expensive? Same for the article - "The only slight fly in the ointment being that the iPad is cheaper"
What do we hear when an Apple device costs three times the price, but may (or may not) be slightly better? "Well I'm willing to pay for something better, it's not my fault if you're too poor". Yet, when it's another device that is the best tablet, but costs more, you're first in line to complain that it's more expensive.
If one wants lower cost, there are plenty of tablets that do better value than a Note 8 and especially an ipad mini (which has specs like resolution and RAM more in line with budget Android tablets). But there's a place for a high end device too. Yes, Apple may have a better device out in 6 months, but then a better Note 8 will be along 6 months after that too.
The biggest concern may be that the resolution may seem outdated compared to Full HD tablets likely to appear soon (with Nexus 7 rumours for July - then again, we've been waiting on rumours for ages). Apparently this is a limitation of the pen technology. But then this can't be an issue with everyone, after all people are happy to pay high prices for the lower res ipad mini.
Re: Just because the UK lags behind...
"It's no wonder no one is buying the flagship model"
Indeed this may well be a reason. But then if people are buying different Samsung models instead, why care - comparing individual device sales (as much of the media like to do) is flawed. No doubt we'll hear negative reports if the S4 doesn't meet its forecasts, but it won't matter if Samsung sales overall remain high.
"Take a lesson from apple, gulfstream, all the automotive manufacturers - and keep your development models under wraps until they're almost out the warehouse door"
Though we hear nothing but endless hype and rumours about the next Apple product, months or even years before release...
Re: Anyone with retail knowledge on here?
I don't know about Tesco, but last time I was in a Sainsbury I saw prominent placement for Kindle Fires, and Ipads. (And not a Nexus 7 in site.)
I think it's easy to underestimate just how important shop distribution is - it's both a form of advertising (how many people even know about Chromebooks? Even if people don't spontaneously buy a Kindle Fire with their fruit and veg, they're made aware it exists, and will be more likely to buy it over alternatives they don't know exists - same idea with lots of people who aren't even aware of Android tablets existing, thinking it's just Apple). And even for us geeks who know what options are available - I like being able to just buy something in a shop (where I can also return it if it goes wrong), rather than faff with Internet shipping.
Never mind Chromebooks - when are we going to see the Nexus 10 available in shops... (Better resolution than any ipad, way cheaper, but no one knows it exists!)
Should maps and street view blank out those dodgy places too? Your Yellow Pages example is where people buy commercial advertising, which doesn't seem relevant here. The analogy would be more if someone was using a phone number for naughty purposes, and expecting Yellow Pages to have to check every phone number just in case.
If it's not doing well, most obvious reason is no one's heard of it - I hadn't until now.
Meanwhile, Apple get giving free advertising even for a product that doesn't even get exist, and will get vast amounts if they ever do, even though it comes after the competition. Same thing happened with ipads, which was after the first Android tablets. And then people give the credit to Apple for "popularising"? Meanwhile, other companies only get attention years after their products are released (Samsung for phones, or Android tablets), if ever.
Re: Stable Door?
Code compatibility? The dominant smartphone platform with 75% share runs the majority of apps on a virtual machine, and already supports Intel. WP uses a virtual machine also. And all the feature phones run various Java based stuff.
So there'll be a 10% niche of phones stuck on ARM only, but I think 90% is more than a big enough market for Intel!
Re: The waste of talent
But I doubt that's true - if they'd be better off making an ARM or even brand new CPU type, why wouldn't they do that? Why wouldn't they take the chance to "knock other players out of the water" - do you know better than the people making the decisions at Intel?
The advantage of x86 compatibility isn't that much for mobile (there's no Windows compatibility to make use of, and in fact x86 rather than ARM harms them due to lesser compatibility for native Android software). And I don't think it would help give them an advantage either against ARM (since even if x86 does well in mobile, Android will still support ARM for a long time yet).
No, the reason they do x86 is likely because that's what they do well - their engineers, their software, their manufacturing, is all geared up for it, and you can't just magically turn that into "making an ARM chip". This situation comes up all the time, I know it does in software - "If only I wrote this old stuff from scratch, I'd do a much better job", but the problem is the effort in doing something new is more than simply improving or even hacking the old stuff.
Re: Intel sponsored "research"?
I have no opinion on the rest of your comment, but your point about age is incorrect - Clover Trail was introduced in 2012, not five years ago (sure, the original Atom is a lot older, but that's like saying ARM is even older).
For the retired doctor, is 75% share not enough? (I don't think the VHS vs Betamax analogy works for platforms, because Apple and MS at least are never going to give up on their own platforms.)
Switching platforms always takes a bit of getting used to, whichever way you go, I found some Android niggles annoyed me coming from Symbian, but I've got used to it now.
How many apps?
So apparently ipad is better, because loads of apps are specifically optimised for its size. So how many IOS apps are specifically optimised for 5.7"? Or are we supposed to believe that whilst Android apps for 5" phones don't work well on 7" devices (despite Android always having run on a range of sizes), all IOS apps will magically work great on 5.7" (despite apps having only been optimised for very small or very large sizes) - just like all IOS apps were counted as available software when the ipad was first announced.
Still, remember that IOS is easier to develop for, because you only have to worry about one, sorry two, sorry seven sizes (iphone 4/4S, 5, ipad mini, ipad, 4.7", 5.7", and there are also rumours of a 12" device)...
Re: @Big Van Vader
I agree with your post, but:
"A lot of those Symbian devices are very old, however, so don't contribute to the "app economy" which is the main reason why a rational person would even care about whose phone OS is most popular."
Actually, even if we limit installed userbase to just phones in the last few years, one can get an estimate that still puts Symbian in 3rd place, only recently overtaken by iphone, and that's still a time period well in the timeframe when phones were shipped with Nokia Store, and support Qt etc, so well supported by Symbian application developers.
(From my own personal experience, the large installed userbase of Symbian, even with older phones like the 5XXX series, is partly why I see 50-100 times as many downloads on Symbian to Android.)
Re: £37 a month?
The media has long used "market share" to mean sales rather than installed userbase. If we look at the latter, sure WP does worse, but then so would have iphone for years, and the global installed userbase of Symbian would still be massive, possibly still on par with the iphone platform.
Also I think the UK's WP market share (by sales) is higher than the global average, so presumably the installed userbase is likely to be too.
Re: Are Windows phones still being outsold by Symbian?
No, they're not, unless there's been some bizarre reversal in Q2 Symbian sales. So it does seem the right time to discontinue the sales altogether (whether it was right to end Symbian at all being a separate debate).
It is amazing that Symbian sales went on so well for so long, even after marketing, distribution, etc was almost all cut. Never mind mocking WP, I find it funny that it still took the iphone platform another six months to overtake it.
Re: £37 a month?
*boggle* It's only a smartphone if it runs Windows?
Yes, those figures may include low end devices like Asha, but these are full touch phones with Internet, apps etc - how are they not smart? They may be low end and low spec, but you could make the same argument about low end Android phones.
Apple got away with calling a phone a smartphone even when it *couldn't* run apps. If anything Nokia have been famously conservative about what they count, as most of their Internet/app phones are still not counted, when really all "feature" phones should have been counted as smartphones (there's no qualitative difference, it's just a marketing label). I don't understand why people are so keen to manipulate the stats to make Apple look better (counting 100% of their sales) and Nokia look worse.
The real point is that sales and profits are different things. 30 million is good going for sales, and Apple have mostly had poorer sales. Yet Apple will overcharge and more easily make more money, whilst Nokia devices are more likely to be lower cost lower profit ones. Personally as a user, not a shareholder, I care more about popularity than who makes the most money off of me.
Re: A1 mirrors almost exactly the Mini’s key attribute
Yes, I'm wondering if the iphone 5 is a Nokia clone then, since Apple were doing 3:2 for years before switching to 16:9 that everyone else was already doing... Or perhaps we can stop calling everything an Apple clone.
As for the article saying:
"My rejection of the "one size fits all" approach doesn’t suit everyone, of course, as the success of the iPad Mini would seem to suggest. "
I think that actually adds weight to he author's argument that choice is good - if there was only one true size as Jobs claimed, then all the people wanting an IOS device would have bought a normal ipad.
Re: no way
Which devices are you referring to, out of interest? (Honest question, I'm curious.)
Samsung's offerings are either more expensive (Note 8) or outdated/lower spec (Tab 7"). The ASUS Fonepad looks great and is cheaper, though had a poorer CPU in the benchmark.
Re: It kinds...
But all this is that as technology advances, it gets better - my 2009 Sandisk Sansa is far smaller than any oversized equivalent ipod of that time, and especially what was available in the early generations. So I guess the Sansa is better even more so, by that logic. But it's really thanks to the companies making hard disks and now memory chips smaller and larger.
Sandisk may not be known for their mp3 players, but it is thanks to companies like them we can enjoy music on our portable players, phones, tablets etc.
People didn't say that about ipads. They said they were just oversized [insert any smarphone or media player you like]. Which is true - the continuum of devices from 3" to 10" and beyond shows this, with an increasing trend towards the middle 5-7" for phones and tablets, shows this.
In fact it was actually Apple supporters who drew the comparison to the older PC tablets - because those devices were (due to limitations of technology of the time) heavier, so they knew it would be easier to spin the ipads as being something new and selling better than earlier "attempts", even though we'd had handheld devices for Internet/apps/music/video being mainstream and popular for years, and the ipads had little in common with the PC tablets (which were full blown far more functional PCs - the closest comparison to them is the Windows 8 devices now appearing).
iphones *were* ripped off platforms like Symbian, which outsold the iphone platform for the duration of its lifetime.
Plus no one else has any problem with "ripping off" anyway - it's the Apple fans who accuse everyone else of ripping them off, whilst excusing it for Apple, just like you do now.
Well yes exactly, tell that every time someone says Apple did it first and others copied.
And no, both Android and Apple copied the earlier full touch mobile devices.
That's obviously true for Android and WP, but only because we haven't yet invented Time Travel, so obviously a 2007 device won't owe anything to platforms that were released later.
However, the 2007 iphone still owed plenty from previous companies like Nokia or LG, or platforms like Symbian or even feature phone platforms. And iphones today owe plenty to platforms like Android.
You're right, there's no problem with copying, which all companies have done in mobile (and elsewhere). But it is worth pointing it out, when fans claim that one company invents everything and only others copy.
This is the same guy who a few years ago did videos telling us the wonders of Open Source and Linux, and how it was so obviously better because of course people should be able to do what they like with their machine, and for it to be modified, no different to any other piece of hardware that you own like a car.
Why, if only there was an Open Source and Linux-based platform for phones. Instead he now advertises for the most closed platform around.
Drop the obvious big corporate logo that advertises a mile off that you have a phone (one of the most expensive ones, at that). But that would involve putting practicality before marketing.
(I find it funny that there are even protective cases, that then have a hole so as to not cover up the logo.)
Next thing, they'll be making it light up. Oh wait.
"The smartphone that thinks it’s a tablet"
Can we at last drop the whole smartphones/tablets thing? Smartphones _are_ tablets, different names for the same kind of thing. Acknowledging this is much simpler than the muddle the media seem to be in, trying to decide whether 5-6" devices are "phones" or "tablets", or let alone trying to make sense of devices like this Fonepad.
ASUS's ARM powered Nexus 7 has a 4325mAh battery. The Intel powered Orange San Diego has a 1460mAh battery.
I think you'll find that larger devices have larger batteries, whether ARM or Intel (partly because they might as well make use of the space, and party because larger displays need consume more battery).
Since Samsung have chosen Intel for their upcoming Galaxy Tab 3 10", they don't seem to have a problem with it.
- 'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
- Infosec geniuses hack a Canon PRINTER and install DOOM
- Boffins say they've got Lithium batteries the wrong way around
- Game Theory Half a BILLION in the making: Bungie's Destiny reviewed
- Review A SCORCHIO fatboy SSD: Samsung SSD850 PRO 3D V-NAND