or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung Galaxy Tab to take on Apple's iPad via all 4 US carriers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung Galaxy Tab to take on Apple's iPad via all 4 US carriers - Page 3

post #81 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

We're talking tablets here namely the iPad, ATT outbid every other carrier only to change their agreement that SJ promoted as revolutionary. Samsung is smart enough not to limit themselves to a single carrier.

I really doubt Samsung has the pull to command exclusivity at a price.
post #82 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

The dispute was about fatness not thickness if you want to be picky. And fatness is all about proportions. But maybe this knowledge has not yet reached all states of US.


fat
   /fæt/ Show Spelled [fat] Show IPA adjective, fat·ter, fat·test, noun, verb, fat·ted, fat·ting.
adjective
1.
having too much flabby tissue; corpulent; obese: a fat person.
2.
plump; well-fed: a good, fat chicken.
3.
consisting of or containing fat; greasy; oily: fat gravy; fat meat.
4.
profitable, as an office: a fat job on the city commission.
5.
affording good opportunities, esp. for gain: a fat business contract.
6.
wealthy; prosperous; rich: He grew fat on dishonest profits.
7.
big, broad, or extended; thick: a fat sheaf of bills.
8.
plentiful; abundant: a fat supply of food.
9.
plentifully supplied: a fat larder; a fat feast.
10.
dull; stupid: fat clumsiness of manner.
11.
abounding in a particular element: Fat pine is rich in resin.
12.
(of paint) having more oil than pigment. Compare lean2 ( def. 6 ) .
13.
(of coal) highly bituminous; rich in volatile hydrocarbons.
14.
Ceramics . long1 ( def. 25 ) .
15.
fertile, as land: Everything grows in this fat soil.
noun
16.
any of several white or yellowish greasy substances, forming the chief part of adipose tissue of animals and also occurring in plants, that when pure are colorless, odorless, and tasteless and are either solid or liquid esters of glycerol with fatty acids; fats are insoluble in water or cold alcohol but soluble in ether, chloroform, or benzene: used in the manufacture of soap, paints, and other protective coatings and in cooking.
17.
animal tissue containing much of this substance; loose flesh; flabbiness: to have rolls of fat around one's waist.
18.
the richest or best part of anything.
19.
obesity; corpulence: In his later years, he inclined to fat.
20.
Slang . especially profitable or advantageous work.
21.
an overabundance or excess; superfluity.
22.
action or lines in a dramatic part that permit an actor to display abilities.
23.
Also, phat. Also called lift. Typesetting . matter that can be composed easily and profitably, esp. from standing type, illustrations, or the like: fat work. Compare lean2 ( def. 11 ) .
verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
24.
to make or become fat.
Idioms
25.
a fat chance, Slang . a very slight chance; small probability: A fat chance he has of winning the title!
26.
a fat lot, Slang . little or not at all: A fat lot they care about anyone else's troubles!
27.
chew the fat. chew ( def. 11 ) .
28.
the fat is in the fire,
a.
an irrevocable action or chain of events has been started; the die is cast: Now that they have been given an ultimatum, the fat is in the fire.
b.
the decision, whether good or bad, has been made.
c.
the crisis is imminent.
29.
the fat of the land, the best or richest of anything obtainable: to live on the fat of the land.
post #83 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

I love you guys. The thicker product is "slimmer".

We need a new dictionary around here.

Slimmer is a relative word just like fatter which is the word that was initially used in this tread. I you weight 180 lbs and are 6 ft tall, you are slimmer than the person who weight 179 and is 5 ft tall. In engineering terms slimness is defined as thickens divided by a characteristic length, I used the diagonal. No use for a dictionary, a little less trolling can do though.
post #84 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

Slimmer is a relative word just like fatter ...

...and just like thicker. HTH.
post #85 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

I DON'T love it when a poster really has nothing constructive to ad to a thread topic, so they resort to inane/petty/silly nonsensical postings/flame baiting.

You must really annoy yourself.
post #86 of 235
Quote:
Samsung's Android-powered Galaxy Tab will be coming to all four major U.S. wireless carriers in the coming weeks and months, as the company hopes to compete with Apple's iPad in the booming touchscreen tablet market.

I don't think anyone has proven there is a "booming touchscreen table market" yet. So far there is only a booming iOS device market.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #87 of 235
I don't get the 7 inch form factor at all. It looks like a Huge cellphone. Too big to carry readily, yet too small for its intended use. You give up a lot of screen real estate to say the iPad, but have no real carrying advantage over your smartphone.
post #88 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

I don't think anyone has proven there is a "booming touchscreen table market" yet. So far there is only a booming iOS device market.

But without it, where does the "us against the world" meme fit in?
post #89 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonimus View Post

This link suggests that the price will be 799€ (or about $1040).

http://armdevices.net/2010/09/02/sam...b-at-ifa-2010/

I'm very interested in the iPad, but this seems more reasonably priced at $299 --

http://armdevices.net/2010/09/02/arc...yo-299-tablet/

PLUS the contract, you will be tied to a contract for the data with the carrier. Still all the iPads comes wi-fi & carrier less and there are hot spots every where. It will make things more interesting but alone not an iPad killer.
post #90 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

... and what has that got to do with what I posted...

> $299 = epic fail

What does it matter if we know the pricing or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I notice that the Android apologists (aka Apple bashers) are replying to every post except the ones that say anything about the price.

I wonder why that is. Could it be that they also know that this thing aint worth anything over $299 and that any price above this will be an epic fail.

Oh... We weren't aware that you were some high-powered Samsung 'insider' that knows - For a Fact - that the Samsung Galaxy Tab will be priced at more than the aforementioned US 299.00.

Probability: You (probably) Aren't, and Don't.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #91 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

...and just like thicker. HTH.

To me, and I believe most other people, the thickens of an object is the smallest of the 3 dimensions of the object, this is not a relative measure.
post #92 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.

Of course it looks great to you, it's not Apple.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #93 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Have you seen how much 'comparatively 'fatter' the ipad is

Do you understand the meaning of the word comparative?
post #94 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

fat
   /fæt/ Show Spelled [fat] Show IPA adjective, fat·ter, fat·test, noun, verb, fat·ted, fat·ting.
adjective
1.
having too much flabby tissue; corpulent; obese: a fat person.
2.
plump; well-fed: a good, fat chicken.
3.
consisting of or containing fat; greasy; oily: fat gravy; fat meat.
4.
profitable, as an office: a fat job on the city commission.
5.
affording good opportunities, esp. for gain: a fat business contract.
6.
wealthy; prosperous; rich: He grew fat on dishonest profits.
7.

big, broad, or extended; thick: a fat sheaf of bills.
8.
plentiful; abundant: a fat supply of food.
9.
plentifully supplied: a fat larder; a fat feast.
10.
dull; stupid: fat clumsiness of manner.
11.
abounding in a particular element: Fat pine is rich in resin.
12.
(of paint) having more oil than pigment. Compare lean2 ( def. 6 ) .
13.
(of coal) highly bituminous; rich in volatile hydrocarbons.
14.
Ceramics . long1 ( def. 25 ) .
15.
fertile, as land: Everything grows in this fat soil.
noun
16.
any of several white or yellowish greasy substances, forming the chief part of adipose tissue of animals and also occurring in plants, that when pure are colorless, odorless, and tasteless and are either solid or liquid esters of glycerol with fatty acids; fats are insoluble in water or cold alcohol but soluble in ether, chloroform, or benzene: used in the manufacture of soap, paints, and other protective coatings and in cooking.
17.
animal tissue containing much of this substance; loose flesh; flabbiness: to have rolls of fat around one's waist.
18.
the richest or best part of anything.
19.
obesity; corpulence: In his later years, he inclined to fat.
20.
Slang . especially profitable or advantageous work.
21.
an overabundance or excess; superfluity.
22.
action or lines in a dramatic part that permit an actor to display abilities.
23.
Also, phat. Also called lift. Typesetting . matter that can be composed easily and profitably, esp. from standing type, illustrations, or the like: fat work. Compare lean2 ( def. 11 ) .
verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
24.
to make or become fat.
Idioms
25.
a fat chance, Slang . a very slight chance; small probability: A fat chance he has of winning the title!
26.
a fat lot, Slang . little or not at all: A fat lot they care about anyone else's troubles!
27.
chew the fat. chew ( def. 11 ) .
28.
the fat is in the fire,
a.
an irrevocable action or chain of events has been started; the die is cast: Now that they have been given an ultimatum, the fat is in the fire.
b.
the decision, whether good or bad, has been made.
c.
the crisis is imminent.
29.
the fat of the land, the best or richest of anything obtainable: to live on the fat of the land.
post #95 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by GmanMac View Post

I don't get the 7 inch form factor at all. It looks like a Huge cellphone. Too big to carry readily, yet too small for its intended use. You give up a lot of screen real estate to say the iPad, but have no real carrying advantage over your smartphone.

Friendly Suggestion: Go to one of your local electronics stores and hold a NOOK, Sony Reader, Kindle etc., and then go hold an Ipad.

At this point the viability, and potential desirability/superiority, of the larger-than-smartphone/smaller-than-iPad form-factor should be quite obvious.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #96 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

To me, and I believe most other people, the thickens of an object is the smallest of the 3 dimensions of the object, this is not a relative measure.

"thickens" may not be a relative term, but "thicker" certainly is. Without a comparison, saying something is thicker has no meaning.
post #97 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You must really annoy yourself.

You give ihm a lot of credit !
post #98 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Do you understand the meaning of the word comparative?

In this context, it simply means using comparison as a method, which is exactly how it was used in my post.

So Now You Know...
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #99 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Friendly Suggestion: Go to one of your local electronics stores and hold a NOOK, Sony Reader, Kindle etc., and then go hold an Ipad.

At this point the viability, and potential desirability/superiority, of the larger-than-smartphone/smaller-than-iPad form-factor should be quite obvious.

Then, actually do something other than read an ebook (well, pretend to do something on the non-iPad devices).

At this point the viability, and potential desirability/superiority, of the larger iPad form-factor should be quite obvious.
post #100 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Cheer up. That is not true.

Bogus. If it were true, then the Galaxy Tab and all the others now in production would have been first to market, i.e., they would have innovated and introduce the market... like Apple did.
post #101 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


I can understand Newtron trolling with long, inane copy/paste posts (its what he does), but please crop his absurdly long and pointless replies if you are going to reply.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #102 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

You give ihm a lot of credit !

Just as I give neither of you any 'credit' whatsoever based on the dubious 'contributions' you've made to these pages.

Absolutely NONE!
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #103 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

In this context, it simply means using comparison as a method, which is exactly how it was used in my post.

So, to answer his question, no, not really
post #104 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Friendly Suggestion: Go to one of your local electronics stores and hold a NOOK, Sony Reader, Kindle etc., and then go hold an Ipad.

At this point the viability, and potential desirability/superiority, of the larger-than-smartphone/smaller-than-iPad form-factor should be quite obvious.

That's just my point, I've used a Nook before, I couldn't see myself carrying one around all the time for so small a screen.
post #105 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really?

Then I guess the iPad is even 'fatter' given that the Galaxy Tab measures 190.09 x 120.45 x 11.98mm at .38kg yet the iPad comes in at 242.8 x 189.7 x 13.4mm at .73kg.

Personally, I find the Galaxy the perfect size/weight for this kind of device as it's much easier to hold with one hand, and considerably lighter than my iPad.


You may be right about the Galaxy size/weight being perfect for this type of device, if you want a 7-inch unit.

However, it is not easy to compare the two sizes of the two devices (especially in my American units mind) to determine if one is 'fatter' than the other.

Everything is relative. You need to compare the overall sizes of the devices before you begin to start to determine if one is fatter than the other. Obviously from an absolute viewpoint, the iPad is 'fatter' than the Galaxy. It is similar to saying that I at 5' 9" and 155 pounds am 'fatter' than someone who only weighs 145 pounds UNTIL you find out that the other person is only 5 foot 2 inches tall.

Using non-metric measures the two devices measure up as follows:

iPad is about (calculated from metric units given, 2.54 cm = 1 inch and 2.2 pounds = 1 kg)
9.6 inches x 7.5 inches x 0.53 inches at a weight of about 1.6 pounds.
total 'footprint' of device (lengh x width) = ~71 square inches
Density of device (weight/volume) = 23.5 pounds/cubic inch

The Galaxy is about 7.5 inches x 4.7 inches x 0.47 inches at a weight of about 0.84 pounds (hmm, seems they say lighter)
total 'footprint' of device (lengh x width) = ~35.5 square inches
Density of device (weight/volume) = 20.0 pounds/cubic inch

In any case, the iPad is "fatter" (i.e. thicker) but three points, one it is only 0.06 inches thicker!!! and that extra thickness is for a device that has twice the footprint of the Galaxy and finally we know that the iPad's thickness is measured at its thickest point (i.e. in the center) and the edges are thinner. (I don't know if the Galaxy has a similar bottom design)

However, the Galaxy is a less dense device (i.e. 20 pounds/cubic inch VS 23.5 for the iPad, or only 85% of the iPad)

So which one is "fatter" ?


One thing for certain ... based on posted prices for the Galaxy, one thing is certain, your wallet will be slimmer if you buy a Galaxy instead of an iPad

post #106 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by thor008u2 View Post

Bogus. If it were true, then the Galaxy Tab and all the others now in production would have been first to market, i.e., they would have innovated and introduce the market... like Apple did.

Fact: Apple did NOT invent that slate/tablet computer (they've been available to consumers since 2003), nor was it even the first to market a slate/tablet running a mobile OS (that would be Archos).
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #107 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by thor008u2 View Post

Bogus. If it were true, then the Galaxy Tab and all the others now in production would have been first to market, i.e., they would have innovated and introduce the market... like Apple did.

The disputed claim was "other companies can only copy".

This is simply false. It can be true or false without "the Galaxy Tab and all the others now in production would have been first to market".

Try to follow more closely, please. It is tiresome responding to claims regarding things not said.
post #108 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, to answer his question, no, not really

In your strangely illogical/twisted/nonsensical/sheltered world it probably is... Have Fun!
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #109 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by GmanMac View Post

That's just my point, I've used a Nook before, I couldn't see myself carrying one around all the time for so small a screen.

So it's not your preference, and to that 'preference' you are entitled.

For others, the 7inch form-factor may well be ideal.

Choice Is Good...
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #110 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Cheer up. That is not true.

Bogus. It *is* true that "...other companies can only copy instead of come up with something at all original." Otherwise, the Galaxy tab and all the others currently in production would have been first to market, i.e., these companies would have innovated and introduced the marketplace itself... like Apple has already done, paving the way.
post #111 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by juanm105 View Post

Obviously from an absolute viewpoint, the iPad is 'fatter' than the Galaxy.


Thank you.
post #112 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Oh... We weren't aware that you were some high-powered Samsung 'insider' that knows - For a Fact - that the Samsung Galaxy Tab will be priced at more than the aforementioned US 299.00.

Probability: You (probably) Aren't, and Don't.


... and this applies how to what I said in my posts.

You're even dumber than I originally thought.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #113 of 235
As much as I hate to say it, I am glad that some new tablets are finally coming out, just so it will keep Apple on it's toes. I don't think that Apple has been resting on their early success of the iPad, but I think they may want to avoid the same quick acceptance of Android tablets as there was with the Android Phones.

I am hoping that Apple releases an updated iPad with a camera before the holiday season. Maybe to help ease the transition from the current model, add a middle-base model with a camera for say $549us. This will keep the budget buyers happy and allow for those that want the camera to pay a little extra. Could happen across the whole line, or maybe just include the camera on the 3g models.

I think the Camera may be the one item that buyers will want included in the new Holiday Season gift. It could also prevent people delaying a purchase until the iPad2 comes out.

Who know though, there does not seem to be any shortage of buyers for the iPad in it's current rendition. With new competition however, Apple will be forced to speed up the updating timeline for its iOS devices.
post #114 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.

blame for what exactly? if you are referring to reception, there are no complaints coming from these antipodean shores.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #115 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I really doubt Samsung has the pull to command exclusivity at a price.

Sure they do. Samsung isn't some fly by night company. They're a major player in the computer/mobile world.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #116 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

... and this applies how to what I said in my posts.

You're even dumber than I originally thought.

Please... Your posts were all based upon speculative pricing points (e.g > $299) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab, yet you don't even actually know what the US prices will be, so therefore any claims you made/make are but 'assumptions' - Nothing More

Hint: That's How My Posts Apply.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #117 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Thank you.

So now fatter has suddenly become an absolute term to you! But thicker (as you correctly point out is a relative word, as opposed to thicness) is not!
post #118 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Fact: Apple did NOT invent that slate/tablet computer (they've been available to consumers since 2003), nor was it even the first to market a slate/tablet running a mobile OS (that would be Archos).

Fact: The Newton MessagePad was released in 1993.

BTW, it was comparatively fatter than the iPad is.
post #119 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Friendly Suggestion: Go to one of your local electronics stores and hold a NOOK, Sony Reader, Kindle etc., and then go hold an Ipad.

At this point the viability, and potential desirability/superiority, of the larger-than-smartphone/smaller-than-iPad form-factor should be quite obvious.

While your at it sit in a Rolls Royce or Ferrari and see the build quality. Not everyone can afford an iPad. They go with their wallet.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #120 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Please... Your posts were all based upon speculative pricing points (e.g > $299) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab, yet you don't even actually know what the US prices will be, so therefore any claims you made/make are but 'assumptions' - Nothing More

Hint: That's How My Posts Apply.

What?! ... and you have never speculated about anything in your posts?!

Give me a break.

So you're saying that the Galaxy Tab will be a success at any price point? That it will sell well at $400... $500... $600 or even higher?

You'll sit there and argue about definitions of slimmer, thicker, fatter but you won't even entertain speculation about the success or failure contingent upon various pricing.

LOL! Dumb boy, dumb.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab to take on Apple's iPad via all 4 US carriers
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung Galaxy Tab to take on Apple's iPad via all 4 US carriers