1789 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: I see a pattern here
The new AmigaPad will/might/who knows launch and do it all at a quarter of the price of a Nexus 7. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.
"top end of the budget" is not the budget space.
Re: Nexus7 comparible with the Kindle FireHD? Gime me a break...
I've used Android 4 and 4.1, and there's not really much difference that I noticed. (Google Now would be great if it wasn't always "No connection" when I have one.) Would much rather have the SD card slot - and at a way cheaper price. Future updates would be a plus for the Nexus 7, but at the end of the day, Ainol is offering great cheap tablets *now*, not "it'll be better if you wait two years" - by then, both will be outdated anyway.
(Can USB On-The-Go mean I can slot a card inside the device? When I look this up, it suggestts I need to have a cable hanging off all the time...)
But still, why argue - that's the great thing about platforms like Android, we're not locked into a single device unlike one certain platform. We don't feel pressured to buy the most popular single selling device, when we can instead buy what we like best, knowing it runs the most popular platform.
What about Samsung Galaxy tablets?
Admittedly the 10" Samsung Galaxy tablets might be a warning sign - in that they are also high priced 10" tablets, but don't seem to be selling as well as other platforms. But then, I don't see endless comments here slagging off Samsung...
Who cares about sales? If you like it, get it, if you don't, don't.
Because most of us don't give a crap about Apple?
Ipad: costs the same, less storage, over priced keyboard extra, no microSD. Lots of luck Apple.
(Personally I'd take an Android tablet over either - better features, more open, more free. But the criticisms here should be levelled at Apple far more so.)
Re: And all Apple has to do ?
Market leader - funny how that matters when it's Apple, but not when it's MS, Nokia, Samsung, Google etc who lead over Apple.
Higher resolution - handpicked single stat where Apple does better, not sure why that is more important than any other feature. Why do you need that high a resolution on a small device?
Proven track record - meaningless; MS aren't some unknown company.
Loads of apps - if you count fart apps and website wrappers. Again, funny how software support matters when Apple lead - and it is okay to even do raw counts - but not when say comparing Windows to Mac OS.
Re: And all Apple has to do ?
By that logic, all MS has to do is knock $100 off and it will kill the ipad dead. MS can change the price in future just like Apple can.
Although it's pretty basic business logic for companies in oligopolies to not engage in price wars if they can avoid it, because it just harms them both.
Not to mention that historically Apple are never able to make cheap products, instead they have to charge loads for them, preferring to make money selling overpriced products to a niche. Fans have been claiming for years how a mythical better priced iphone would "kill Android dead", but you know what? I'm still waiting.
Apple can only afford to do so in the sense of burning lots of cash, but why would they throw away their ability to make any money, when it's the reason companies exist in the first place, just so that a few Apple fans can finally brag about their OS not being runner up in the market?
Says who? Ultrabook is a trademark, it's an Ultrabook if Intel say it is. I might as well say a MacAirPowerBook isn't a Mac because of such and such thing that I don't like.
You don't get a MacAirBook (sorry, I don't speak Apple) for that price anyway - and there are plenty of other laptops that do have SSDs (whether it's "standard" or not is beside the point - if it's optional, I can still choose to have it. Forcing the choice on me doesn't make it more compelling).
A 10 second Google shows your wrong on the UK pricing: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/pdp/productID.257929400?WT.mc_id=FY13WinHH
They may "lose out" to Apple, but so what? Apple lose out to Samsung and Nokia on phones; they lose to Google on mobile OS, and MS on non-mobile OS. That doesn't mean they can't sell something. Sadly anything Android loses out to Apple on non-phone tablets, but I don't see that as a reason not to like Android tablets.
Re: Wrong decision?
If there's lots of demand for Office on a tablet, then there's a market for Windows tablets, which there wouldn't be as much if they'd ported it to the competition. And if there isn't much demand for Office on a tablet, then they wouldn't sell lots of copies for Office on IOS or Android. Either way, I don't agree with your logic.
Plus they can always port Office to other platforms later on. If they port it now, they lose that competitive edge.
Priced to fail?
Arguing like an Apple fan: "Well if you can't afford it, that must be because you're poor". Seriously, not one media article ever criticised Apple's overpriced offering offering, indeed Apple get praise from the media and fans for having high profit margins! Yet all we've heard about the MS Surface (and Android tablets, to some degree) is scrutiny about how much it might cost.
It's true that the Surface isn't aimed at the low end, so there's plenty of room for the Android tablets, but I think that much was clear anyway - it would be hard for MS to compete there, with Android being free, and there being smaller profit margins at the low end. Plus there's always the opportunity for other manufacturers to provide cheaper Windows tablets, with the MS Surface being a high end "flagship" (similar to the Google phones - unlike Apple, but like Android, MS aren't tied to a single device).
And anyhow, the price announced is cheaper than Apple, so how is that priced to fail?
"Cupertino has trumped Redmond on screen resolution"
Anything higher than 1280x720 is pointless on such a small device like a tablet. Indeed, if you're saying price is important, I'd rather have the cheaper price than the pointless higher resolution.
"More importantly, it has the applications that make a tablet something more than a fancy doorstop."
If you like fart apps and website wrappers.
"Any app vendor that wants to make money has to develop for the iPad; the same is not true for Windows RT."
The largest OSs are Windows and Android. Admittedly a lot of people develop for Apple because they think it's the largest OS, but that doesn't mean the rest of us has to live that delusion.
"The range of apps you can get for an Android tablet is also nearly as good as Apple"
Only nearly? Sorry, what can you do on Apple that you can't do on Android?
"Neither have a good Microsoft Office solution, but that doesn't seem to have hurt them too much in terms of sales and user annoyance."
This argument makes no sense - most people have yet to buy any non-phone tablet. That there might exist an area where Windows is better would be a reasonable point. The fact that many people don't care about it doesn't mean that no one is.
"There's also the Ultrabook market to consider."
Indeed, though the Surface Pro is basically an "ultrabook" (in function, not trademark) that's also a tablet. It will be interesting to see the pricing on this. And we already know there will be plenty of Windows tablet/laptop hybrids priced similarly to these ultrabooks.
And the most obvious point is that if people buy a $699 Windows 8 Ultrabook instead of a $499 MS Surface, then MS still win - people are still buying Windows. It would be like claiming Google failed because they're Nexus phones don't sell anywhere as well as the Samsung flagships - it's missing the point, because overall Android still dominates.
"The new OS with its not-Metro interface really only makes sense for touch users"
False, there are new features in Windows 8 that aren't just about touch or the UI. And it still works with keyboard and mouse.
I suspect we'll start to see more laptops with touchscreens as standard - I don't know why we don't already, given that touchscreen monitors are commonplace with even desktop PCs now.
"Rightly or wrongly, Apple has the cool factor for fondleslabs"
Cool? If you say so. Some people think they're cool because they have clothes plastered with adidas logos, but that doesn't mean the rest of us think so.
"there's a very long way to go before the system can be properly assessed"
Funny, when it was the ipad, or "islate", the media were proclaiming it the second coming of Jesus even before it was announced, let alone released and "properly assessed". Fair enough if one wants to criticise the Surface or Windows 8 along with tablets in general - but this criticism of MS, yet praise of Apple - who are the ones who want to force touch-only devices on everyone - is odd.
Re: Air please
Indeed, that's the problem with high resolution displays.
But then there's nothing special about Apple PCs, as there are a whole load of other ultra-portables planned also taking advantage of the next generation of Intel chips. (E.g., MS Surface Pro was already announced as being full HD[*] resolution.)
[*] Using industry standard terminology, rather than marketing AppleSpeak like "Retina", which I have no clue what it actually means. Retina on an iphone seems to mean lower resolution that my Android phone, for example.
Re: Can only make it worse
And another problem is that if you sort by anything other than relevance, you find all sorts of things that you're clearly not after, because they show up in the same search results. Most often happens when sorting by price low->high, because you then get all of the cheap accessories. If I want to shop for hard drives, that doesn't mean I want to wade through 10 pages of cheap cables and cases, even if they are for hard disks.
Not sure why "company hires someone" is newsworthy though. Another Apple press release masquerading as news.
Re: All these iPads
Last time I looked, Apple were still using this joke brand name in 2012. Though I can understand the confusion - there was so much hype and vaporware, islate, ipad etc, and now the same over the "mini", it's hard to remember which is the real products, and which are vaporware.
Re: That would be £40 rather than £50 cheaper, and the magic word is
I was looking at their Android 4 7" tablets and am tempted to get one - excellent specs, great reviews from the few places that cover them, with microSD, and cheaper than even a Nexus, let alone Apple's overpriced rubbish. It's sad how they get hardly any mention, whilst the media give hype and free advertising to the same old stuff (usually Apple).
Re: That would be £40 rather than £50 cheaper, and the magic word is
Since there is no difference between tablets and phones, all Android software is "tablet" optimised. It's only on Apple IOS that every software has to be specifically written for each device.
And if you make that argument, are you admitting that there's hardly any software for the iphone 5 (since all the existing stuff is optimised for a tiny 3.5" screen)? And there'll be even less for any new "mini" islate, sorry, ipad?
Re: Off the scent?
Okay I'll bite, what does an ipad do that no other device does?
Plus it's laughable to suggest that if things are equal, Apple should win by default. Minority? Android is the more popular OS.
Re: So, despite rest-of-world being utterly wrong
They didn't invent or reinvent tablets - or as we called them for years, media players, smartphones and PDAs. They just made one a bit bigger. So if making it bigger makes it a whole new thing, the same should apply for 7" vs 10". So if you expect others to credit Apple for a 10" device, then Apple and its fans should be thanking other companies for the 7" and 8" devices.
Plus it was presumably a joke comment against Apple's claims that Samsung copied.
Re: So, despite rest-of-world being utterly wrong
Apple get vast amount of media coverage for their ipad - they got this even before it was announced, let alone released. Vast amounts of free hype and advertising, from every news organisation, not to mention every other advert now going "Get this in your ipad" (are ipad users complete idiots or something, that they have to be told they can view a website on it? You don't have companies saying you can view it on a PC or Android phone).
Meanwhile the only other tablets to have got a bare mention at all has been the Kindle Fire (not available in most markets until recently) and Nexus 7 (only recently released), and even then, the coverage has been puny compared to the astroturfing for Apple. Most people don't even know there are "tablets" such as the Samsung Galaxys, just "ipads".
Then there's the distribution - every shop, even those that don't normally sell tech products, fell over each other to sell ipads for Apple, whilst until recently, it's been hard to find other tablets if you wanted them. Even those that do sell other tablets list the category as "Ipads & tablets" (again, are Apple users complete idiots that they don't know to look for ipads in the tablet section? It's just yet more free advertising for Apple).
Yet when Apple sell more, you conclude it's because of they got the size right?!
But then, if that's true, why would they release this vaporware "Mini"?
And do you agree they got the size wrong on iphones, since larger phones are way more popular?
"if there turns out to be significant interest."
So their approach is to follow what Google do - sounds like you agree with the OP.
Re: Touch input?
No, we didn't think tablets were daft, nor did Apple bring them to the masses - people were using handheld touchscreen devices for years, we just called them different names - media players, smartphones, PDAs. It was mostly Android that brought touchscreen devices to the masses.
The tablets which we thought were daft were tablet PCs, i.e., the same thing that people here are still calling daft. Now that's not to say that I agree with them - much of the problem with the older tablet PCs was that they tended to be even heavier than normal laptops. That's not true of smartphones, PDAs, or media player tablets (include Apple's), but it's also not true of the new upcoming Windows tablet PCs.
An ipad is not a tablet PC, it's a big phone or media player. But I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, just the argument from Apple.
Re: Win8 FAIL - touch screen PC's will FAIL
Interesting - I mean, whether we argue it's a good thing or a bad thing, the fact that schools are buying in touchscreen PCs and gearing up for Windows 8 suggests it isn't the "failure" that the OP thinks it will be.
(And let's face it, there are loads of examples where what people think is best isn't what is the one with the largest market share.)
Windows 8 still works fine with mouse/keyboard btw. Metro seems to be mainly used for the simple built in apps - and how many people here stick with "Windows Mail" and so on? The advanced users always go and download their own email client etc anyway. The worry is more whether MS see the new UI as being the future for all software, as opposed to simply using it for simple or touch-oriented software. Though I suspect that if "Metro" is ever to become the main UI for all software, this will only be at some point in the future when it's evolved to include the best parts of windowed and non-touch UIs anyway (e.g., they're already trying to move in this direction by making it a tiled window manager).
Re: Win8 FAIL - touch screen PC's will FAIL
I don't see it's a case of success and fail - I suspect that both will be true, i.e., most PCs will continue to sell with keyboard and touchpad/mouse, but the touchscreen will become a standard feature that's there in addition. Most the time I want to use a keyboard and touchpad, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to touch directly (e.g., graphics editing, or scrolling an image), as well as for ultra-portable use (as much as I dislike tablets for general computing use, there are some niches they are useful, and it would be nice to be able to use the same operating system and ecosystem). Indeed, touchscreens are already common on desktop PC monitors, seems strange this hasn't happened on laptops yet where you'd think it would be more useful.
I entirely agree that there are advantages to a mouse than touchscreen on any device larger than a phone. But we should be primarily criticising Apple who want to force large touch-only devices on us. Thankfully most of the so-called up-coming Windows "tablets" are actually laptop hybrids where the touch is just in addition, not a replacement.
WP7 is only 2 years old - Iphone sold poorly in the first two years too, did that fail too...? No the sales aren't great, but they still sell millions, which is enough for Apple to be hyped. I'm not sure the market is more "entrenched" today - although Android was less popular 2 years ago, it was still massively popular, and there was also the dominant amazingly successful Symbian two years ago. If anything, there's more of a chance for new OS now, because several of the long used popular OSs have either been ditched (e.g., Symbian) or lost significant market share (e.g., Blackberry). Or who knows, maybe we'll end up with just one main OS and one niche runner-up, with no chance for anyone else - but historically, the phone market has had 3, 4, 5 or more OSs.
And yes, software patents are bad. Same for Apple's trolling too.
Re: If visitors or immigrants can't accept the culture and habits of a country ...
I'm against censorship - but the right to peaceful protest is (or should be!) part of the culture of this country.
"Funny how they exercise the British right to complain - which many can't do in Muslim countries - about another British right."
Why is that funny? By that logic, there would be many things we couldn't complain about. And unfortunately this isn't like the US - we don't have freedom of speech written into a constitution, or indeed a written constitution at all. So we're not talking about a case where people are trying to oppose something constitutional, but people criticising something no different to the way that many other British people do. (Even in the US, it isn't that simple - people still call for censorship, arguing that freedom of speech has limits, and indeed, it is well established that freedom of speech in the US is not unlimited.) Even for things that are constitutional - should I leave the UK, because I disagree with the principle of the monarchy? Should my non-British partner who lives with me also not be entitled to such a view?
If this was an article about the peaceful republican protestors getting rounded up by police on the day of the royal wedding last year, I would guess that most comments would be against that. I'm not sure I'd see much of a "Well they should leave the country if they can't accept the way things are here". Even though the monarchy is about as constitutional as you can get.
So it's not funny at all. It is entirely consistent to make arguments about what the laws should be, or what the limits of laws should be.
Whilst there is the ECHR, it seems that half the UK population happily argue against that anyway. I don't agree with them, and might be happy to see them leave for another country - but it's clear that your argument is a bit ludicrous. Unless you suggest it's one rule for muslims, and another for Daily Mail readers. (And what is funny that the kinds of people who criticise the ECHR all the time are also more likely to be the kinds of people who would suggest muslims should leave the country if they don't like the rules...)
(Not to mention your assumption that they're all immigrants.)
I oppose censorship, but saying "Why aren't you protesting against this other thing" is poor logic. Firstly you don't know that they're not; it is also an argument that could be used against every protest. It would suggest that many things could never be protested against, unless the people were also spending time protesting every other thing in the world deemed at least as important as that.
Here, let me try a variation: Why aren't you criticising all the violent protests, as well as murders and wars around the world? Surely those are more of a problem than a peaceful protest about a Google video?
So you refer to believers as ignorant, but seem to be criticising the atheists who "sneer" and refer to "invisible friends"... And if you think that theists are ignorant, you imply atheists are more knowledgable, yet you criticise those who see it as a "smart club"?
I'm an atheist not because it's a club, but because I don't believe in god. But you seem to be criticising the very kind of atheist that you are.
So if people don't really believe these things, why this great charade as if they were true? Why so offended when atheists say they aren't true?
If that's really the case, then why aren't we all in agreement? Why do religious people pray if they don't really believe there is an intervening caring God to help them out?
But no, that's not what foo_bar_baz was actually saying at all; and in turn, the OP was saying something different again. Yes, it's true that there are people who don't believe everything in the Bible literally, but these people are still reasonably Christians, because they still do believe the core principles. And atheists know this - they are not making up straw men.
But the earlier post was talking about people who didn't even seem to believe any of the core principles, but identify as "Christian" and go to church but only at christenings and weddings.
Re: Religion is the problem
Whilst perhaps not all religions are equal, it's not that simple. Here we have religious people peacefully protesting something that they want censored. I disagree with them yes - but it's just one example compared with countless cases where we see a certain other religion doing the same thing.
The difference is that censorship of things that cause offence to Christianity are more likely to get support from people in positions of power - politicians, lobbying groups and so on.
Yes, blanketly criticising all religion is simplistic and not helpful, but nor is it to say that one religion is always a problem, and no others are.
And, like other commenters, you end up with the EDL-style suggestion that they leave the country. Sorry, you talk Western values, but that's not a Western value. Protesting against things in your own country is a Western value (I hope it is!) We could just as well make the ludicrous argument that if you don't like them protesting, you should leave.
"Round them up" did not exactly sound an optional tone though.
I oppose censorship and would do so in this case. I would no doubt disagree with the protestors.
But I also support freedom to protest. I'm not sure that rounding people up, and "suggesting" they leave the country, just because you disagree with them, is so great either. I'm worried at the Daily Mail/EDL style arguments here.
Next time the Daily Mail suggests something should be banned, will the OP be calling for them to be rounded up, and "suggest" they leave the country?
Is it always the case that someone should move to another country rather than protesting? I find that a rather odd idea.
Re: They have
I'd say that just as Google have the freedom of speech to host the video, they also have the freedom to peacefully protest criticising it - that isn't in itself arguing against freedom of speech.
Of course they lose points if "The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far" is the case.
Re: iPhone has no malware
Indeed - it's interesting that the malware authors actually seem to have a clue as to which is really the dominant platform.
Compared with unfortunately most mobile software developers - I recall that recent Register article on a survey which said most mobile developers value installed userbase size as most important when deciding what to develop for, yet bizarrely, most of them also said they developed for iphone. It's worrying that many software developers seem to be clueless as to the actual state of the market.
Re: @AC 20:30
Your post is entirely nonsense, but I was particularly confused about the claim about ads - sorry, no such thing.
OTOH, when I watch TV, I do see an Apple logo in virtually every US TV programme, due to the ridiculous amounts of money they are spending on product placement, in an attempt to appear popular. Then there's the constant "get this on your iphone/ipad" (that most of us don't have), or the free advertising for Apple in the media.
If you hate ads, then Apple are the number one worst culprit. It's sad the way they've infected a large amount of American TV.
I find it odd that sales are an argument against criticisms - the sales of Windows never stopped Apple fans criticising it for years.
But yes, maybe that's why Apple remain a 3rd place company.
And not this nonsense about Android updates - I'd have thought that the Apple maps fiasco would finally show that it's better that companies take the time to test new updates for each device, rather than rushing it out just for a marketing headline. But I severely misunderestimated the ability for Apple fans to continue to twist everything to praise Apple.
I couldn't care less whether I have the very latest revision of an OS, because what I have works fine. I mean, I don't see people here saying we should all run out and get Windows 8 the moment it's released, when 7 works fine. The bottom line is we get features years before Apple users anyway.
I mean sure, maybe if we had to wait years to get basic feature-phone level functionality like apps or copy/paste, we'd be desperate to upgrade to the latest OS version ASAP too. But when the OOTB functionality is damn good anyway, who cares?
And sorry, most of the moaning about Android updates comes from Apple fans like you, who think it's a valid argument.
The website does satnav now? Or works offline? Wake me up when you catch up to Google and Nokia.
Re: The right tools for the right Jobs
Wait, wasn't it people telling us that Apple were amazing for making a phone you could do reading and browsing on?
If all you want is a simple phone, then I wonder why you bought the most expensive one on the market.
Many of us want to do browsing on a phone - it's why we don't have a dirt cheap one. And 4.5-5" is the perfect size that's as large as possible, whilst still fitting fine in a pocket, and being hand held. Meanwhile, 10" is the size of a laptop/netbook, with the functionality of a phone.
Plus you're missing the point. No one's arguing against having different sizes, it's the idea of one size fits all. If you want 4", for years Apple didn't offer that, but other companies did, and still do. If you want 4.5", you're out of luck with Apple. Indeed, if you want 3.5", you're now out of luck. And you've also got no choice for a 7" device, unless you're seriously buying something that doesn't exist.
Tell that to the media, always going on about iphones, even though most people have something else...
Plus if anything, when using a phone one-handed, I have hardest trouble with the region closest to my thumb, so smaller phones are harder to use one handed (unless they're the old style where the screen doesn't take up the entire front, and you only have a few buttons).
But also, what about multitouch?
I've got to laugh that on the one hand, Apple fans have for years praised "multitouch" as the single most important thing ever, just because it was the one thing Apple did first. I'd disagree it's that important (compared with say, touch in the first place), but there you are. But now, suddenly the most important thing is "Using a phone one-handed", because they think it's something you can't do with larger phones, and these days it's Apple's phone that is smaller than most.
So I ask these people, how do I use multitouch on a phone one handed?
Indeed, the biggest problem I have when using a phone one handed is not that the phone is too big, *but that the UI requires multitouch*. Which is why, if anything I think multitouch has been a bad thing - multitouch is sometimes useful as an optional extra, but a well designed UI should not require it, and should be able to be used one-handed. (E.g., I'm glad that Google have finally made it so you can zoom out with single-touch.)
Only Apple could make a phone that is designed to be held one-handed, but requires two hands to operate the UI - and have people praise it for both.
Re: iTunes on Android?
It may pay for them, but I'm glad that not everyone follows the model of profits before customer, high margins rather than lower prices. Perhaps some CEOs care about more than simply making as much money as possible.
Re: @AC 18:53
Yes, yet another thing that works just like that on Android too. And Symbian before that.
Only for Android!
"For the moment that phone will have to run Android"
Seriously - after that article the other day saying that developers (a) claim they are mostly motivated by the size of the installed userbase, and (b) yet bizarrely they choose iphone, it's a refreshing change that someone caters to the *actual* number one selling platform for a change.
I really don't get the spin in the article, and the sub-heading, that it's bad to "only" support Android, which has near 70% share. I'm more concerned at all those companies only catering for the ~15-20% of iphone users.
Sure cross-platform is nice - but then, what about all the other platforms, not just iphone? And the biggest non-Android chunk of the market is actually those "feature" phones, e.g., Nokia's S40, that don't get counted in the market stats, despite being smartphones that run apps etc.
Hardly surprising to us, though maybe a wake up call to all the companies providing "apps" just for the minority of Apple feature phone users. How about "apps" for Windows (and hell, Linux and OS X if you want)? No, not Windows Phone or Windows tablet - but straightforward Windows.
If there's a reason to be using an application instead of your website, then let me do so on my non-phone OS. And if not, then smartphone users might as well use the website too. (Though maybe Apple phones struggle with this? I never understand why they alone get "apps" when they're the least popular platform, perhaps they just can't run them well.)
"iPhone and Android users"
There are more mobile platforms than just two. Of if you only want to mention the most popular for simplicity, it's "Android users". (At 15-20% vs 65-70%, putting iphone on the same level as Android is highly misleading, and other platforms have done just as well as Apple, or better than over the years.)
~Posted on a Samsung netbook. Because you know, it's possible to use PCs in bed before ipads, despite what the media think~
Although note Nokia are still number two in the market - true, they fell from number one, overtaken by Samsung, but it's not so much a shakeout for them yet.
The shakeout is more companies like Motorola, LG - and RIM as you say.
Re: It's now a software and UI battle
Anecdotally, people I know who have criticised the HTC UIs say they would be more than happy if they'd just stuck with the vanilla Android, and with Android 4 being great, there's no need to mess with it unless you can add value.
I'm not sure it's all about software, the last few years have still seen significant useful improvements in hardware, indeed if anything I'd argue that's more so than the software changes (which are now down to minor tweaks). The last year has brought even bigger screens (which even small-size Apple have realised they have to play catch-up on, and it's the primary marketing feature of their latest phone), higher resolutions, better cameras, increasing CPU/GPU/RAM (well okay, Apple haven't improved much in their hardware, but I'm looking at the other companies where the real innovation is). I'm not sure what much has change in software in the last year that's comparable to any of that.
HTC's problem is probably being distinct - even if Samsung are only slightly better on average, it means people wanting Android will go with Samsung. There doesn't seem to be any distinction in other areas either, such as screen size.
That and marketing - either from HTC themselves, or free advertising from the media or other companies (Apple will always be able to sell a few, when every other advert advertises "Try this on your iphone" that most of us don't have.)
It is an interesting issue - the great thing about Android is that it's provided a great standard open OS for any manufacturer, and has done more to popularise smartphones and bring them to the masses than any other platform. Yet far from encouraging a greater spread of choice (as with say, the large number of PC manufacturers), we've ended up with Samsung taking up all the profits (and share - which is what is of more relevance to consumers). First Motorola fell, now it seems HTC are going that way sadly. People criticise Nokia for switching to WP, but for those suggesting they should have gone to Android, it's not clear that would have worked out so well. (Also remember that article saying how Nokia make more profit from their low end smartphones, than Sony-Ericson do from high end Android smartphones?)
"failed to create the same buzz around its high-end products"
It's a shame that all that matters these days is the hype and free advertising given by the media. How about giving a more objective view on the marketplace...?
Though I suppose we should be thankful that at least Samsung/Android now gets some hype, rather than Apple all the time (who seem to get all the hype, despite far fewer sales).
Whilst I welcome anything that relaxes the overly strict and length copyright terms, it does seem a bit of a double standard. An individual who so much as downloads a song may get his Internet connection cut off and face who knows how much in fines for damages. But companies are given more flexibility to use copyrighted material without permission - and individuals will have a far harder time asserting their rights, since they won't have an army of lawyers to notify the relevant departments - and at worst, they just pay reasonable compensation if they misuse something.
When I see a story off a tabloid using someone's photo without permission (and they seem to think it fair game just to copy off their facebook or whatever), why don't we hear calls for their Internet connection to be cut off?
Reducing the lengthy copyright terms would be a far better and easier - and fairer - solution.
Re: maybe for england....
Whilst I think that Scottish independence would have many problems, it's not clear why Scottish companies would have to "pay back" anything - that money was from the UK Government which *includes* Scotland up until independence (and Scottish taxpayers also contributed to it). Plus many English/Welsh/NI companies received money too. It seems rather silly to try to work out perhaps decades or centuries' worth of payments, to work out if what should be paid back to whom. Do all the Scottish citizens get all the taxes paid back to the UK too, by that logic.
No, it ought to be clear that the change would be from independence onwards. Scottish companies received money - just as scottish taxpayers paid tax - because they were part of the UK. Independence is not something that is retroactive.
The whole question of currency is a complex one, but I would hope that debate is more mature than "You can't have it". For starters, there's nothing stopping the new independent Scotland to declare UKP to be legal currency, and there's nothing the remainder of the UK can do about it. Of course, a new currency would best be created, and yes it is a complex issue how this is done. (A similar thing applies to a country leaving the Euro.)
"I pretty much suspect the vote would be to eject the continually complaining Scottish and good riddance."
You'd punish the Scottish people, based on disagreement with political leaders? Now who's putting "nationalistic ideals ahead of any form of practicality or indeed common sense"?
Re: Quite believable
Whilst I like Samsung the most, sorry, I'd take any of those over Apple any day. They all run the same open platform anyway, and they all have decent hardware, rather than Apple's last year spec, where the main selling features are a 4" screen and maps that don't work.
This makes no sense - phones and tablets are the same kind of things, the only distinction being that phones also have the phone functionality. But they do everything that tablets do, and people use them for all those things too.
What on earth is it that is done on "tablets", that isn't done on phones?
I mean yes, if we were talking full blown tablet PCs, that might be one thing, but given people are happy to accept 10" iphones as tablets, this isn't the case.
If 5" is too small to use for Internet, games, software, or whatever else people use large tablets for, then any other smartphone is also too small.
There is a tradeoff between portability and screen size, but there is no magic divide (indeed historically, tablets were small too). Whilst getting two devices is a solution for some people, (a) not everyone is the same - e.g., some people's two devices might be a Galaxy Note and a 10" tablet, or a Galaxy Note and a netbook/laptop - and (b), not everyone wants to faff with two devices.
Having a choice is good. With Samsung, you can pick whichever size of device or devices you like. Unlike a certain company that only lets you pick two sizes, at two extremes of the spectrum.
Why would your friend be ridiculed? Because it's too big? Well okay, but let's ridicule people with gigantic ipads too. (And by source, I bet that means that you ridicule him - sad.)
Re: Voice and Handwriting - again
Only being able to use a bare finger, rather than choice of finger or pressure sensitive pen - how quaint.
And whilst I agree handwriting recognition is limited, voice recognition is far more so. Not that Android can't do that - Android (and Symbian) had voice recognition years before Apple decided to make it their prime marketing feature.
"The screen is bigger, that is all, not higher resolution, 267dpi compared to say 326 of the Nokia Lumia 920 (higher even than the iPhone)."
That's not resolution, that's density. Density is resolution / area. Thus, a completely useless stat for saying which device is best. If someone took my phone and made it smaller, but with the same resolution, the density would increase. But I would consider it a worse phone, as it's now smaller.
At least you mentioned Nokia rather than iphone, as it's Apple and their fans that usually make this the number one most important stat ever, even though it's irrelevant for most comparisons. But it's funny that after Apple made this their single selling point, they've been outdone on it anyway by Nokia (who haven't even mentioned it as a selling point, AFAIK).
Yes this is why laptop-sized ipads are so cheap, and those 7" tablets are more expensive. Oh wait.
And you should congratulate Samsung for putting the power of an ipad into the much smaller Note :)
(And although larger devices can have larger batteries, the larger displays tend to hog more battery too.)
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Google! and! Facebook! IDs! face! Yahoo! login! BAN!
- CIA snoops snooped on Senate to spy spy torture report – report