1857 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Early buyers are buying non-windows kit
I'd like a source for netbook sales falling when they switched to Windows. My understanding is this only happened later, when the market reached saturation, and hardware wasn't improved (1024x600, 1gb, still?) Plus blame the media obsession of bloody ipads whilst netbooks were ignored or moaned about.
True, ms had unfair advantages in the past, but that's nothing like the unfair hype and support apple get now.
Re: Early buyers are buying non-windows kit
Oh, and by your logic, ppl have rejected iphone, with android dominating, and they rejected mac os too. Even with ipad apple are losing market share fast to android, and there's increasingly little need for ppl to buy ipods anymore.
See, i can spin market share figures too.
Re: Early buyers are buying non-windows kit
So you're supporting a company that's pushing pure touch devices, far more so than ms. You're supporting a patent troll that sues android sellers over rounded rectangles. That's not attacking open source? I think that's just a bit more blatant attack that your tenuous link to sco. It's still a big boring faceless company with a closed source os, and worse you no longer have any choice of hardware (i love my clevo, running my choice of os, apple have nothing that comes close), and they push devices far more locked down than Windows.
You criticise ms for being closed, and then say we should love apple? Yeah, i love Linux and android, and have every respect for someone choosing that over Windows. And same for Windows users who don't like the new changes. But if there's one thing i hate, it's seeing ppl spreading fud about Windows 8, and then i find they support apple! There's something distasteful about someone thinking they're supporting openness, but actually they're shilling for apple.
Plus I'm not sure ms were ever cool -certainly not in the Windows 95 days. And no sorry, your ipad or light up apple logo doesn't make you cool either. If you want to be different, at least choose Linux or something.
As for your anecdote, the difference is that normal ppl rarely announce what products they buy, it's only apple users who tell us what some products they have, as if anyone else cares. "Posted from my iphone". I've never known anyone buy Windows - and most ppl but it with the computer anyway, especially these days with diy desktops being rare - but that doesn't change what Windows market share is.
As for crapware, if you buy from anyone decent, you don't get that - saying apple make better pcs than crap pc makers doesn't say much. Plus what's crapware? I'd count any installation of itunes and QuickTime as crapware, and you get that on apple.
And yet still, they sell more phones than Apple. We've been hearing this about Nokia from Apple fanatics for years. It's the new "Apple are going bust".
With Samsung outselling Apple so vastly, it's looking like Apple will be joining Nokia by 2020 in using nothing.
If it was any other company, the story would just be about phones or whatever. But if it's apple, let's not miss the opportunity for a free product placement ad for them.
Posted from my Samsung galaxy nexus, because i too can give an irrelevant ad.
Re: I shudder to think how much abuse Apple would have taken if they had done this
Not much at all, since there are far bigger things to criticise, like maps.
Plus now we see the benefits of the staggered rollout. This fuckup affects hardly any devices, and only brand new ones, so existing devices aren't affected. Whilst the new version of IOS gets rushed out ASAP to every existing device, just because they think it makes good for the marketing headlines, meaning any bug messes it up for everyone.
This bug will be fixed soon enough. Is Apple maps back up to Google quality yet?
Not to mention that this is acknowledged as being a genuine bug. The problem with Apple is that they do these things *intentionally* - claiming it as a feature, refusing to back down. That's far more insiduous. No one has a problem with the occasional bug, all platforms have this. It's the "But Apple is better off not having copy/paste, it uses a whole new paradigm" justification from Apple and its fans that just seems odd.
How does it work now - do i have to develop separate uis for 3.5, 4, 8 and 10 inch? Having two separate sizes, as Jobs wanted, has some merits, but it's not scaleable if they then switch tactics and want to have many sizes. And why wasn't the first ipad criticised for lack of software? No, all we heard was how wonderful it was that you could run iphone apps on it.
If developers are lazy, they're not going to do well at creating whole new uis for every size anyway.
Apple don't do quality control - I'm not aware they'll disallow something just because it's not that good. Nokia have the better balance of doing checks for malicious software, whilst not banning it just because it's a competing browser or whatever. No the Google model isn't perfect, but I'd rather that then allowing apple decide what i can write it install.
It's hard to get noticed on android because there are so many apps. Apple has less users, more apps. No thanks.
You can keep your feature phone. I'll keep my smartphone platform that gives me the choice of vast amounts of quality hardware to choose from.
Google maps has some advantages, but Nokia is still great for offline maps. Why on earth does Google limit me to just a few small areas? It's also annoying that i can't search the data that's downloaded, so i have to manually search for road names etc.
Plus it doesn't have to be about which is best, as I'd gladly have both installed. Use Google most the time of you prefer, but keep Nokia for roaming or when there's poor data connection.
Agree about apple though. And i found Nokia's satellite imagery fine.
An ipad is a scaled up phone. Sorry, you don't get to praise apple whilst criticising android for doing the same thing. This isn't like say my 10" Samsung netbook, which really does run a different ui to a phone.
Re: WHO THE FUCK CARES???
Samsung only retaliated in response to apple's attacks, which is entirely reasonable and correct for Samsung to do - maybe if iphone was banned, they'd get a taste of their own medicine.
Re: how is the T not 'better'?
I agree - perhaps they mean that can't beat on individual device sales, it's a myth that iphone has ever led in specs, either hardware, or software (where Sony will do fine simply by running android).
Also i note that Sony refer to Samsung and Apple, where as the headline strips this down to just apple's device...
Re: Want to wait?
Except here we can just as well say it's the Ferrari with the lower price.
Android has 700,000 apps now. As i say in my other post, there is no distinction between smartphone and tablet on either platform. And if Apple apps were each designed for one specific size, then it's no good for this new 8"device anyway!
And even if you use itunes, i don't see why that locks you into apple only devices. Unless you've let it scramble the files into its own format, and they're only tagged via itunes own format, in which case that's your own bad luck, that you now have to pay out £100 extra as a result.
Re: Want to wait?
Sorry, what is tablet optimised? A tablet and smartphone are the same thing, just that one has the addition of a phone. If you're referring to size, then by that logic, there are no apps optimised for the ipad mini yet. If apps designed for a 5" phone don't work well, then apps designed for a 10" ipad won't work either. Just because they label it a tablet doesn't magically make them work the same.
But android has the advantage, since there have long been many sizes of phones/tablets, developers design them to be scaled, as any competent developer does on any platform. On ios, we have apps only designed for a small iphone or 10" device. Also 7" android tablets have already been released for ages, whilst apple said they'd never do one.
Oh, and by your logic, most the iphone apps won't work well on the latest apple phone, as they were all designed for 3.5".
Re: @Tim Parker @Ben Rose : @Tim Parker Good idea, poorly executed
So itunes doesn't support an open standard, and Google doesn't support an Apple format, and you blame Google?
Ah yes, the money argument - reeks of the old "But Linux users don't pay for anything" stigma.
The flaw in this argument is free apps - indeed, it's free software that I was primarily talking about. The kind of apps that are given away for a service or website, so there's no money being made, and it's either to advertise a company, website or service, or to provide for your readers or customers. Either way, nothing to do with what people are paying.
I wouldn't mind if Apple had more of the expensive apps, because I'm not interested in those - I much prefer Android where you get it all for free. I'm talking about the free apps you see for websites/services, some of which still seem to be Apple-only.
Yes, I never understood why companies like Nokia and Samsung downplayed their own products with the "feature phone" designation (though recently Nokia did annouce that Asha was now a smartphone - not sure if they've counted this in their quarterly reports though).
Apple had plenty of earlier platforms in the mobile market too (ipods, Newton), I'm not sure that changes anything when WP is a new OS. My point wasn't about "first few quarters" being significant, I was just referring to the time when it happened, I couldn't have well said "2007-2010". And even if we do say that MS have been rather crap in the past, it's still only the first year for Nokia with WP.
It wasn't until a year ago with the iphone 4/4S that Apple's sales actually became a significant player.
I don't know the details on what's in 7.8 - are there features being held back, which would run on the older phones?
"You misread an article on how developers decide which platform to develop for and then complain about this based on your misunderstanding."
My comment wasn't based on any article. Though now you mention it - the recent article claimed that developers did pick market share as the number one reason to develop for a platform (and presumably then picked iphone first due to a delusion on which was actually most popular).
Re: From my weblogs...
Clarification: when I say "market share" I mean market share - number of devices sold, or in use. I don't mean share of Internet usage, which is rather different.
But even telling Internet usage share is notoriously hard, with different trackers showing different things - I've seen others showing Android on top, or even Nokia until recently (e.g., http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/flow/item/15620_Series_40_overtakes_Symbian_wo.php ).
Re: From my weblogs...
Well indeed, but that is even more reason why it's a poor indicator of actual installed userbase.
(And if we're including large 10" devices as "mobile", the line becomes even more blurred - what about Windows ultra-portable laptops/netbooks?)
I'd also be curious to see a citation for the claim about most "mobile" (non-Windows) browsing being on ipads. I'd say people are accessing websites all the time on mobile devices, whilst the minority of ipad owners keep them at home. Plus I thought the split was pretty close on non-phone tablets, 60/40 at best.
It's a descendant of S40, not Symbian - some info at http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/flow/item/15790_Nokias_Asha_Touch_now_official.php . (True, it's arguably not "brand new", but previously had yet to be classified as a "smartphone", and indeed most S40 phones still aren't, only the new full-touch Asha ones.)
Re: From my weblogs...
If those are the figures you get for IOS and Android, all that tells us is that the hits for your website aren't anywhere near any kind of reliable indicator for market share.
From what I hear, you'll be getting all of the features that the older hardware supports, just like is done on Apple. It's just that MS are being honest and clear by calling it "7.8" instead of "8", whilst Apple pretend it's the latest version of the OS but disable features.
(Same point when people moan that old Android phones don't get upgraded after a certain point.)
Lack of applications is indeed a problem. It's unfair that Apple has always been catered for first, when it's never been the number one platform. It's ridiculous that even Android is still lacking support from some places, despite the overwhelming lead it has over everything else. (Though personally I'd rather that companies simply provided decent websites that worked on mobile devices, rather than using closed proprietary exes that only work on some kind of devices, a solution even worse than the Flash it was meant to replace.)
It's misleading to put "Android and Apple" on the same level as done in the headline, and so often done by the media - it's Android that dominates above all else, as the article notes with the stats later in the article. Apple being second place doesn't mean that much, when it's also so far behind like everyone else anyway.
It is a shame Nokia ditched number one Symbian, if the WP strategy doesn't work out - whatever platform you prefer, I think it's healthier to have more competition, and as much as I love Android, it is a bit worrying if the choice becomes only that, or Apple as the alternative.
The article doesn't mention Nokia's new low end smartphone platform, Asha: this sold 6 million in Q3 IIRC, a figure higher than Symbian and WP. (I do hope the media or these "analysts" in general aren't going to filter out the Asha sales, just to make Nokia look worse than they are. It may be low end, but we don't discount low end Android or WP phones; and the original iphone got counted as a smartphone even though it could run apps - Asha meanwhile does apps, Internet, large fullsize touchscreens, and loads of other features just like any other smartphone.)
Though if we're playing games of "WP's share is even lower than", we should note the sales figures are *higher* than iphone in its first few quarters, and the media were already praising that as an amazing success ("one million after 76 days" etc). I don't recall the media saying it was doing badly, and talking about the mountain it had to climb. Which is it?
Re: "If you had bought a Google device that's network agnostic..."
"How is that any different to this situation numbnuts?!"
Yes exactly, it's not any different - Apple isn't any better than Android (or MS for that matter) in providing to older phones, they just mislead people with the version numbers, where other platforms are clear and honest.
Re: Fragmentation fragmentation fragmentation
"Only Google devices get the latest, leaving the other users in the lurch. Were they just used to generate license fees and data to feed the Google phone dev?"
No, the other manufacturers choose to build their own OS on top of Android. So they still get the latest version of the OS the moment it's released, it's just that "OS" isn't the same as basic Android, so there's no reason for the releases to be in sync with the Google releases.
If you want to run basic Android and get those releases straight away, get a Nexus device. If not, stop whining. If you're not even an Android user, stop whining.
I suspect most users don't even care - perhaps because the phones do so much already anyway, and they don't have to wait years for even basic "feature phone"-level features like copy/paste, video calling, or even apps.
"The platform is controlled. If I see reports of devices being "rooted", that implies the same problem and the same solution as iOS to break it."
That's a property of the device, not the OS, and no - Nexus devices are designed to be easily rooted, and doesn't require taking advantage of security flaws, as is required for IOS.
"There is far less quality control on Apps as far as I can see, so how is your average end user going to know what is safe? Ah, anti-virus? What, doing a Microsoft to plaster over the problems?"
I don't see this. Applications should be safe by design (i.e., the security model not allowing them to do things without permission). I don't want so-called "quality control" - I want to run what I want. Apple's "quality control" is routinely used to block anything they don't like, such as alternative browsers. As a developer, I can't stand "quality control" that in practice ends up being petty hurdles to jump, often administered by idiots.
"I would not be surprised if someone eventually creates a really Open version of an Android alike platform."
There already are open source forks of Android, e.g., Cyanogenmod. Easier to just get a Nexus device though, if you're worred about that.
If you mean open source platforms in general, there have been various Linux based OSs over the years (Maemo, Meego, Tizen).
Re: Worth pointing out...
Won't wp7 software also run on wp8? Or not sure what you're referring to?
Re: Fragmentation fragmentation fragmentation
If you're a developer and you need Android 4 specific features, the Android 4 userbase is still massive, likely still bigger than all of iphone, and still growing quickly.
It would be a shame if the Nexus S doesn't get 4.2, though the reasons are unclear yet - whether it's just not at the moment, or if they'll skip 4.2 and wait until the next version, or if they don't have sufficient hardware requirements.
Google maps on Android is great, but I really miss Nokia maps from my old 5800. It's ridiculous that I can only do offline maps by selecting a few tiny squares, rather than downloading by countries or continents at a time. Nokia had this right six years ago! Another oddity is that search doesn't work offline. Okay, I realise Android does this via Google search, and I realise I'm not going to get a Google Internet search offline, but why can't I even search the roads/placenames etc that are downloaded? I'm currently in the US, and whilst I can use maps offline, it's rather mad that I have to manually search myself for roads or places, when I know the info is on my phone. I'd love to use Nokia maps again.
Re: It's called competition
"an may well have been genuinely caught out by the demand which does imply what many have been saying for a while: good Android devices are considered to be as good as I-Phones."
Android has massively outsold iphone for years (as did Symbian throughout its lifetime), so indeed, it's long been true that most people consider them better.
Re: It's embarrassing!
"We've had 3 other Nexus phones already, they know how many are going to be needed."
The previous Nexus phones didn't sell that hugely - they were important, as flagships, but the massive Android sales tended to come from other phones (with the biggest sales most recently being the S2 and S3).
On top of that, most phone sales AFAICT come through contracts, not from people buying the phone outright.
So it's quite possibly they did genuinely fail to anticipate demand, because it is so much stronger than anything they've had before.
You're right that the difference is one of scale. Android is now well over 1 million a day, all year round, now 5 times that of iphone. Samsung android phones alone outsell them two to one. And in total sales, both Samsung and Nokia outsell Apple. That's what the scale is. I entirely and that "sold out" sales mean little, as far as the real total sales are concerned.
Re: What proof of Artificial limiting of supply?
Indeed, hardly any advertising or coverage, compared to months of hype and advertising campaign for apple. Also consider that most phones seem to be sold on contact, and this is the full price unlocked version.
Re: What proof of Artificial limiting of supply?
Why compare to Apple? The best selling single model is the S3 - which would also be a better comparison due to also being android. Comparing sales of 1 android phone out of thousands, to all of Apple's sales, is hardly fair. Btw, Apple phone sales are a piss in the ocean compared to Samsung (or even Nokia), and especially compared to android.
Quite right - and yes, Symbian also still has a massive installed userbase, particularly in Europe.
I mean, let's get this straight. It's okay for loads of companies and even Governments to produce "apps" only catering for the minority 10% of iphone users, but the moment they're left out, suddenly that's newsworthy? Sorry, who cares - now they know what it feels like.
At least Android is now getting support, but the other platforms hardly ever get support. And the situation was even more bizarre up until recently, when these other platforms were selling as much or more than iphone, but almost always ignored.
I say we should be thankful that a system caters for the majority first. Of course, it's nice to be inclusive of everyone - but first we should be criticising all the companies only producing apps for iphone (or at best, iphone and Android). Sadly it's not even a US vs Europe thing - even in the US, where despite being Apple's best market, Android outsells iphone at least 2 to 1 IIRC, there still seems to be far more hype and app-support for the minority of Apple users.
Re: Impressive number
Well even the S3 outsells iphone 4S. Yes you can add iphone 5 to that, but then we should also add the S2, Note, Note 2, S3 Mini, as well as all the top models from HTC, LG, Sony and all the other Android manufacturers. Yeah, I think Android still wins, even if we ignore the crap.
Plus who says where we draw the line - the original iphone couldn't even run apps, why should that have ever been counted?
And there are loads of deals for iphones too, it gets far more marketing push than anything else.
Re: Impressive number
Indeed, though note it's now 5 to 1 - I believe latest stats are 75% Android, 15% iphone.
Tell that to the Apple fans saying we should all use ipods or ipads. Or worse, the ones who pretend iphone is the most popular platform, and then say we should use that.
I just find it odd that with Apple, the message from the media and its fans is "think different" if they're less popular, at the same time of "let's praise Apple for being popular".
I agree that we shouldn't all wear the same thing. But comparing the S3 to burberry is just dumb, and the same kind of fanaticism that you're criticising the OP for.
To be fair it makes a change - it's usually Apple users telling us about how they have an iphone (or ipod, or ipromacbook) at every opportunity, or the media going on and on about it. I once had people in a pub butt into our private conversation about Android to go "Oh, we don't care about your open source operating system, we have iphones". It really is indeed weird that some people have to make such a deal about what phone they have, or what other people choose to use.
Re: Could it be...
But if someone is happy with not having the best phone - why spend money on the most expensive one on the market? You're sensible by buying an Android phone that's not cutting edge, but also means you save money. It makes sense to pay more to get more. It makes sense to pay less to get more. It makes no sense to pay more to get less.
Re: Samsung? No surprise!
Yes, I agree for some purposes it can also be interesting to look at sales of high end smartphones. So it wouldn't be all of Samsung's phones (or all Android phones), but you'd still add not just the S2, but also the Note, Note 2, Galaxy Nexus and perhaps others for Samsung. Plus there's the question of where to draw the line - "mid-range" phones like the S3 Mini have 1GB RAM, twice as much as an iphone 4S, and same as an S2, so I'd say should be included. So getting back to the original point, I'd suspect Samsung still win :)
The LG Nexus 4 will further blur the confusion - priced as a mid-range phone, but actually it has the best specs around... Or back in 2007, a "high end" iphone couldn't even run apps, so it's not clear the "Ferrari" analogy holds. For the most part, I'd say all Android (and other) phones do compete in the same market, and it's only dumb phones that we would separate out. Even as far as cars are concerned, I'd say most of the time, we want to look at total sales to say who's more *popular*. I guess we might say that Apple do best at selling phones that are expensive, but that's different to being popular, or "favourite" as the headline says (it's well known that Apple do well at selling expensive products, that's them being expensive...)
It's all a question of what we want to measure. If we're looking at popularity, we should look at even low end phones (if that's what's popular, then it doesn't make sense to say it doesn't count). If you're a developer looking at installed userbase for a particular spec, then you have something more objective to use to decide which phones get counted.
Re: Samsung? No surprise!
Better comparison for what? I mean, what is it you're trying to compare here (other than, "attempting to pick a statistic that makes Apple look best")?
As I say in my other comment, looking at single models is flawed anyway. But it's even more contrived to suddenly change the rules just because suddenly the statistic no longer suits Apple. By the same reasoning, in Q2 2012, we should have compared the S2 and S3 sales, to the iphone 4 and iphone 4S - I bet that would favour Samsung, but I don't recall anyone using that statistic.
Re: A flawed statistic - but amazing Apple can't even claim the one stat that's biased towards them
I'm not sure that being a clear number is useful, if we're agreed that it doesn't show anything useful. I mean, "Company that sells most phones starting with a lowercase letter" is pretty well defined, but it doesn't show anything useful.
And the problem is that the media aren't just noting this as passing trivia, they are parading this as being important - as justification for why Apple should be treated as the best. Indeed just look at this headline - it's not "Best Selling Single Device", it's "world's favourite smartphone". The media aren't leaving the interpretation open to the readers at all, they're concluding it makes Apple the winner, and the iphone (which is a platform, not an individual phone) the best.
(Not that I mind praising the S3 - the fact that Samsung win best selling company, and Android wins most popular platform, means that for once the stat is in agreement. But most the time this stat is biased towards Apple.)
Re: Samsung? No surprise!
Well, if we're including Apple's other phones, then sure - Samsung also sold around an extra *38 million* Android phones, as well as several 10s of millions of phones running other operating systems on top of that.
It's pretty normal for phones to have initial short periods of exclusivity - I've not seen any evidence that it's a permanent exclusivity (which would indeed seem pretty stupid - ideally manufacturers should want phones on as many networks as possible, and only grant short term exclusivity deals to get that network to publicise it hard in that period).
A flawed statistic - but amazing Apple can't even claim the one stat that's biased towards them
A shop sells 100 chocolate cakes a day, and 100 chocolate cakes with cherry on top. It also sells 101 fruit cakes. Media claim, fruit cakes most popular!
In a parallel universe, the shop has decided to relabel the fruit cakes by those with 16 raisins, 32 raisins and 64 raisins. The sales remain the same, but it reports now the three varieties of fruit cakes as 50, 30 and 20. Media astounded that now, chocolate cakes are more popular!
"Best selling single device" is a very poor statistic. I would dispute we can tell the most popular just by looking sales due to the problem shown above, or even if the concept is well defined at all. Furthermore, it all changes depending how individual models are labelled. The only relevant stats are by platform (where Android massively leads), or company if you care about their success (where Samsung massively lead over Apple, and Nokia in fact are 2nd). For most people (consumers and developers), I'd argue platform size is all that matters.
This is the same kind of problem as FPTP in voting systems - but worse, as the arguments in defence of FPTP don't apply here. People can argue that there is no perfect way to vote (due to the voting paradox) so we might as well stick with FPTP, but here, we don't have to pick "most popular individual device" at all, as there are better things to look at (platform sales). Also they can argue that the circumstances where FPTP fails badly are often hypothetical, but this is a very real world example of the problem: there are thousands of Android devices, and most companies have loads of models, whilst Apple only have one model to choose per generation. So Apple phone buyers will all be buying that one phone.
"And don't forget - especially if you're a fan of neither Apple nor Samsung - these handsets only 24 per cent of world smartphone shipments."
Indeed, which is further evidence why it's a poor statistic. Let's take things to extreme - imagine 99% of people buy Samsung Android phones, but these are all spread evenly across a large choice (more than 99) of similar phones that Samsung offer. It really takes one hell of an RDF to claim Apple as most popular, because their 1% share is from a single model. It also means that Samsung are penalised for offering more choice to consumers!
But this story is still interesting. The media only cling to this way of measuring, as it makes Apple look best. It's telling that Apple lose this stat now, even though it's massively biased towards them, with them only having one phone per generation. They are now so unpopular, that even one single device out of thousands outsells all the latest generation of iphones. What will the media do now? Will they finally give up on the Apple obsession? Or switch to "Oh, but the next iphone will sell more, honest"?
It's possible that the Nexus 4 will cause Android sales to rise further (good for Android), and also cause sales to spread more evenly between Samsung and LG. This is also good - it's more healthy competition in the Android market. But the effect could be to make Apple look "better" when the media quote the stats of best selling individual device, because the S3/S4 sales are now shared with the Nexus 4. So despite even further domination of Android, the media will be spinning this as a win for Apple!
Even on phones, a grid of coloured icons was bog standard even on low end feature phones around 2004-2005.
Clicking on a grid of icons, and only running one application at once - how 80's. What next, releasing something with the functionality of a mobile phone the size of a huge brick, and calling it progress?
"the thing is near identical to look at"
Pro-tip: You can always tell the Apple products, by the big tacky Apple logos they plaster all over their products. (The only thing that would make them more tacky is if they lit up.)
Re: Of course
No one cares about pixel density. It rewards devices being smaller, which isn't what you always want. Compare resolutions and screen sizes, but "density" as a stat is not something to compare different sized devices on.
If you care about resolution, get a Nexus 7, Kindle Fire, or a Nexus 10. If you don't care about high resolutions, then the Surface is still fine - or still get a Nexus 7 or Kindle Fire or Nexus 10 anyway, as they're way cheaper than Apple's media player as well as better.
Re: Any one else going to use these?
They don't use "retina" as that's an Apple trademark. It would be like asking why Apple don't have PureView. But many of them do use high resolution displays, with many manufacturers offering devices with higher resolution than Apple's "retina" display. My Galaxy Nexus beats an iphone 5 resolution, and the Nexus 10 beats an ipad 4 - both at much cheaper prices.
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google chief Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL