looks kinda huge, if you ask me.........
Can you link to the origonal claims from samung? can never recall them giving US sales figures, or any sale figures.
Selectively choosing your sources again, then ;-)
What cracks me up the most is that the Samsung S III isn't always using THEIR own processor, many of them have a Snapdragon S4. I wonder why? Maybe their own chip SUCKS and they are just putting them in some markets hoping that no one will notice the difference. What's up with that Samsung?
The international version has an Exynos processor. The version in the US uses the S4 due to incompatabilities with LTE. There is no conspiracy here.
What a joke, efficient multi-tasking is not a feature of the Dalvik VM. Android is seriously limited because of his Java VM.
Polycarbonate is a overhype word for plastic, which is the same plastic used for optical disc and the same plastic Apple has used on their old product like the original iMac and PowerMac G3-G4 case.
Seriously AI...where do you find these articles? Clicking on the site looks like it was put together by some high school kid in his basement! Not to mention the errors, and bias rampant in the report.
I love how they give the GS3 screen an "Excellent OLED screen" assessment when compared to the GS2 in one report, but then "Very Good OLED Screen" when compared to the iPhone 5.
How about the fact that they compare battery life at maximum brightness, even though that metric clearly gives bias to a backlit device. At maximum brightness, an LED screen is using the least amount of energy possible (because the backlight is ALWAYS on), while an OLED device is using the most amount of energy possible. How about you compare what a typical user would use if your going to put out something meaningful?
Heck, the main benefits of an OLED screen, contrast and viewing angle, are completely trivialized in this report. I particularly love the "Large Brightness Shift with Viewing Angle" assessment for the iPhone 5 that laughably gets a green coloring for the cell....ridiculous report all around :)
OLED has many mythical benefit on paper that fail on real world application.
1) Power consumption: While it's true OLED only use power when a pixels is light-up, energy efficiency of +2M tiny led light sources all light up is a lot less efficient than 1 backlight led, on what ever brightness you compare both screens.
2) Contrast: OLED offer undisputable pure black over LCD, but his maximum brightness is lower than LCD and offer a worst outdoors viewing experience.
3) Picture quality: Calibrating OLED screen is really hard because of his nature, OLED sub pixels tend to fade overtime and not at the same rate depending of the colour, this reduce brightness and produce colour shifts overtime. Pentile arrangement is a ugly hack to boost brightness and minimise colorshift.
4) OLED has lower lifespan, this is why the only current application of OLED screen is for disposable electronics like Cellphone and not yet on TV set and other devices.
That's right, you buy everything you see regardless of if you need it or could use it. Not sure that makes your opinion worth much.
But there are plenty of posts where you feel you have to qualify this. Almost as though you're defending something.
Wow, they even copied the exact shade of white. That's depressing.
I don't see Apple users going to Android forums and whining about how much Android stuff sucks. What trolls do here is the equivalent of going up to a stranger and slapping your genitalia across their bodies. They want to come to our turf, that's fine; they get to play by our rules.
And yet their phones are "cheaper" and get the telecoms "more" money…
Some weird choices there, Samsung.
I've seen the Apple's video on polycarbonate 15 years ago when the first iMac comes out.
I don't question Polycarbonate high quality, but still is one of the most produced plastic in the world, and one of the most wasted.
Great insight, thanks!
Somehow I'd wager you'd be lambasting all Apple fans and users for loving their retina displays as much as they do if the testing had shown the SIII to be comparable to Apple's 2 year old tech. Really wish you would get banned.
Apple's technology is merely to incorporate the touch sensors into the display itself, as opposed to having a separate layer. The effect this has on display quality is debatable, although it brings the pixels that little bit closer to your finger.
LG is only one of Apple's suppliers, but Apple's screens are based mostly on LG's tech (as LG has been the primary supplier since the earlier iPhones). If you look at the various Android phones, the LG displays are closest to Apple's in colour, contrast, brightness, etc...
Again, for a balanced view on things, it should be noted that Samsung not only uses the worst display technology of any manufacturer, they also are the least original. HTC and Sony IMO are producing the best quality Android phones at the moment. LG has the hardware down but are still weak on the software side, Motorola sucks, and Samsung is the worst period - their software sucks, their quality sucks, their screens suck (although they are improving since the original Galaxy S). The fact that Samsung is becoming synonymous with Android should be worrying to Google - no wonder HTC is hedging their bets by pushing Windows 8 as well.
I agree It's a baseless claim of mine, but considering how many CDs and DVDs spindles I've consume and how many AOL and Netscape CD I've trashed, I'm pretty sure I'm not so far of reality.
In term of volume can you name me beside packaging another plastics product that is more disposable than a coaster disc?