It?s interesting that the two newest Android tablets from different vendors I?ve read about in the last day have a wonky 1024x600 resolution (1:71 aspect ratio) with one being a 7? display and the other 10?, but I am under the impression that Android v2.2 ?Froyo? only natively supports resolutions up to 854×480. So are these some add on that will make 3rd-party apps not work right, is there a 1024x600 option built in, or will these be using a version of Android newer than 2.2?
mary shelley was born too early....missed out on some good material from google and vendors...
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.
Apple just makes it look easy... doesn't mean to say that it is...
The real question, and maybe I just missed it, what is the battery life on this thing? Is it close to the 10hr+ life of the iPad?
Personally I couldn't care less about a thickness difference of 1.4 mm, event to quote the 1/100 of a mm is ridiculous. As the imprecise word fatter has been used, it is tempting to use the word slimness which has an engineering meaning by which the Ipad is 22% slimmer.
It is great to have some competition out there, I have no doubt that there is a market for a 7 inch unit, and with a forward facing camera for Skype a device like this can substitute for my wife's MB which is the sole reason I have not bought an IPad.
However if the prices that rumored this unit doesn't stand a chance (intentional disinformation?), and using computers as tools, not as a hobby, I don't care for the carriers screwing up the system, in effect each making their own version.
It's a phone. It's really competing against the iPhone, as it's too small to really be an iPad competitor. Thus, the form factor should feel like a phone, and it doesn't.
And if you're not going to use it as a phone, you're going to feel kind of silly paying the monthly phone charges for it.
Its not a phone and why does it have to be a "competitor" to anything? There were tablets way before the ipad but nobody claimed Apple was competing against them.
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.
Apple just makes it look easy... doesn't mean to say that it is...
That could well be because US Pricing Has Yet To be Announced, and any speculation until that time is little more than (potentially) faulty conjecture - \
All Semantics: The fact is the Galaxy Tab is thinner by measurement, so therefore if the Galaxy Tab is being considered 'fat' then apparently the iPad is 'fatter' since it is (undisputedly) thicker by actual measurement..
Personally, I don't really care as long as the ergonomics are sound, but still - There's really nothing to debate here.
I love it when a troll contradicts himself multiple times in a single post, especially when he doesn't even realize it.
I love it when a troll contradicts himself multiple times in a single post, especially when he doesn't even realize it.
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.
[QUOTE=Newtron;1716193]The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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.
The post I responded to had "Apple's Achilles heel" as its topic. I pointed out that far from one carrier being Apple's Achille's heel, Apple has over 150 carriers, so to the extent Apple has an Achille's hell, it ain't "one carrier".
Its difficult to keep up with the changes of topic and the misunderstandings and the misattributions that so often occur here. Usually, I just let them pass.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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, personally, am still quite perturbed by the whole 'bait and switch' AT&T pulled on us iPad/Wifi+3g early adopters.
All they did was force those of us who want to maintain our 'unlimited data' packages into a never-ending contract.
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.
thinner thickener who cares i only want to know is all these androidian screens as good as apples ???
and i guess acer and coby will netbookize an ipad form for xmas
apple will now have to move ahead and make that nano phone
the ipad market is so large
and so much real estate is un claimed apple better wake up and add more form factors to the mix
in the end will glare and blu ray issues decide the fate of all our home grown trolls .
That is not the attribute under discussion. It is a different topic entirely.
The claim was with regard to thickness, and not proportions.
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.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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.
samsung is also a major supplier to many apple products
samsung is a great company
when samsung needs to make 19 versions of the same product to keep the low boys happy then well talk
and 12 versions of android are already making the app makers nuts
anyway
i decided to day to lie to my wife somehow and i'm gonna buy a touch or iphone
i will also buy a 2n or 3rd 160g classic to hide away
anyone who buy an ipad now is silly
ipad 3rd gen is what you want
unless you can sell off each gen and eat the spread
That could well be because US Pricing Has Yet To be Announced, and any speculation until that time is little more than (potentially) faulty conjecture - \
... 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?
Have you ever heard the term proportions. Go calculate and get a tiny bit wiser if you can't grasp the difference by eye.
Then by proportion, the iPhone is "fat" too.
"The eye" is often and easily fooled, if it weren't, we wouldn't have books on optical illusions.
The iPad's edges are thinner to aid the illusion of being thinner, but the overall device is thicker in absolute terms. But you are correct to say iPad is proportionally thinner, your original post on this didn't specify proportion.
Comments
And here's the article yours was referring to: http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ne...26&query=APPLE
It says: "Sources from upstream component makers believe the device is aiming to compete against Apple's reportedly upcoming 7-inch iPad."
Here's the OP's claim: "Even Samsung admits they're aiming to copy a rumored 7" iPad."
... and in the real/rational world, the two meanings are not remotely the same.
It?s interesting that the two newest Android tablets from different vendors I?ve read about in the last day have a wonky 1024x600 resolution (1:71 aspect ratio) with one being a 7? display and the other 10?, but I am under the impression that Android v2.2 ?Froyo? only natively supports resolutions up to 854×480. So are these some add on that will make 3rd-party apps not work right, is there a 1024x600 option built in, or will these be using a version of Android newer than 2.2?
mary shelley was born too early....missed out on some good material from google and vendors...
Who cares? All that matters is how it feels when you hold it.
How heavy it is when you hold it a period of time...
Exactly my point. The thickness comment, aside from being incorrect, is irrelevant as a criteria.
But that doesn't stop people here from tacking on adjectives in an attempt to make the word "thinner" apply to the iPad.
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.
Apple just makes it look easy... doesn't mean to say that it is...
Have you ever heard the term proportions.
That is not the attribute under discussion. It is a different topic entirely.
The claim was with regard to thickness, and not proportions.
The iPad does have a 3'' larger screen
The real question, and maybe I just missed it, what is the battery life on this thing? Is it close to the 10hr+ life of the iPad?
Personally I couldn't care less about a thickness difference of 1.4 mm, event to quote the 1/100 of a mm is ridiculous. As the imprecise word fatter has been used, it is tempting to use the word slimness which has an engineering meaning by which the Ipad is 22% slimmer.
It is great to have some competition out there, I have no doubt that there is a market for a 7 inch unit, and with a forward facing camera for Skype a device like this can substitute for my wife's MB which is the sole reason I have not bought an IPad.
However if the prices that rumored this unit doesn't stand a chance (intentional disinformation?), and using computers as tools, not as a hobby, I don't care for the carriers screwing up the system, in effect each making their own version.
It's a phone. It's really competing against the iPhone, as it's too small to really be an iPad competitor. Thus, the form factor should feel like a phone, and it doesn't.
And if you're not going to use it as a phone, you're going to feel kind of silly paying the monthly phone charges for it.
Its not a phone and why does it have to be a "competitor" to anything? There were tablets way before the ipad but nobody claimed Apple was competing against them.
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.
Apple just makes it look easy... doesn't mean to say that it is...
That could well be because US Pricing Has Yet To be Announced, and any speculation until that time is little more than (potentially) faulty conjecture -
All Semantics: The fact is the Galaxy Tab is thinner by measurement, so therefore if the Galaxy Tab is being considered 'fat' then apparently the iPad is 'fatter' since it is (undisputedly) thicker by actual measurement..
Personally, I don't really care as long as the ergonomics are sound, but still - There's really nothing to debate here.
I love it when a troll contradicts himself multiple times in a single post, especially when he doesn't even realize it.
In Apple's favor is their ability to out think every competitor that challenges them. Everything other than the iPad looks "half-baked".
I dunno. IMO, the iPad is severely limited.
ISTM that the Tab is extremely more functional than the iPad. I'll take half baked over quarter-baked any day.
the Ipad is 22% slimmer.
I love you guys. The thicker product is "slimmer".
We need a new dictionary around here.
I love it when a troll contradicts himself multiple times in a single post, especially when he doesn't even realize it.
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.
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.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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.
The post I responded to had "Apple's Achilles heel" as its topic. I pointed out that far from one carrier being Apple's Achille's heel, Apple has over 150 carriers, so to the extent Apple has an Achille's hell, it ain't "one carrier".
Its difficult to keep up with the changes of topic and the misunderstandings and the misattributions that so often occur here. Usually, I just let them pass.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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, personally, am still quite perturbed by the whole 'bait and switch' AT&T pulled on us iPad/Wifi+3g early adopters.
All they did was force those of us who want to maintain our 'unlimited data' packages into a never-ending contract.
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.
thinner thickener who cares i only want to know is all these androidian screens as good as apples ???
and i guess acer and coby will netbookize an ipad form for xmas
apple will now have to move ahead and make that nano phone
the ipad market is so large
and so much real estate is un claimed apple better wake up and add more form factors to the mix
in the end will glare and blu ray issues decide the fate of all our home grown trolls .
9
That is not the attribute under discussion. It is a different topic entirely.
The claim was with regard to thickness, and not proportions.
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.
The iPhone is available on over 150 carriers. I don't think we can blame ATT anymore.[/QUO
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.
samsung is also a major supplier to many apple products
samsung is a great company
when samsung needs to make 19 versions of the same product to keep the low boys happy then well talk
and 12 versions of android are already making the app makers nuts
anyway
i decided to day to lie to my wife somehow and i'm gonna buy a touch or iphone
i will also buy a 2n or 3rd 160g classic to hide away
anyone who buy an ipad now is silly
ipad 3rd gen is what you want
unless you can sell off each gen and eat the spread
peace
9
That could well be because US Pricing Has Yet To be Announced, and any speculation until that time is little more than (potentially) faulty conjecture -
... 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?
Have you ever heard the term proportions. Go calculate and get a tiny bit wiser if you can't grasp the difference by eye.
Then by proportion, the iPhone is "fat" too.
"The eye" is often and easily fooled, if it weren't, we wouldn't have books on optical illusions.
The iPad's edges are thinner to aid the illusion of being thinner, but the overall device is thicker in absolute terms. But you are correct to say iPad is proportionally thinner, your original post on this didn't specify proportion.