Android-based smartphone shipments leapfrog Apple's iPhone - Page 8

That Business Insider link I posted previously expects a larger screen iPhone in the 4 area.


Personally, I dont see it. If Apple wanted to go that route for the extra room with larger battery they could have done it with the iPhone 4.

They could have still lead the market in display resolution, too. At 4.3 a 960x640 display has a PPI of 268. I think a retina display for people at 20/20 vision at 12 away is 284 ppi or higher.

But they didnt. They went for a very expensive display and kept it the same size so I have to think they are set on keeping this standard for devs and users. It makes sense.

I dont recall if these larger display Android phones are simply expanding the UI elements of if the UI has been tailored for the increased display real estate. For instance, is there an extra button in a row or column for these 4.x displays?

Agreeing with Quadra the other day and now this.

Well, the last I checked, Apple's iOS ecosystem isn't the Internet, so, there is no relevancy of one to the other.

Just goes to show while I voice my opinion I am honest....lol. I do agree with Mouse when it comes to Google and Verizon what I would like to know is how is Apple any different?

I would like to also get your opinion on the situation. I buy into the Apple ecosystem just like everyone else here but I don't fool myself into believing they aren't controlling the content that I use for their benefit not mine.

I mean lets be honest, you jailbreak and I root. So clearly we don't except the experience as is, we want to create our own experience.

Actually there is because control is control. The reality is you can't or won't answer the question because they are exactly the same.

I really have no opinion on it. I dont know enough of what any of them are doing with this data to make an informed opinion at this time. Sure, I want my data private, but I also want it backed up and synced to all my devices and accounts instantly. Security and convenience are opposites. I think I take the necessary steps to protect my data from would be hackers, but protecting from snooping companies or the government, I dont think that is really achievable unless you complete disconnect, which Im not willing to do, so until I read something really egregious that can affect my life Ill probably continue to not worry about it.

You know something? You are wrong about that. I wanted an iPhone back in 2007 so badly, I didn't care whether it was popular or not. And when it debut, it cost me $600, with a two-year AT&T contract, and I didn't like AT&T/Cingular, but I'll swallow that to get an iPhone... And that that price, it sold poorly. I didn't care. I didn't know Apple wanted market share, so I was expecting it to be forever a niche product. All I cared was that it fulfilled a dream I've had of the perfect mobile convergence device. Apps didn't even exist back then. The big gains in market share took me by surprise; I wasn't expecting it, and frankly, it's not important to me as a fan or user. I just want Apple to be profitable enough that they'll keep doing what they do: make the coolest stuff.

So there.

Right, because that would totally undermine your, "Google is Great" position that you've locked yourself into. I'll admit you face an uncomfortable choice: continue to support Google now that they've shown their true face, even though you know it's wrong (but don't want to get worked up about it), or admit that you've been wrong all along, and lose face by admitting that Google really is evil (sociopath might be a more accurate term).

Now that Google has shown their hand, the choice to be for or against them is a moral choice for each of us to support good (network neutrality) or evil (Google/Verizon pact). Which you choose says everything about your character.

Good point. I have always looked at it this way anything I post online or view online, all my emails or anything else if anyone wants it that badly they are going to get it. Now that I have anything online all that interesting.

Are they comparing Samsung's total sales? Note that Samsung makes phones with at least the following platforms:

- Android
- Symbian
- WinMo
- Bada
- Likely WinMo7

The discussion is about Android. A big part of Android marketshare comes from Samsung. Samsung is also promoting its own Bada, which could make a big impact.

To see a well educated estimate of smartphone platform marketshare possibilities in the near term if Samsung chooses to go Bada exclusive, here's an interesting viewpoint:

http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...artphones.html

For those who don't read more than 100 words, here's a summary from a global viewpoint from the blog shamelessly copied with minor edits:


Yes it adds up to more than 100% since it tries to analyse the potential each platform has, assumes all phones to be smartphones in the end. Read the full article + comments if you want to dig in deeper.

Regs, Jarkko

So, me controlling what goes on in my home (that's not a metaphor for Apple, btw) is exactly the same as Google/Verizon controlling the Internet? Logically, if control is control, and, "they are exactly the same," that must be the case. This was really not one of your more intelligent comments.

This is exactly what I'm trying to get across to mouse. That if you want to be connected to all your friends in the digital world, that you have to accept some level of loss to your privacy. And to hold yourself accountable for the information you give access to.

If you accept that Google has access to the information you provided, but you make sure that nothing truly damaging is being freely shared, then you can generally move on with life.

Actually instead of disagreeing with me you proved my point. Something I have posted on these forums a million times is who gives a shit what is popular with everyone else as long as it meets your needs and you are happy with it.

So many on this forum want Appple to "beat" or put out of business Google or Microsoft and bash products they have never even used. People bash Windows when the last time they used Windows was 1990.

My point has always been buy what suits your needs and if you love it who gives a shit how many others buy it. Also if you happent to buy something that doesn't have the Apple brand on it doesn't make you a troll or trader. Maybe that one product just happened to suit your needs better or you just really liked it.

So I say back to you, Good for you.

This is just BS, how can people be "accountable for the information you give access to," when most of the time they either don't know, or those who gain access are deceptive about what they are doing with it. That's like saying a patient can give informed consent just by being told that they need surgery. And, how much of this information is knowingly provided, as opposed to simply taken or collected?

There is a way to be connected to your friends and not have to give up your privacy. That way is to make Google's entire business model illegal. Privacy equals freedom. Without one, you do not have the other.

For my "uncomfortable" choice, I choose to continue to support Google. Every company has its "evils" and that's a given you have to accept. Even Apple is not immune from this. Assigning "evilness" and condemning a company based on morals alone is shaky ground. Who's to say that your definition of moral is any better or worse than my definition?

For me personally, Google has done more "good" than "evil" and made my life a lot easier, which is why I will continue to support them. If that makes you see my character as "morally corrupt", then so be it. To me, you're just an random name tag on an internet forum.

I believe Jetz said it best that you only see things only in black and white.

So you're proposing that no one be held accountable for their own actions? That we should completely trust the other end to keep our information secure?

You post is actually supporting my argument more than refuting it. There are a lot of people out there that will try to get information from you. But it's up to the user to decide whether or not it belongs there in the first place or if the request coming from the other side makes sense.

If you take the precautions for that piece of infomation to not be available to be shared, then most likely it never will be. If you keep all your private information on an external hard drive and don't make it available online, then chances are good that it won't find its way there. Some one would have to physically break into your house and steal the drive, which means that they were going for it in the first place.

Like solipsism said, to guarantee 100% that all your information is kept private, you will have to completely disconnect from the world at large. You give out all your information to all kinds of government agencies all the time. Any one of them can get hacked or the files misplaced or an employee decides to sell it to someone.

By your logic, every single company that has anything to do with the internet has to be made illegal and taken offline, as they all collect information from you on some level. Including Apple, which you seem to hold on a high pedestal and give exception to.

Actually, you are the one framing things in black and white: all companies are evil, so there is no choice as to more or less evil, so it doesn't matter that I support one, because there is no moral difference between the choices. That's a very convenient framework to avoid any sense of moral culpability in your own mind.

There you go with more of your black and white reasoning, combined with a dash of misrepresentation on the side. You can try all you want to justify Google's unethical behavior, and your complicity, but, in the end, it's all just rationalization on your part.

Did I say I support the agreement or Google's conduct in this matter?

The simple fact is that this could all have been avoided if your government had done it's job and probably regulated net neutrality.

And if you are so pissed about it, I assume that you will be writing to your legislators shortly and demanding that they pass legislation mandating net neutrality, just like many of us (myself included) made submissions to the CRTC when they had public hearings here. But I suspect you care more about bashing Google than anything else.

.

This whole thread has been about comparing OSes on phones-- mainly smart phones, but some feature phones.

Paraphrasing:

Some say: "We must compare all Android phones to all iOS phones" -- they are right!

Others say: "We must compare all Android devices to all iOS devices" -- they are right!

Still others say: "We must compare a single Android device to a single iOS device" -- they are right.

So what do we gain from this? Confusion? Anything that serves to justify you (or my) position?


Does it make sense? Would it make more sense to compare cameras (or lack thereof)? Accelerometers? RAM? Battery?

The answer to all those questions is I don't think so!


How about multitasking? Syncing? Setup? Security? Ease of app purchase/installation?

This too doesn't really make sense to compare -- but we're getting warmer!


Ignore for the moment, that all apps are not available on all versions of the respective OSes. How about the quality of similar apps and their utility?

That, too, isn't a valid comparison because it doesn't tell the whole story -- but we're really getting hot!


Stay with me now...


One of the things that sets the current genre of phones (and tablets) apart from those of a few years ago is they are easier to use-- you can do much, much more with much less effort.

Why?

Because the Apps are front-and-center, in-your-face?

Maybe... but maybe just the opposite...


are you still with me...


Maybe it is because the OS gets out-of-the-way! The OS recedes into the background and leaves [almost] nothing between you and what you want to do-- the app.

That's what makes these devices different and more useful!


So, are we trying to compare some things (OSes) that aren't there?

Or maybe we are trying to compare how well these OSes perform their disappearing act.


What have we left when the OS disappears?

An App to perform some job. And a User Interface to assist us to get the app to perform our will!

The main purpose of all these mobile os devices is fleeting, spur of the moment: GIDGO -- (Get In; Do it; Get Out)!


How easy that GIDGO is accomplished is the User Experience.


To my mind the User Experience is the thing that makes sense to compare.

Sure, the OS (and its disappearing act), skins, multitasking, widgets, folders, and the quality of the app all contribute to the User Experience.


But the acid test is: can I pick up a device and do my thing: GIDGO with no lengthy training or experimentation. It should be as easy as: say, driving a different make/model rental car, or using a new coffee maker!

,

A reasonable opinion in line with most of the sane world...except for anonymouse who thinks there's men in black, sent by Google, waiting for him around the corner....

Well, do you or don't you? And what's with the distinction of, "conduct in this matter"?

If you support them in any way, you support their, "conduct in this matter."

Usually, yes. That's why the screen real estate is so valuable to some. Most widgets are two lines and 4 icon spaces across or single line and 4 spaces across or 4 icons spaces squares. And most phones are 4 icons and by 4 icons across. This means 2 of the medium sized widgets on each page. That extra size usually gives you an extra line which means two medium sized widgets and a line of icons or another one line widget.

I would have loves that on my Nexus One where I put my facebook, calendar and task list widget on the same homescreen, but would have loved the extra row to put some related icons there. Same constraint on the main homescreen where I put on Beautiful Widgets' weather clock and then have only two rows for widgets which means some stuff I use regularly gets bumped to another homescreen.

Yes, that's the answer, caricature the people on the opposite side of the question from you. Sorry, that doesn't absolve you of moral culpability if you support them in any way.

I haven't read enough to know either way. Whatever, I've read thus far seems to say they'd put together this deal because of the current deadlock you guys have down there and Google's apparent fears that if they didn't strike a deal something worse might emerge (more carrier dominant policies?). I don't know how much truth there is or is not to Google's assertion. If Google's fears are warranted then this deal might be decent. If Google's blowing smoke than the deal does indeed suck. I'd like to know before I can have an informed opinion (though broadly speaking, I really couldn't care all that much because I like the Canadian approach...and what happens here impacts me a lot more). Seems to me that if you solve the deadlock you don't need this deal. If people like you care so much, why is there even mediation by the FCC? I don't know how your system works, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why the US government can't legislate net neutrality into place like many other countries have done? Why does Google feel compelled to do the job of your legislators in the first place? Isn't that a more important question? Seems to be a trend in the US lately of industries writing their own rules.

Either way, isn't this just a proposed idea that would require implementation and oversight by your governmental authorities. I really don't get why people are so worked up over a suggestion on which way to go forward. If you don't like it, why can't you get the FCC to kill it? They put forward a proposed solution. Nobody says it has to be the one that's implemented right?

What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.

Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem

As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.

I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.

After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.


I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.

.

Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.

When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.

Correct but at least that is a realistic view of the situation. Not bashing one company for trying to set controls and then saying Apple is controlling content only for our user experience as if Apple gets no benefit out of it other then making us happy...lol.

I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.

What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?

This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit.

This cannot be an absolute debate unless it was a question of whether your government was willing to act without industrial consent. If the choice is between a broken status quo and industry moving by stealth towards a non-neutral internet in both wired (which matters far more) and wireless domains (neither of which is protected today in the United States...and yet you don't seem upset about that...where was your rage before this deal on the issue?), and a protected wired domain and a non-neutral wireless domain, then I choose the second option. Unfortunately, those are horrible choices and your legislators should get off their butts regulate net neutrality across the board. But that option doesn't seem to be on the table at all. Ask yourself why that's the case.

Don't blame Google if your government doesn't do its job. At least this deal protects half the internet. That's better than what you have right now. Now demand from your government that they do their job and protect the other half too.

Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.

It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.

Duh! Of course they are blowing smoke. That's why they are all in favor of exempting wireless, that's why they are in favor of loopholes so big carriers can drive whatever they want through them, that's why they want to emasculate the FCC. And, talk of the "public internet" absolutely implies that you believe in something else. If Google were actually serious about net neutrality, then they would take that stand, and offer a framework that supports it, not this nonsense that tries to sound good by tossing the word open around as much as possible, while gutting the entire concept.

You sound a lot like Google in your response, and it's not what anyone would call straight talking. So, which kind of net neutrality is it that you support? Real net neutrality, or the phony Google/Verizon doublespeak kind of net neutrality. If you support the former, then any action you take to support Google generally, undermines the very principles you claim to support. There is no way to have it both ways here.

Lots of talk. Where was your concern for net neutrality before this? I haven't seen too many posts from you expressing alarm on the matter before this deal came out. That's what makes me think you are more concerned with bashing Google than your are concerned about ethics.

For my part, I've written to the CRTC (our FCC like authority) advocating for absolute net neutrality and done the same to my Member of Parliament, well before the issue was fashionable. So please, no lectures on morality.

Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.

There is only one way to invoke change and that is get involved. Even in those situations at best you have a 50/50 chance of getting something done.

I dont' know if you live in the US or not but if you do then you know even with Americans jumping up and down and with the vast majority not wanting the healthcare bill to pass it still got passed based on lobbists and a government agenda. So I have little faith with the money Google pumps into the government that they are going to back us on this one.

You do know what black and white means right? That you side completely with one side or the other. Either Google is a company completely out to get you or their angels that can do no harm.

If you read my post, you'll see that I said that even though all companies can be considered evil at some level, it varies. That actually makes this a lot less black and white. Google has made these missteps, but yet the services they provide have made my life easier and are generally very good. So dispite them doing all this "evil", I still decide that they're worth my support. If I was being black and white, I'd condemn Google only on the basis of their missteps, regardless of what good they've done.


And my complicity eh? So now in your mind I'm an employee on Google's board helping to drive the "evil plot of doom" along. Good one!


If you want any more proof that you're thinking in black and white, then here it is in front of you. I support net neutrality as a whole, but yet I also support Google as a company. According to your logic, because I support net neutrality, I must condemn Google to hang. But yet I don't... Where's the black and white in my thinking?


I like how you deflected the topic at hand (actually, it's off-topic as this thread is about Android jumping ahead in sales) to an attack on what you think my morals are. Especially when it makes you appear that you've been backed into a wall and have nothing of reason to put forth.

You'd make an excellent politician some day. Ever consider running for office? Maybe then you'll actually be able to make a difference instead of sitting here in an internet forum attacking random posts.

Do you have evidence to back that up?

I am not saying Google is right. But I am not going to say they are wrong either. Prior to us implementing net neutrality legislation in Canada, our ISPs had begun to clamp down on the wired internet side (throttling torrents for example, using packet sniffing, prioritizing their own VOIP packets, etc.). This is what led to the outrage on the issue here to begin with. Once the hearing began the CRTC saw no reason not to extend the legislation across the board (what helps for us is that our wireless telcos are also our ISPs...which made the implications very clear for the CRTC). So with that experience in mind, I am mindful that Google might be right that no deal at all could mean American ISPs might abuse the wired internet the same way in the US as our telcos did in the past, in Canada. Now I don't know if that's happening. But if it is the case and I was forced to choose and apply net neutrality to only one domain, I would pick the wired over the wireless domain any day.

Maybe you're experience in the US is different and you're wired ISPs are absolute angels who would never do anything like what our telcos did here in Canada, in the absence of any regulation at all. If that's the case, Google is most definitely wrong and you are right.

The evidence is right there in their own words. But, I see you've dodged the issue once again.

Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.

And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.

Ironically, you're the one dodging the issue by not answering his question. Show us the links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google was up to no good.

What you're essentially doing is telling the jury to condemn a man for murder by screaming "Just look at him! He looks like a murderer! Can't you see??!!!"

Mouse I have to say you are good for a laugh.