I've dropped a case-less iPhone 4 a half dozen times, on asphalt no less, and besides a few scuffs it is no worse for where.
To the kids at home... It's not worth experimenting.
My iPhone 4 slipped off a nightstand onto concrete and sustained a crack across the front corner. Concrete is considerably harder than asphalt, by the way.
As the saying goes, "it's better to ask forgiveness than for permission." I think there is a solid argument to be made that Samsung weighed the risk of a lawsuit from Apple and decided it in their best long term interest (financially, of course) to infringe as much as need to get a solid hold of the modern smartphone industry. As it turns out Samsung seems to be profitable in the smartphone business and not too far from Apple in revenue. Ethical or not, there business strategy seems to be paying off.
That may well be true. But it's also important to remember there are cultural differences as well. The majority of the developed world is governed by western ideas, including common views of intellectual property. But not all cultures have the same viewpoint; in certain eastern views, in my experience, there is a different idea of what intellectual property is, or whether it really is a property at all. Obviously I don't want to make a blanket statement regarding cultures, but my point is simply that not all cultures have the same standards and ideals. We tend to assume otherwise.
But someone who invents/innovates shouldn't be forced to license, should they?
Not at all...but some things become standards...in this time of exponential growth things become standard faster than before.
Should Apple be forced to license the ACTUAL design of the iPad? no...had Apple been granted all the rights to multitouch should they become FRAND? yes...these are my opinions based solely on how I feel.
There are some things you can't really innovate around, or shouldn't be expected to if it leaves you out from freely competing in a market...and to just throw that word around whenever something may infringe is ridiculous.
To the kids at home... It's not worth experimenting.
My iPhone 4 slipped off a nightstand onto concrete and sustained a crack across the front corner. Concrete is considerably harder than asphalt, by the way.
I feel for you. A friend of mine's 3GS had an unfortunate accident involving a seatbelt retracting. Freak things can happen, and any phone is prone to suffering damage of its hit just right.
My anecdotal evidence is merely showing that the assumption that plastic > glass is not always true.
The point is that there is no real differentiator long term in Android. It's simply a race to the bottom. Just like the PC and laptop market - no one makes any money because everyone turns out the same thing. Same thing, different case. Which is exactly where Android is going.
As I said, Android is simply a race to the bottom.
The last race to the bottom was MS DOS and Windows. Microsoft in the 80s saw that the OS was the place to make money rather than the hardware. IBM bet the house on hardware. Who won? Let me give you a clue; it wasn't IBM.
The difference this time round is that no one is actually making from the OS either!
At the end of the day, most people aren't buying Samsung, they are buying Android. When 2 years is up, there is nothing that makes Samsung special and loyalty will be low.
Funny enough, I am about to ditch my HTC Thunderbolt for an iPhone 4S. I've had it - absolutely had it - with the Android bugs. And rooting. And loading crappy ROMs. I will gladly forego flash. And free Google Maps nav - which sucks by the way. There is a reason why Google Nav is in BETA. I'd rather buy a navigation app from Apple's store.
I love my MBP and I've always wanted to have an iPhone. And I'm no longer waiting for 5. 4S will do!
You wont regret it, the 4S is pure awesomeness. It's worlds better than the 4.
I feel for you. A friend of mine's 3GS had an unfortunate accident involving a seatbelt retracting. Freak things can happen, and any phone is prone to suffering damage of its hit just right.
My anecdotal evidence is merely showing that the assumption that plastic > glass is not always true.
well plastic will always be less prone to shattering than glass in these phones. that is just a fact of physics.
These phones could use more metallic parts though...and better plastics.
I love when my phone has been out of use for a while and is cold to the touch (Nexus One).
and it being a Nexus device means it will get updates quickly and direct from google. the Nexus One and Nexus S have already been confirmed to be getting the 4.0 update.
. . . . Similarly, while some new high end Android phones are now delivering 4 or 5 inch screens, this seems to represent a minority of phones sold. According to metrics maintained by Google, 72 percent of the Android installed base are currently using "normal" sized phones (at least 470x320, but less than 640x480) with "high" dpi (~240dpi), definitions that are pretty loose but correspond to models between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4.
The next largest segment (18 percent) is "normal" sized screens with a "medium" dpi (~180), closer to the now free iPhone 3GS. Google also notes there are more "small" screen devices (4 percent) than "large" screen devices (screens "at least 640x480" make up just 3 percent) in the wild. This indicates that the market for big screen phones is not really that significant, and that the devices people pick from the various Android offerings are very close to the limited selection of models Apple chooses to sell. . . . . end of quote.
The two articles may be speaking of different scenarios. Tomorrow I shall re-read both bits again to see if I can figure out what’s up. Stats and facts can be tricky at times.
. . . . Similarly, while some new high end Android phones are now delivering 4 or 5 inch screens, this seems to represent a minority of phones sold. According to metrics maintained by Google, 72 percent of the Android installed base are currently using "normal" sized phones (at least 470x320, but less than 640x480) with "high" dpi (~240dpi), definitions that are pretty loose but correspond to models between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4.
The next largest segment (18 percent) is "normal" sized screens with a "medium" dpi (~180), closer to the now free iPhone 3GS. Google also notes there are more "small" screen devices (4 percent) than "large" screen devices (screens "at least 640x480" make up just 3 percent) in the wild. This indicates that the market for big screen phones is not really that significant, and that the devices people pick from the various Android offerings are very close to the limited selection of models Apple chooses to sell. . . . . end of quote.
The two articles may be speaking of different scenarios. Tomorrow I shall re-read both bits again to see if I can figure out what?s up. Stats and facts can be tricky at times.
Just read through that section of the article, DED is only giving 1 part of the data.
the 71.9% that he quotes as normal covers screens with sizes between ~3.5" and ~4.3" with pixel densities between ~190 and ~275 dpi. The 4% large screens covers screen sizes from 4.3" to 7"
see:
Also the resolution he quotes are bare minimums required to be labelled as that class of screen, not ranges.
Wow. I never paid much attention to the people calling out DED for spreading misinformation; but after this, I'm definitely taking anything he says with a hefty amount of salt. This also brings into question his ability to actually interpret raw data.
We can also do a quick mental exercise to show that the 4% number is wrong:
The galaxy S2 features a 4.3" screen; which i'm sure you'll agree is on the large side.
Google has claimed 130M android devices in use as of July 2011, with ~500k activations per day. So from that, lets assume that they have added 45M android devices since (15M/month * 3 months), so 175M android devices
10M/175M = 5.7% so already, the 4% claim is in question; and this is just from 1 phone.
edit: I corrected DED to show actual screen sizes and corrected the classification of the iphone4/4S (The iPhone 4 screen is a 3.5" 326 dpi, which if you go by the classifications shown above, is a small or normal size screen with xhdpi):
edit#2: lol sorry, I got so drawn in by DED's bad reporting that I forgot to address your point. If you look at the raw data, and not DED's [horrible] analysis of it; It is possible for the data there to match the 24% figured; as 4.0" to 4.3" screens can be classified as 'normal' size, which represents over 70% of the share.
At the end of the day, most people aren't buying Samsung, they are buying Android. When 2 years is up, there is nothing that makes Samsung special and loyalty will be low.
I'd say you are partially right. Samsung is doing android phones better than anyone else. Their galaxy line has done over 30 million units.
Samsung's galaxy hardware and performance outright demolishes anything by HTC and Motorola. The super amoled screens are incredibly popular.
There are quite a few people that are loyal to Samsung, despite what you may think.
Absolutely false. Many types of plastic will crack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Seriously, do people just make abject judgements based on heuristics? "Ooh, it's glass... must be fragile!"
Glass, like any material, varies considerably in durability and strength depending on its composition.
I've dropped a case-less iPhone 4 a half dozen times, on asphalt no less, and besides a few scuffs it is no worse for where.
My 3GS, on the other hand, would suffer from cracks in the plastic just from using a case.
SOME plastic is less prone to cracking than SOME glasses. Some plastic is also more prone to scratching that some glasses.
There is a nearly infinite range of properties in both 'plastic' and 'glass'. And every one of those properties includes a trade-off. Comparing one material to another is an extensive, time-consuming process.
Apple has reached a different conclusion on this than the companies using plastic - OR Apple is working under different constraints OR Apple has different objectives. Whichever of those statements is true is really irrelevant. You can't buy an iPhone made of plastic, for example. You compare phone A to phone B and evaluate which one will better suit your needs after considering ALL the properties. Focusing on a single one is silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
well plastic will always be less prone to shattering than glass in these phones. that is just a fact of physics.
Sorry, you just failed physics (chemistry, actually). There are some very brittle plastics and some very flexible, shatter resistant glasses. Your statement is equivalent to saying that "blue will always be darker than red". There's just no factual basis for your statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
These phones could use more metallic parts though...and better plastics.
Which involves more trade-offs.
As soon as you've managed to create not one, but three of the best selling phones in history, then your opinion of the correct choice of materials might be worth something. Until then, no one cares what you think the iPhone should be made off.
It may be helpful to remember that being "awarded" a patent merely means someone has filled out a form and written a check; the content on the form has to be only one step above self-evidently stupid for a PTO clerk to rubber-stamp it.
That is absolutely, totally false.
Each patent application is assigned to a patent examiner who is responsible to evaluate the patent for validity. Granted, they are not perfect, but to claim that simply submitting a form and writing a check ensures that you get a patent indicates that you don't have a clue about the patent process and have never done it (hint: I've been involved in many dozens of patent applications.) A large percentage of patents are rejected on the first submission - either because of lack of novelty or because of some technical problem with the patent itself.
True, there is a vetting process. But it's equally true that patents are frequently later found invalid. I don't fault the USPTO on this; it simply isn't possible to have the level of expertise and the resources needed to fully vet every patent.
It's not like Compton's "multimedia" patent was never awarded (ah, wasn't that a good time?). It's certainly not the only example, but it's among the funniest.
That's a far cry from your original statement. Apparently, you have trouble remembering what you said, so I'll quote it for you:
Quote:
It may be helpful to remember that being "awarded" a patent merely means someone has filled out a form and written a check; the content on the form has to be only one step above self-evidently stupid for a PTO clerk to rubber-stamp it.
That is absolutely false - and I'm glad to see you admitting it.
The system isn't perfect - no one ever said it was. But it's a far cry from "send a check and you'll get a patent" as you alleged.
Comments
Well, at least I know if my Samsung phone is dropped, it will survive... you can´t say that about iPhone 4S...
Glasses and aluminum??? Please...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxgsrJFhw
Because plastic doesn't crack.
Seriously, do people just make abject judgements based on heuristics? "Ooh, it's glass... must be fragile!"
Glass, like any material, varies considerably in durability and strength depending on its composition.
I've dropped a case-less iPhone 4 a half dozen times, on asphalt no less, and besides a few scuffs it is no worse for where.
My 3GS, on the other hand, would suffer from cracks in the plastic just from using a case.
They could've done all that without the hideous retarded half brother of iOS that is touchwhiz.
The hardware didn't have to ape iPhones either.
Most here would agree with that.
Why reinvent the wheel 100 times? Innovation isn't always the answer. Licensing is.
But someone who invents/innovates shouldn't be forced to license, should they?
I've dropped a case-less iPhone 4 a half dozen times, on asphalt no less, and besides a few scuffs it is no worse for where.
To the kids at home... It's not worth experimenting.
My iPhone 4 slipped off a nightstand onto concrete and sustained a crack across the front corner. Concrete is considerably harder than asphalt, by the way.
As the saying goes, "it's better to ask forgiveness than for permission." I think there is a solid argument to be made that Samsung weighed the risk of a lawsuit from Apple and decided it in their best long term interest (financially, of course) to infringe as much as need to get a solid hold of the modern smartphone industry. As it turns out Samsung seems to be profitable in the smartphone business and not too far from Apple in revenue. Ethical or not, there business strategy seems to be paying off.
That may well be true. But it's also important to remember there are cultural differences as well. The majority of the developed world is governed by western ideas, including common views of intellectual property. But not all cultures have the same viewpoint; in certain eastern views, in my experience, there is a different idea of what intellectual property is, or whether it really is a property at all. Obviously I don't want to make a blanket statement regarding cultures, but my point is simply that not all cultures have the same standards and ideals. We tend to assume otherwise.
But someone who invents/innovates shouldn't be forced to license, should they?
Not at all...but some things become standards...in this time of exponential growth things become standard faster than before.
Should Apple be forced to license the ACTUAL design of the iPad? no...had Apple been granted all the rights to multitouch should they become FRAND? yes...these are my opinions based solely on how I feel.
There are some things you can't really innovate around, or shouldn't be expected to if it leaves you out from freely competing in a market...and to just throw that word around whenever something may infringe is ridiculous.
To the kids at home... It's not worth experimenting.
My iPhone 4 slipped off a nightstand onto concrete and sustained a crack across the front corner. Concrete is considerably harder than asphalt, by the way.
I feel for you. A friend of mine's 3GS had an unfortunate accident involving a seatbelt retracting. Freak things can happen, and any phone is prone to suffering damage of its hit just right.
My anecdotal evidence is merely showing that the assumption that plastic > glass is not always true.
The point is that there is no real differentiator long term in Android. It's simply a race to the bottom. Just like the PC and laptop market - no one makes any money because everyone turns out the same thing. Same thing, different case. Which is exactly where Android is going.
As I said, Android is simply a race to the bottom.
The last race to the bottom was MS DOS and Windows. Microsoft in the 80s saw that the OS was the place to make money rather than the hardware. IBM bet the house on hardware. Who won? Let me give you a clue; it wasn't IBM.
The difference this time round is that no one is actually making from the OS either!
At the end of the day, most people aren't buying Samsung, they are buying Android. When 2 years is up, there is nothing that makes Samsung special and loyalty will be low.
Eh...I can agree with your last point though.
Funny enough, I am about to ditch my HTC Thunderbolt for an iPhone 4S. I've had it - absolutely had it - with the Android bugs. And rooting. And loading crappy ROMs. I will gladly forego flash. And free Google Maps nav - which sucks by the way. There is a reason why Google Nav is in BETA. I'd rather buy a navigation app from Apple's store.
I love my MBP and I've always wanted to have an iPhone. And I'm no longer waiting for 5. 4S will do!
You wont regret it, the 4S is pure awesomeness. It's worlds better than the 4.
I feel for you. A friend of mine's 3GS had an unfortunate accident involving a seatbelt retracting. Freak things can happen, and any phone is prone to suffering damage of its hit just right.
My anecdotal evidence is merely showing that the assumption that plastic > glass is not always true.
well plastic will always be less prone to shattering than glass in these phones. that is just a fact of physics.
These phones could use more metallic parts though...and better plastics.
I love when my phone has been out of use for a while and is cold to the touch (Nexus One).
Not so much with my G2X
4.0" screensize and above phones accounted for 24% of smartphone sales in Q4 2010, so it looks like its a pretty hefty chunk of the market:
http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/the-ef...artphone-sales
and it being a Nexus device means it will get updates quickly and direct from google. the Nexus One and Nexus S have already been confirmed to be getting the 4.0 update.
Here is where I got my information from majjo.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?p=1969591
In part:
. . . . Similarly, while some new high end Android phones are now delivering 4 or 5 inch screens, this seems to represent a minority of phones sold. According to metrics maintained by Google, 72 percent of the Android installed base are currently using "normal" sized phones (at least 470x320, but less than 640x480) with "high" dpi (~240dpi), definitions that are pretty loose but correspond to models between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4.
The next largest segment (18 percent) is "normal" sized screens with a "medium" dpi (~180), closer to the now free iPhone 3GS. Google also notes there are more "small" screen devices (4 percent) than "large" screen devices (screens "at least 640x480" make up just 3 percent) in the wild. This indicates that the market for big screen phones is not really that significant, and that the devices people pick from the various Android offerings are very close to the limited selection of models Apple chooses to sell. . . . . end of quote.
The two articles may be speaking of different scenarios. Tomorrow I shall re-read both bits again to see if I can figure out what’s up. Stats and facts can be tricky at times.
There are some things you can't really innovate around, or shouldn't be expected to if it leaves you out from freely competing in a market...
One should at least try first, which is something that Samsung in particular hasn't bothered doing.
Here is where I got my information from majjo.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?p=1969591
In part:
. . . . Similarly, while some new high end Android phones are now delivering 4 or 5 inch screens, this seems to represent a minority of phones sold. According to metrics maintained by Google, 72 percent of the Android installed base are currently using "normal" sized phones (at least 470x320, but less than 640x480) with "high" dpi (~240dpi), definitions that are pretty loose but correspond to models between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4.
The next largest segment (18 percent) is "normal" sized screens with a "medium" dpi (~180), closer to the now free iPhone 3GS. Google also notes there are more "small" screen devices (4 percent) than "large" screen devices (screens "at least 640x480" make up just 3 percent) in the wild. This indicates that the market for big screen phones is not really that significant, and that the devices people pick from the various Android offerings are very close to the limited selection of models Apple chooses to sell. . . . . end of quote.
The two articles may be speaking of different scenarios. Tomorrow I shall re-read both bits again to see if I can figure out what?s up. Stats and facts can be tricky at times.
Just read through that section of the article, DED is only giving 1 part of the data.
Here's the expanded part of it:
http://developer.android.com/guide/p...s_support.html
the 71.9% that he quotes as normal covers screens with sizes between ~3.5" and ~4.3" with pixel densities between ~190 and ~275 dpi. The 4% large screens covers screen sizes from 4.3" to 7"
see:
Also the resolution he quotes are bare minimums required to be labelled as that class of screen, not ranges.
Wow. I never paid much attention to the people calling out DED for spreading misinformation; but after this, I'm definitely taking anything he says with a hefty amount of salt. This also brings into question his ability to actually interpret raw data.
We can also do a quick mental exercise to show that the 4% number is wrong:
Samsung has claimed that they have sold 10 million galaxy S2 phones
The galaxy S2 features a 4.3" screen; which i'm sure you'll agree is on the large side.
Google has claimed 130M android devices in use as of July 2011, with ~500k activations per day. So from that, lets assume that they have added 45M android devices since (15M/month * 3 months), so 175M android devices
10M/175M = 5.7% so already, the 4% claim is in question; and this is just from 1 phone.
edit: I corrected DED to show actual screen sizes and corrected the classification of the iphone4/4S (The iPhone 4 screen is a 3.5" 326 dpi, which if you go by the classifications shown above, is a small or normal size screen with xhdpi):
edit#2: lol sorry, I got so drawn in by DED's bad reporting that I forgot to address your point. If you look at the raw data, and not DED's [horrible] analysis of it; It is possible for the data there to match the 24% figured; as 4.0" to 4.3" screens can be classified as 'normal' size, which represents over 70% of the share.
At the end of the day, most people aren't buying Samsung, they are buying Android. When 2 years is up, there is nothing that makes Samsung special and loyalty will be low.
I'd say you are partially right. Samsung is doing android phones better than anyone else. Their galaxy line has done over 30 million units.
Samsung's galaxy hardware and performance outright demolishes anything by HTC and Motorola. The super amoled screens are incredibly popular.
There are quite a few people that are loyal to Samsung, despite what you may think.
Because plastic doesn't crack.
Absolutely false. Many types of plastic will crack.
Seriously, do people just make abject judgements based on heuristics? "Ooh, it's glass... must be fragile!"
Glass, like any material, varies considerably in durability and strength depending on its composition.
I've dropped a case-less iPhone 4 a half dozen times, on asphalt no less, and besides a few scuffs it is no worse for where.
My 3GS, on the other hand, would suffer from cracks in the plastic just from using a case.
SOME plastic is less prone to cracking than SOME glasses. Some plastic is also more prone to scratching that some glasses.
There is a nearly infinite range of properties in both 'plastic' and 'glass'. And every one of those properties includes a trade-off. Comparing one material to another is an extensive, time-consuming process.
Apple has reached a different conclusion on this than the companies using plastic - OR Apple is working under different constraints OR Apple has different objectives. Whichever of those statements is true is really irrelevant. You can't buy an iPhone made of plastic, for example. You compare phone A to phone B and evaluate which one will better suit your needs after considering ALL the properties. Focusing on a single one is silly.
well plastic will always be less prone to shattering than glass in these phones. that is just a fact of physics.
Sorry, you just failed physics (chemistry, actually). There are some very brittle plastics and some very flexible, shatter resistant glasses. Your statement is equivalent to saying that "blue will always be darker than red". There's just no factual basis for your statement.
These phones could use more metallic parts though...and better plastics.
Which involves more trade-offs.
As soon as you've managed to create not one, but three of the best selling phones in history, then your opinion of the correct choice of materials might be worth something. Until then, no one cares what you think the iPhone should be made off.
It may be helpful to remember that being "awarded" a patent merely means someone has filled out a form and written a check; the content on the form has to be only one step above self-evidently stupid for a PTO clerk to rubber-stamp it.
That is absolutely, totally false.
Each patent application is assigned to a patent examiner who is responsible to evaluate the patent for validity. Granted, they are not perfect, but to claim that simply submitting a form and writing a check ensures that you get a patent indicates that you don't have a clue about the patent process and have never done it (hint: I've been involved in many dozens of patent applications.) A large percentage of patents are rejected on the first submission - either because of lack of novelty or because of some technical problem with the patent itself.
True, there is a vetting process. But it's equally true that patents are frequently later found invalid. I don't fault the USPTO on this; it simply isn't possible to have the level of expertise and the resources needed to fully vet every patent.
It's not like Compton's "multimedia" patent was never awarded (ah, wasn't that a good time?). It's certainly not the only example, but it's among the funniest.
That's a far cry from your original statement. Apparently, you have trouble remembering what you said, so I'll quote it for you:
It may be helpful to remember that being "awarded" a patent merely means someone has filled out a form and written a check; the content on the form has to be only one step above self-evidently stupid for a PTO clerk to rubber-stamp it.
That is absolutely false - and I'm glad to see you admitting it.
The system isn't perfect - no one ever said it was. But it's a far cry from "send a check and you'll get a patent" as you alleged.