16:10 screen format eliminates black bands when watching video. But it makes everything else worse: books are formated to 4:3 so people will have to get used to ?weird? layout, browsing will require more scrolling in landscape and more zooming in portrait, and developers will have to spend more time redesigning UI of their apps from phone 4:3 version to tablet?s. Basically, you?re getting rid of the bands in video only to put them in the apps.
16:10 is for displaying 2 pages at once --- which is why computer monitors use that ratio.
Looks like Motorola just took the lead away from RIM for the most interesting vaporware iPad competitor.
On a more serious note it's interesting to see all these new devices will have dual core processors. I'm assuming the next generation iPad and iPhone will follow suit.
I just would like to take a moment and go off on a rant.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
No one else seems to have pointed out that in the video, the device was never rotated into portrait mode - given its aspect ratio, and Apple's decision to stick to 4:3, one wonders if the way it works in that mode is less impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reifer
It [cameras on a tablet] was stupid then. Before FaceTime and the new Skype that is. Can you guess whether or not ipad2 will have one that actually does something? Taking photos with an iPad or a Xoom is still stupid.
I can't believe how many people vociferously campaign to have a feature useful to some NOT included when it will compromise nothing for them and adds little cost and minimal weight. Not to mention, there will hardly be a tablet available from competitors which doesn't have the feature.
Remember, for one thing, the best camera you often have is the one you have with you when you need it. And for other reasons an iPad camera could be uniquely useful once enterprising developers begin to exploit it.
Imagine a contractor discussing remodeling your home who snaps the area to be worked on, and then sketches in how various changes will look right in front of you. Such "overlay" apps could be useful in many professions, and "augmented reality" apps already available on the iPhone are only in their infancy. So maybe not the first choice for snapshooting when other cams are available, but plenty of possibilities for useful work.
Also, just like on the iPhone, when doing Facetime or video Skype, you can share not only yer fugly mug, but also what you're looking AT without turning the device around.
Sheesh. Let the rest of us eat our cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Marose
Widgets are so elementary in my estimation. I've never noticed the necessity of their novelties in Windows, nor in Apple operating systems. They just serve to collect resources and create a casualty of the screen's carpet.
Hear, hear. I used 'em for about three weeks and then disabled the mouse short-cut key to save the resource drain, since I'm always working on multiple projects in multiple programs and have an average of 20 open browser tabs. And on Win Vista, the go to desktop icon in the tray also makes the widgets disappear, so no way to even get to 'em without more trouble than it's worth for many to most users. But, hey, to be consistent, I'm fine with 'em being there for those who want 'em as long as they're not sucking up my CPU cycles and RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Moto is joking right.
They are just pimping the same old Android OS in a different package. They aren't going to spend years making their own OS from scratch. They aren't going to create their own itunes media hub. They are sheeping like all the rest. Watch as the summer approaches and the glut of tablets overwhelms the market place. There will be so many discounted, effing honeycom tablets in Sam Clubs, Walmart, Target, godd***** 7-11 priced to move like canned corn beef in the dollar store most of the players won't make a dime and will bow out with their tails between their legs.
All the while Apple will have 100% of the iSO market. Not bad.
Moto is not joking. They're betting their entire spin-off's future on this, and so far it's a race between a few companies to stand out of the Android pack, with MotoMob the only relevant domestic HW player against Samsung (who's on an utter tear in a BUNCH of CE categories) and HTC at the front. (Yeah I probably forgot a few somebodies. Sue.)
Everybody's also "skinning" Android as a differentiator, and this is one area where Motorola is arguably ahead of Samsung which is slow to deliver software promises. And they're doing OK in branding and marketing as well. "Droid" worked well and I think "Xoom" will fly as well.
RIM is in real trouble I think - simply on an economies of scale basis, i.e., up against the combined mass of multiple huge competitors - but could surprise. HP is the possible outlier here with its Palm assets, but it better get its game together real soon now, or the window will close, leaving Apple, Google and MS (Redmond's playing catchup, but has the resources to do so) as the only germane OS players in the new game. That is, unless OS-independence is the future where you can basically pick a device you like and find that everything you need has been well-ported to it.
Near-OS independence is NOT an impossible future, IMHO - that is, you still buy most household appliances for their features, not their OS after all. And in this future Apple would still thrive by being the first from which the rest race to emulate with a generic equivalent. [Tho' it's worth noting that Ford and MS have been quite successful at getting people to buy cars with "Sync" as the differentiator. Even there, though, they've been smart enough to accommodate multiple syncing devices running different OS's.]
Asus seems like a tablet player as well and you can never entirely count out established giants like Toshiba, Sony, etc. and emerging Chinese players, but you are right in the sense that once you get below the top tier, it's gonna be a dog fight with more corpses to bury than after a Michael Vick house party, circa a few years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollerborges
Anyone else think that 1280X800 on a 10.1 inch screen ain't gonna be enough in 2011?
If Apple comes out with anything approximating a "retina display" for the iPad 2 (which will be out before the Xoom - I'll take bets) then this thing will look old and tired before it even gets to market.
You're ignoring the rule of "good enough." Apple stores are wildly popular, but hardly as ubiquitous as all the big box shops, strip mall stores and cellco outlets that will be selling tablets. And when you walk in and play with something that looks bright and whiz-bangy and there's a card (or a salesperson) with a long feature checklist to tout, that will be sufficient to close the sale in many cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
You've only been here in AI since October. Hang out a while. That's just how it goes here, reason plays little role.
Also, if you want to live in the death valley of ever being quoted and commented on, try bringing actual background history and context into the discussion. The sound of one hand clapping.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
The Prada had been leaked a bit a few weeks before the iPhone's introduction, but didn't get an official announcement till a few weeks after.
While the device actually shipped before the iPhone shipped, it was a feature phone with a few choppy animations. I think the OPs remarks make it clear what he meant-- that Apple reinvented the phone market with the iPhone, in a way that the Prada has no bearing on.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
Yes, I suppose you did show otherwise, which is odd since you didn?t choose any number of the resistive touchscreen phones that had been out for years before. Instead you choose the first capacitance touchscreen phone, hence I assumed you were confused about the differences between the LG Prada and original iPhone.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
I didn't see anything there that warranted all of your rant about Honeycomb, but I accept that it's still your opinion.
Personally for me, iOS hasn't changed all that much over the past few years. Sure there were fixes and features added, but the look has just become...boring. Yes, it revolutionized the mobile phone but the "wow" factor has become less and less every time I watch the iPhone Event. The main screen is still just a sea of little icons on top of a background. There's no...life...to the home launcher screen.
What you're given by Apple is pretty much what you're stuck with (unless you choose to jailbreak). There are plenty of launchers for Android that don't require you to root your device to use. Download, install and presto! you have a brand new way of interacting with the main interface of your device.
But I have to ask you. If you think it's already been done before, then why don't I see the iPhone or iPad do the same thing as Honeycomb? All you can do on iOS is slide left and right on the main screen to find your app icon and then launch it. There's no way to move pages around, no way to do a preview of all your screens so you can move quickly (a la HTC Sense) from page to page. That home launcher feature to preview and add items to your screens at the 1:30 mark is quite cool.
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
I'll definitely grant you ALL those points, but I'm already seeing posts of people screaming how the new LGs look like the iPhone. How can that be if LG had that form factor almost 4 years ago?
I'll definitely grant you ALL those points, but I'm already seeing posts of people screaming how the new LGs look like the iPhone. How can that be if LG had that form factor almost 4 years ago?
I haven?t seen them. There is some discretion in how you judge a copycat. Laws of usage dictate certain aspects that will be universal but other things surely aren?t. The LG Prada and iPhone were likely not copying each other in any way, if you want the display to be the main input and for it to be handheld then you pretty much have a single avenue.
I haven?t seen them. There is some discretion in how you judge a copycat. Laws of usage dictate certain aspects that will be universal but other things surely aren?t. The LG Prada and iPhone were likely not copying each other in any way, if you want the display to be the main input and for it to be handheld then you pretty much have a single avenue.
Just to clarify things, the rantings were on another site, and the copying I assume they're screaming about is the black front and back with a metallic edge, which clearly was a design first used by LG in 2007 which if they choose to use it again should be able to do so without be called Apple copycats. Agreeable?
So Motorola teased us with vaporware promises, only to deliver slightly better than tupperware mockups, "that aren't completely done". I's also like to know what it is going to cost.
If Verizon or Sprint are partners, they might reach for Service contracts, which means subsidized pricing is possible. If Apple / AT&T doesn't do the same for the iPad, it would make the Xoom look cheaper than Apple/AT&T's no-contract pricing.
I just would like to take a moment and go off on a rant.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
So you're saying that since they can't invent anything as nice they shouldn't try?
How asinine is that? Apple hasn't invented anything new, they're just amazingly great at taking something that already exists to a higher level. Their business model of hardware and software integration is one that cannot and will not be copied by anyone else because it will result in failure and if you remember almost bankrupted Apple. Why does any one or thing need to be the best? These devices might not sell as well as a iPhone nor iPad but they don't have to to be a moneymaker for their perspective companies.
I just would like to take a moment and go off on a rant.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
Here's the official rebuttal from the Android / Linux camp:
2600 will r00t j00! 1337 4EVER!!!! Apple si 4 sh33p!!!!
Anyone else think that 1280X800 on a 10.1 inch screen ain't gonna be enough in 2011?
I think the only reason that is use is because there's a supply glut of 1280x800 screens from the Netbook market suppliers. Hence, it's cheaper for tablet makers to buy those parts. I really think that is the reason.
Comments
16:10 screen format eliminates black bands when watching video. But it makes everything else worse: books are formated to 4:3 so people will have to get used to ?weird? layout, browsing will require more scrolling in landscape and more zooming in portrait, and developers will have to spend more time redesigning UI of their apps from phone 4:3 version to tablet?s. Basically, you?re getting rid of the bands in video only to put them in the apps.
16:10 is for displaying 2 pages at once --- which is why computer monitors use that ratio.
On a more serious note it's interesting to see all these new devices will have dual core processors. I'm assuming the next generation iPad and iPhone will follow suit.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
It [cameras on a tablet] was stupid then. Before FaceTime and the new Skype that is. Can you guess whether or not ipad2 will have one that actually does something? Taking photos with an iPad or a Xoom is still stupid.
I can't believe how many people vociferously campaign to have a feature useful to some NOT included when it will compromise nothing for them and adds little cost and minimal weight. Not to mention, there will hardly be a tablet available from competitors which doesn't have the feature.
Remember, for one thing, the best camera you often have is the one you have with you when you need it. And for other reasons an iPad camera could be uniquely useful once enterprising developers begin to exploit it.
Imagine a contractor discussing remodeling your home who snaps the area to be worked on, and then sketches in how various changes will look right in front of you. Such "overlay" apps could be useful in many professions, and "augmented reality" apps already available on the iPhone are only in their infancy. So maybe not the first choice for snapshooting when other cams are available, but plenty of possibilities for useful work.
Also, just like on the iPhone, when doing Facetime or video Skype, you can share not only yer fugly mug, but also what you're looking AT without turning the device around.
Sheesh. Let the rest of us eat our cake.
Widgets are so elementary in my estimation. I've never noticed the necessity of their novelties in Windows, nor in Apple operating systems. They just serve to collect resources and create a casualty of the screen's carpet.
Hear, hear. I used 'em for about three weeks and then disabled the mouse short-cut key to save the resource drain, since I'm always working on multiple projects in multiple programs and have an average of 20 open browser tabs. And on Win Vista, the go to desktop icon in the tray also makes the widgets disappear, so no way to even get to 'em without more trouble than it's worth for many to most users. But, hey, to be consistent, I'm fine with 'em being there for those who want 'em as long as they're not sucking up my CPU cycles and RAM.
Moto is joking right.
They are just pimping the same old Android OS in a different package. They aren't going to spend years making their own OS from scratch. They aren't going to create their own itunes media hub. They are sheeping like all the rest. Watch as the summer approaches and the glut of tablets overwhelms the market place. There will be so many discounted, effing honeycom tablets in Sam Clubs, Walmart, Target, godd***** 7-11 priced to move like canned corn beef in the dollar store most of the players won't make a dime and will bow out with their tails between their legs.
All the while Apple will have 100% of the iSO market. Not bad.
Moto is not joking. They're betting their entire spin-off's future on this, and so far it's a race between a few companies to stand out of the Android pack, with MotoMob the only relevant domestic HW player against Samsung (who's on an utter tear in a BUNCH of CE categories) and HTC at the front. (Yeah I probably forgot a few somebodies. Sue.)
Everybody's also "skinning" Android as a differentiator, and this is one area where Motorola is arguably ahead of Samsung which is slow to deliver software promises. And they're doing OK in branding and marketing as well. "Droid" worked well and I think "Xoom" will fly as well.
RIM is in real trouble I think - simply on an economies of scale basis, i.e., up against the combined mass of multiple huge competitors - but could surprise. HP is the possible outlier here with its Palm assets, but it better get its game together real soon now, or the window will close, leaving Apple, Google and MS (Redmond's playing catchup, but has the resources to do so) as the only germane OS players in the new game. That is, unless OS-independence is the future where you can basically pick a device you like and find that everything you need has been well-ported to it.
Near-OS independence is NOT an impossible future, IMHO - that is, you still buy most household appliances for their features, not their OS after all. And in this future Apple would still thrive by being the first from which the rest race to emulate with a generic equivalent. [Tho' it's worth noting that Ford and MS have been quite successful at getting people to buy cars with "Sync" as the differentiator. Even there, though, they've been smart enough to accommodate multiple syncing devices running different OS's.]
Asus seems like a tablet player as well and you can never entirely count out established giants like Toshiba, Sony, etc. and emerging Chinese players, but you are right in the sense that once you get below the top tier, it's gonna be a dog fight with more corpses to bury than after a Michael Vick house party, circa a few years ago.
Anyone else think that 1280X800 on a 10.1 inch screen ain't gonna be enough in 2011?
If Apple comes out with anything approximating a "retina display" for the iPad 2 (which will be out before the Xoom - I'll take bets) then this thing will look old and tired before it even gets to market.
You're ignoring the rule of "good enough." Apple stores are wildly popular, but hardly as ubiquitous as all the big box shops, strip mall stores and cellco outlets that will be selling tablets. And when you walk in and play with something that looks bright and whiz-bangy and there's a card (or a salesperson) with a long feature checklist to tout, that will be sufficient to close the sale in many cases.
You've only been here in AI since October. Hang out a while. That's just how it goes here, reason plays little role.
Also, if you want to live in the death valley of ever being quoted and commented on, try bringing actual background history and context into the discussion. The sound of one hand clapping.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
"It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen."
"It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen."
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
The Prada had been leaked a bit a few weeks before the iPhone's introduction, but didn't get an official announcement till a few weeks after.
While the device actually shipped before the iPhone shipped, it was a feature phone with a few choppy animations. I think the OPs remarks make it clear what he meant-- that Apple reinvented the phone market with the iPhone, in a way that the Prada has no bearing on.
He said , "There was no such thing as a touch screen phone." I showed otherwise.
Yes, I suppose you did show otherwise, which is odd since you didn?t choose any number of the resistive touchscreen phones that had been out for years before. Instead you choose the first capacitance touchscreen phone, hence I assumed you were confused about the differences between the LG Prada and original iPhone.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
Did we watch the same video?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/05/g...blet-honeycom/
I didn't see anything there that warranted all of your rant about Honeycomb, but I accept that it's still your opinion.
Personally for me, iOS hasn't changed all that much over the past few years. Sure there were fixes and features added, but the look has just become...boring. Yes, it revolutionized the mobile phone but the "wow" factor has become less and less every time I watch the iPhone Event. The main screen is still just a sea of little icons on top of a background. There's no...life...to the home launcher screen.
What you're given by Apple is pretty much what you're stuck with (unless you choose to jailbreak). There are plenty of launchers for Android that don't require you to root your device to use. Download, install and presto! you have a brand new way of interacting with the main interface of your device.
But I have to ask you. If you think it's already been done before, then why don't I see the iPhone or iPad do the same thing as Honeycomb? All you can do on iOS is slide left and right on the main screen to find your app icon and then launch it. There's no way to move pages around, no way to do a preview of all your screens so you can move quickly (a la HTC Sense) from page to page. That home launcher feature to preview and add items to your screens at the 1:30 mark is quite cool.
And it was single touch capacitance device with a crap OS and UI. Apple has rarely ever been the first to market with a new technology, but they are almost always the first to make a new technology viable in a way that everyone else has to follow or die. The multi-touch capacitive touchscreen with a modern mobile OS and UI designed for the HW is no exception.
I'll definitely grant you ALL those points, but I'm already seeing posts of people screaming how the new LGs look like the iPhone. How can that be if LG had that form factor almost 4 years ago?
I'll definitely grant you ALL those points, but I'm already seeing posts of people screaming how the new LGs look like the iPhone. How can that be if LG had that form factor almost 4 years ago?
I haven?t seen them. There is some discretion in how you judge a copycat. Laws of usage dictate certain aspects that will be universal but other things surely aren?t. The LG Prada and iPhone were likely not copying each other in any way, if you want the display to be the main input and for it to be handheld then you pretty much have a single avenue.
I haven?t seen them. There is some discretion in how you judge a copycat. Laws of usage dictate certain aspects that will be universal but other things surely aren?t. The LG Prada and iPhone were likely not copying each other in any way, if you want the display to be the main input and for it to be handheld then you pretty much have a single avenue.
Just to clarify things, the rantings were on another site, and the copying I assume they're screaming about is the black front and back with a metallic edge, which clearly was a design first used by LG in 2007 which if they choose to use it again should be able to do so without be called Apple copycats. Agreeable?
So Motorola teased us with vaporware promises, only to deliver slightly better than tupperware mockups, "that aren't completely done". I's also like to know what it is going to cost.
If Verizon or Sprint are partners, they might reach for Service contracts, which means subsidized pricing is possible. If Apple / AT&T doesn't do the same for the iPad, it would make the Xoom look cheaper than Apple/AT&T's no-contract pricing.
I just would like to take a moment and go off on a rant.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
So you're saying that since they can't invent anything as nice they shouldn't try?
How asinine is that? Apple hasn't invented anything new, they're just amazingly great at taking something that already exists to a higher level. Their business model of hardware and software integration is one that cannot and will not be copied by anyone else because it will result in failure and if you remember almost bankrupted Apple. Why does any one or thing need to be the best? These devices might not sell as well as a iPhone nor iPad but they don't have to to be a moneymaker for their perspective companies.
Have we all forgotten Konfabulator so quickly?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Konfabulator+history
Apple had widgets in '84 and again in OS 7.x way before Konfabulator copied the idea. So... whats your point?
I just would like to take a moment and go off on a rant.
I don't think that I've ever actually published something on a thread, regarding a comment about anything online. But, after reading this article and watching that stupid video about Android Honeycomb (lame), I felt it necessary.
I understand that all the companies are at each others' throats trying to build the "best" tablet, phone, etc. out there. Trust me, I get that. But what I can't understand is this.
Realize this people...flash back to the year 2007 before the iPhone was launched. There was no such thing as a touch screen phone. We all had our dumb bricks, blackberries with mobile "Internet" and cheeseball "app stores" (if you even want to call it that) to download ringtones and 16-bit games. WooHoo.
With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone, hands down. They are the creative geniuses behind all of this. I don't care what type of operating system is developed for a tablet, phone, whatever the case may be. Watching this video of the new, oh-so-wonderous Android Honeycomb made me want to vomit. It looks like a 5th grader did the animations, it's not fluid movement, it's choppy and it's ALREADY been done. No matter how hard any of these companies try, they will NEVER create anything as beautiful, simplistic and visually stunning as the iPhone, AND it's OS. Plain and simple.
All you Android heads out there, I'd LOVE to hear your rebuttle.
Here's the official rebuttal from the Android / Linux camp:
2600 will r00t j00! 1337 4EVER!!!! Apple si 4 sh33p!!!!
Anyone else think that 1280X800 on a 10.1 inch screen ain't gonna be enough in 2011?
I think the only reason that is use is because there's a supply glut of 1280x800 screens from the Netbook market suppliers. Hence, it's cheaper for tablet makers to buy those parts. I really think that is the reason.