Well if you took the time to go to the Android market and look at the ratings, why didn't you take the extra 10 seconds to look at the actual reviews to explain why people had given it a poor review?
From a link a few posts up, Samsung's latest quarterly profits from their telecoms division, "more than doubled from a year ago to a record 2.5 trillion won ($2.2 billion) and accounted for 60 percent of Samsung's total profit, offsetting a plunge in earnings from its bread-and-butter memory chips".
I think their phone sales could be considered successful. Certainly no Apple, but still fairly impressive considering they just entered the smartphone market little more than a year ago.
"Shipments of smartphones jumped 44 percent from the preceding quarter to 27.8 million units, up nearly four times from a year ago, according to research firm Strategy Analytics."
That's exactly my point. I'm not saying they are better, or that they earn the same margins, but they clearly are starting to pose a competitive threat.
As an investor I read this and thought: "Crap, someone has figured out how to compete with Apple on the Android platform." Am I wrong?
Yep, Samsung sells a shitload of phones. Of course, we don't know how many are running Android, or how many are sitting on shelves, but still: I think it's clear that Samsung is consolidating its position as the preeminent manufacturer of Android handsets.
However, they seem to be well on their way to being the only manufacturer of Android handsets, at least of any significance, barring the odd flagship model from Google/Moto and über-cheap Chinese no names.
LE is losing money, Sony-Ericsson (soon to be just Sony again) is losing money, HTC is sinking, and the current Moto is losing money (which will soon become difficult to evaluate).
I don't know about you, but Samsung doesn't strike me as a particularly trustworthy partner. If they get a stranglehold on the Android market, how soon before they start figuring out ways to direct more consumer money towards Korea instead of Mountain View? As it stands, the Android market is largely a money funnel for Google. Think Samsung is OK with that?
At any rate, this is hardly the PC business redux. Apple has very healthy (and currently growing) market share, is selling every device they can make, and is making money hand over fist. If Samsung captures some huge percentage of the smartphone market, say upwards of 50%, so what? There's still more than enough room for Apple to maintain developer interest (especially considering the relative amounts of money to be made), accessory maker interest, and mindshare.
Plus, iOS, as represented by the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad (with no doubt additional devices to come) is still the overwhelming market leader, and without carrier subsidies and contract renewals Samsung doesn't seem to be all that adept at making mobile devices people want. At some point, if Apple continues its prohibitive lead in tablet sales, there's going to be a synergistic effect on handset buyers seeking seamless integration of their devices.
But even if that doesn't happen, there's no reason at all the Apple can't thrive in a world where most people buy Android handsets made by Samsung. Google, on the other hand, has real reason to be concerned by that outcome, because it puts way too much power in the hands of a company that seems inclined toward dickishness.
Say what you want about Apple's "arrogance", at least it was hard earned. Samsung slaps someone else's OS on phones and decide they invented technology.
From a link a few posts up, Samsung's latest quarterly profits from their telecoms division, "more than doubled from a year ago to a record 2.5 trillion won ($2.2 billion) and accounted for 60 percent of Samsung's total profit, offsetting a plunge in earnings from its bread-and-butter memory chips".
I think their phone sales could be considered successful. Certainly no Apple, but still fairly impressive considering they just entered the smartphone market little more than a year ago.
"Shipments of smartphones jumped 44 percent from the preceding quarter to 27.8 million units, up nearly four times from a year ago, according to research firm Strategy Analytics."
problem is, you are quoting numbers which includes a wide range of devices/computers/telephones/mp3 players/networking/networking infrastructure/consulting/business solutions/etc... Not _just_ smartphones. Why don't they specifically say what they make/lose from smartphones? Because it is next to nothing.
You may want to be more careful with the crowd on these forums. On the one hand, you say this: .....
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
And Android phones still suck and I will prove why.
Sonic CD just came out, for both Android and iOS. Let's take a look at the ratings from each. Does that tell you anything? Any smart person should be able to look at these two images and notice a vast difference between the two.
ANDROID
iOS
How could that be? What could possibly explain why there is such a huge difference in ratings for the same exact game? Hmmm, I wonder why that it is.
The Apple people all seem to be happy and they're loving it. The Fandroid people are a bunch of miserable slobs who are all unhappy people for some strange reason. All those people with different devices and a million different phones, and half of them are having huge problems!
Somebody even had a Galaxy Note on there, and they were complaining about a shitty framerate!
Who cares about a bigger phone when everything sucks on it!
You did it.
You forever proved that iOS is better with Android with this hard evidence that nobody can dispute. This was all we needed.
The fanboy wars are over, and it's all thanks to you.
Yep, Samsung sells a shitload of phones. Of course, we don't know how many are running Android, or how many are sitting on shelves, but still: I think it's clear that Samsung is consolidating its position as the preeminent manufacturer of Android handsets.
However, they seem to be well on their way to being the only manufacturer of Android handsets, at least of any significance, barring the odd flagship model from Google/Moto and über-cheap Chinese no names.
LE is losing money, Sony-Ericsson (soon to be just Sony again) is losing money, HTC is sinking, and the current Moto is losing money (which will soon become difficult to evaluate).
I don't know about you, but Samsung doesn't strike me as a particularly trustworthy partner. If they get a stranglehold on the Android market, how soon before they start figuring out ways to direct more consumer money towards Korea instead of Mountain View? As it stands, the Android market is largely a money funnel for Google. Think Samsung is OK with that?
At any rate, this is hardly the PC business redux. Apple has very healthy (and currently growing) market share, is selling every device they can make, and is making money hand over fist. If Samsung captures some huge percentage of the smartphone market, say upwards of 50%, so what? There's still more than enough room for Apple to maintain developer interest (especially considering the relative amounts of money to be made), accessory maker interest, and mindshare.
Plus, iOS, as represented by the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad (with no doubt additional devices to come) is still the overwhelming market leader, and without carrier subsidies and contract renewals Samsung doesn't seem to be all that adept at making mobile devices people want. At some point, if Apple continues its prohibitive lead in tablet sales, there's going to be a synergistic effect on handset buyers seeking seamless integration of their devices.
But even if that doesn't happen, there's no reason at all the Apple can't thrive in a world where most people buy Android handsets made by Samsung. Google, on the other hand, has real reason to be concerned by that outcome, because it puts way too much power in the hands of a company that seems inclined toward dickishness.
Say what you want about Apple's "arrogance", at least it was hard earned. Samsung slaps someone else's OS on phones and decide they invented technology.
I agree with most of what you've said, however I believe Google would benefit from the consolidation of the market you're predicting. If there are less options then there is a chance that a rival Android ecosystem that works for consumers could take hold. As an Apple investor I prefer the fragmentation that comes with no clear winner on the Android platform. If Samsung becomes the defacto hardware manufacturer for Android it could be similar to the Intel/Microsoft alliance that did so much damage to Apple in the past. Google can keep collecting money from ads (and apps if Samsung allows it) while it maintains OS parity with Apple, and meanwhile Samsung can make money on the hardware (and perhaps apps) and maintain hardware parity. Seems like an environment that will at a minimum shrink margins for Apple. I'm not asserting that the risk is for Apple to return to it's "beleagured" past, but just that their margins and competitive advantages suffer enough to erode their market leading position.
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi
I love fandroids with their meaningless specs trying to sound important. You would have to be an idiot to buy a smartphone based on hardware specs alone. Most people are waking up to that. The cloner manufacturers don't like to hear that, but that is the truth.
In one case we have a serial numbered so-called iPad killers trying to cannibalize its own sales by releasing multiple 10.1 Tabs. (see what I did there?)
You don't seem to know what you are talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to read.
1) It captures video in "full HD" but the display is actually a lower resolution than the iPhone by far.
2) The only reason Android phones are bigger than iPhones, is that it's the only way they can fit al the hardware in and still make it thin. If they stuck with a 4.3" screen the average Android phone would be an inch thick.
The truth is that Apple's hardware in the 4s beats every phone out there in terms of camera quality, speed, battery life, screen, volume, sound quality, etc. etc. There is no better.
1) The display resolution is actually higher on a lot of Android devices. (720p)
2) My 4.3" Galaxy S2 is more thin than any iphone4 / 4s.
-Camera quality goes to the N8, not the 4S
-Speed, in terms of benchmarks would EASILY go to the Galaxy note with the 1.4ghz Exynos dual core w/ mali 400 gpu
-Battery life goes to the Galaxy Note in both call-time, video playback, and standby time
-Volume goes to HTC Surround
-Sound quality? The winners would be the HTC Desire and Nexus one for their superb DAC and FLAC support.
Rather than typing up these responses that are based on facts, I'll probably just start replying with "[citation needed]" so maybe people would stop pulling facts out of their asses
I love fandroids with their meaningless specs trying to sound important. You would have to be an idiot to buy a smartphone based on hardware specs alone. Most people are waking up to that. The cloner manufacturers don't like to hear that, but that is the truth.
And I love how in this thread, people start defending the screen quality of the iphones, even though the topic is about the Galaxy Tab.
They said it was the best screen, with the highest PPI.
And then all the sudden somebody points out that that's just wrong, and the Rezound has the highest PPI with a 720p display.
And then you completely dismiss it, saying it doesn't matter.
Samsung Nexus screen : 1280x720 on a 4.6" screen. 316ppi
Iphone 4S screen : 960x640 on a 3.5" screen. 330ppi
I am sorry but the samsung display is NOT of a lower resolution than the iphone "by far", they both have over 300ppi
And WTF are you to tell me to stop posting....
Both phones have there ups and downs, but people walk in, see a bigger phone with 4G LTE and this hurts iphone sales, like it or not.
Bullshit! You failed to note that you're counting PenTile sub-pixels which makes you A) ignorant of the technology, or you are purposely trying to fudge the numbers. The Samsung Nexus S true pixels are well below what you state. It's like taking a large 8-slice pizza can cutting each slice into more slices then claiming it's twice as large because it now has 16 slices.
Only the HTC Rezound released last month to one carrier (Verizon) has a display that beats out the 1.5 year old iPhone's pixel density. BTW, it's an LCD-based device, not AMOLED.
Now, being PenTile isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vendors use them because they can be thinner and use less power, but you'll have to get about 50% more pixel density than the Nexus S in order to give the "Retina Display"-quality effect as the iPhone 4/4S and Rezound offer users today.
Also, more pixels are great? until you get to a point that you can't determine the pixels when you look at the device. Now that Android-based devices can finally start besting the iPhone's pixel density ? note, again, it's currently with an LCD not AMOLED ? I'm sure Apple would love for them to keep pushing their spec sheets further and further with the result of costing more money, reducing battery life, making the GPU work harder for no visual benefit for anyone but those with superhuman eyesight. Be practical. Be rational. Be sensible.
Bullshit! You failed to note that you're counting PenTile sub-pixels which makes you A) ignorant of the technology, or you are purposely trying to fudge the numbers. The Samsung Nexus S true pixels are well below what you state. It's like taking a large 8-slice pizza can cutting each slice into more slices then claiming it's twice as large because it now has 16 slices.
Only the HTC Rezound released last month to one carrier (Verizon) has a display that beats out the 1.5 year old iPhone's pixel density. BTW, it's an LCD-based device, not AMOLED.
Now, being PenTile isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vendors use them because they can be thinner and use less power, but you'll have to get about 50% more pixel density than the Nexus S in order to give the "Retina Display"-quality effect as the iPhone 4/4S and Rezound offer users today.
Also, more pixels are great? until you get to a point that you can't determine the pixels when you look at the device. Now that Android-based devices can finally start besting the iPhone's pixel density ? note, again, it's currently with an LCD not AMOLED ? I'm sure Apple would love for them to keep pushing their spec sheets further and further with the result of costing more money, reducing battery life, making the GPU work harder for no visual benefit for anyone but those with superhuman eyesight. Be practical. Be rational. Be sensible.
For the rezound, we know it's LCD. But so is the iphone 4S.
We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
-Lower power draw
-better contrast
-brighter
-thinner panel
But for whatever reason Apple chose not to include it in the 4S even though it's becoming a standard technology in smart phones.
For the PPI, at a certain point, subpixels do not matter. A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.
For the rezound, we know it's LCD. But so is the iphone 4S.
We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
-Lower power draw
-better contrast
-brighter
-thinner panel
But for whatever reason Apple chose not to include it in the 4S even though it's becoming a standard technology in smart phones.
For the PPI, at a certain point, subpixels do not matter. A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.
you don't know what you are talking about, do you?
you don't know what speed (it isn't just about processors, there's no smartphone faster than the 4s) sound and the quality of any screen is about. you showed what you know. nothing. i'm sure you are the "typical" "high-end" android costumer. A spec-whore. you don't know what makes the iPhone so special, the mac so awesome, the ferrari so charismatic, f-22 so different. you know nothing.
I thought one rule of advertising is that you don't mention the competitor by name. That just increases the mindshare of the competitor, on your own dime.
EDIT: Just out of curiosity, when you say "many of the new android phones have a higher resolution", other than the mentioned HTC Rezound, and the previously-mentioned Samsung Nexus (which is actually a lower-density display), which others were you thinking of? Anyone?
EDIT 2: Found one - Galaxy Note - 1280x800, although it's a 5.3 inch screen (that's ~285 ppi, for those playing along at home). Remember the 5" Dell Streak? Ya, they killed that for a reason - too big for a "phone". At that point, it's become a mini-tablet. Dell couldn't sell those to save it's life (such as it is ), so they killed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi
Yes, you're absolutely correct that resolution and density are different metrics. However, you seem to have conveniently missed a major point of information from my response; the poster supported their statement with pixel resolution and display dimensions (which in and of itself implicitly defines pixel density), they also explicitly specified the calculated pixel density, and all of this with respect to a specific device (Samsung Nexus), which is what I in turn explicitly commented on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
beating the iphone retina display in terms of pixel density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Samsung Nexus screen : 1280x720 on a 4.6" screen. 316ppi
Iphone 4S screen : 960x640 on a 3.5" screen. 330ppi
To address your complaints of 'higher higher resolution "by far"' (again subjective and grossly abused - but accurate) of other devices. Yes, there are other Android phones that have greater screen resolutions and/or pixel densities than the iPhone. This was not a fact I contended. Had the original poster cited metrics for a device which supported their argument, I would have been inaccurate in my response (I also wouldn't have posted the response in the first place), however, they did not. My response to the original post was valid.
Sorry, no points this round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
You may want to be more careful with the crowd on these forums.
My response was to the logical/factual nature of the original posts, and a cheeky suggestion to be sure to quote accurate numbers when posting comments on a forum frequented by highly detail-oriented individuals. You've introduced information of a related nature, however it does not change the facts asserted of the original post. Thanks for playing though.
2) My 4.3" Galaxy S2 is more thin than any iphone4 / 4s.
Samsung is dishonest about their dimensions. They should call this phone the Quasimodo because of its hunchback. Samsung cheats and lies about it's thickness by advertising it at its THINNEST point, not its thickest. So they lump all their thickest components into a hump at the bottom which is the same thickness as an iPhone, and then measure the screen thickness only. Laughable. Even the camera adds its own little hump. Apple is all about design integrity. They would rather have the thickest element determine the thickness and have an elegant shape rather than all warty and humpy. Samsung has no integrity. All about marketing and advertising. Look at the photos of the phone on their website--they hide the hump from view. Apple shows it all.
Comments
Well if you took the time to go to the Android market and look at the ratings, why didn't you take the extra 10 seconds to look at the actual reviews to explain why people had given it a poor review?
He is not searching fro truth.
I highly doubt he's an "investor".
I am.
From a link a few posts up, Samsung's latest quarterly profits from their telecoms division, "more than doubled from a year ago to a record 2.5 trillion won ($2.2 billion) and accounted for 60 percent of Samsung's total profit, offsetting a plunge in earnings from its bread-and-butter memory chips".
I think their phone sales could be considered successful. Certainly no Apple, but still fairly impressive considering they just entered the smartphone market little more than a year ago.
"Shipments of smartphones jumped 44 percent from the preceding quarter to 27.8 million units, up nearly four times from a year ago, according to research firm Strategy Analytics."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79R0B620111028
That's exactly my point. I'm not saying they are better, or that they earn the same margins, but they clearly are starting to pose a competitive threat.
Glowing Engadget review from September: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/30/a...y-s-ii-review/ claims that they've sold 10 million units of the GT-I9100.
Top 2 Google results for comparisons between the two phones:
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/1...thy-winner-is/ (this author at least selects the iphone, but you come awya thinking it's a close race)
http://gadgetmania.com/2011/10/iphon...iphone-5-asap/
It seems that the ecosystem advantage is either not being marketed enough by Apple or is not as important to users as I had hoped it would be.
Someone please explain why we should not be worried about this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79R0B620111028
As an investor I read this and thought: "Crap, someone has figured out how to compete with Apple on the Android platform." Am I wrong?
Yep, Samsung sells a shitload of phones. Of course, we don't know how many are running Android, or how many are sitting on shelves, but still: I think it's clear that Samsung is consolidating its position as the preeminent manufacturer of Android handsets.
However, they seem to be well on their way to being the only manufacturer of Android handsets, at least of any significance, barring the odd flagship model from Google/Moto and über-cheap Chinese no names.
LE is losing money, Sony-Ericsson (soon to be just Sony again) is losing money, HTC is sinking, and the current Moto is losing money (which will soon become difficult to evaluate).
I don't know about you, but Samsung doesn't strike me as a particularly trustworthy partner. If they get a stranglehold on the Android market, how soon before they start figuring out ways to direct more consumer money towards Korea instead of Mountain View? As it stands, the Android market is largely a money funnel for Google. Think Samsung is OK with that?
At any rate, this is hardly the PC business redux. Apple has very healthy (and currently growing) market share, is selling every device they can make, and is making money hand over fist. If Samsung captures some huge percentage of the smartphone market, say upwards of 50%, so what? There's still more than enough room for Apple to maintain developer interest (especially considering the relative amounts of money to be made), accessory maker interest, and mindshare.
Plus, iOS, as represented by the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad (with no doubt additional devices to come) is still the overwhelming market leader, and without carrier subsidies and contract renewals Samsung doesn't seem to be all that adept at making mobile devices people want. At some point, if Apple continues its prohibitive lead in tablet sales, there's going to be a synergistic effect on handset buyers seeking seamless integration of their devices.
But even if that doesn't happen, there's no reason at all the Apple can't thrive in a world where most people buy Android handsets made by Samsung. Google, on the other hand, has real reason to be concerned by that outcome, because it puts way too much power in the hands of a company that seems inclined toward dickishness.
Say what you want about Apple's "arrogance", at least it was hard earned. Samsung slaps someone else's OS on phones and decide they invented technology.
From a link a few posts up, Samsung's latest quarterly profits from their telecoms division, "more than doubled from a year ago to a record 2.5 trillion won ($2.2 billion) and accounted for 60 percent of Samsung's total profit, offsetting a plunge in earnings from its bread-and-butter memory chips".
I think their phone sales could be considered successful. Certainly no Apple, but still fairly impressive considering they just entered the smartphone market little more than a year ago.
"Shipments of smartphones jumped 44 percent from the preceding quarter to 27.8 million units, up nearly four times from a year ago, according to research firm Strategy Analytics."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79R0B620111028
problem is, you are quoting numbers which includes a wide range of devices/computers/telephones/mp3 players/networking/networking infrastructure/consulting/business solutions/etc... Not _just_ smartphones. Why don't they specifically say what they make/lose from smartphones? Because it is next to nothing.
Samesung Telecomunications...educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Telecommunications
You may want to be more careful with the crowd on these forums.
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi
Samesung Telecomunications...educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Telecommunications
I couldn't find anything on Samesung.
And Android phones still suck and I will prove why.
Sonic CD just came out, for both Android and iOS. Let's take a look at the ratings from each. Does that tell you anything? Any smart person should be able to look at these two images and notice a vast difference between the two.
ANDROID
iOS
How could that be? What could possibly explain why there is such a huge difference in ratings for the same exact game? Hmmm, I wonder why that it is.
The Apple people all seem to be happy and they're loving it. The Fandroid people are a bunch of miserable slobs who are all unhappy people for some strange reason. All those people with different devices and a million different phones, and half of them are having huge problems!
Somebody even had a Galaxy Note on there, and they were complaining about a shitty framerate!
Who cares about a bigger phone when everything sucks on it!
You did it.
You forever proved that iOS is better with Android with this hard evidence that nobody can dispute. This was all we needed.
The fanboy wars are over, and it's all thanks to you.
Yep, Samsung sells a shitload of phones. Of course, we don't know how many are running Android, or how many are sitting on shelves, but still: I think it's clear that Samsung is consolidating its position as the preeminent manufacturer of Android handsets.
However, they seem to be well on their way to being the only manufacturer of Android handsets, at least of any significance, barring the odd flagship model from Google/Moto and über-cheap Chinese no names.
LE is losing money, Sony-Ericsson (soon to be just Sony again) is losing money, HTC is sinking, and the current Moto is losing money (which will soon become difficult to evaluate).
I don't know about you, but Samsung doesn't strike me as a particularly trustworthy partner. If they get a stranglehold on the Android market, how soon before they start figuring out ways to direct more consumer money towards Korea instead of Mountain View? As it stands, the Android market is largely a money funnel for Google. Think Samsung is OK with that?
At any rate, this is hardly the PC business redux. Apple has very healthy (and currently growing) market share, is selling every device they can make, and is making money hand over fist. If Samsung captures some huge percentage of the smartphone market, say upwards of 50%, so what? There's still more than enough room for Apple to maintain developer interest (especially considering the relative amounts of money to be made), accessory maker interest, and mindshare.
Plus, iOS, as represented by the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad (with no doubt additional devices to come) is still the overwhelming market leader, and without carrier subsidies and contract renewals Samsung doesn't seem to be all that adept at making mobile devices people want. At some point, if Apple continues its prohibitive lead in tablet sales, there's going to be a synergistic effect on handset buyers seeking seamless integration of their devices.
But even if that doesn't happen, there's no reason at all the Apple can't thrive in a world where most people buy Android handsets made by Samsung. Google, on the other hand, has real reason to be concerned by that outcome, because it puts way too much power in the hands of a company that seems inclined toward dickishness.
Say what you want about Apple's "arrogance", at least it was hard earned. Samsung slaps someone else's OS on phones and decide they invented technology.
I agree with most of what you've said, however I believe Google would benefit from the consolidation of the market you're predicting. If there are less options then there is a chance that a rival Android ecosystem that works for consumers could take hold. As an Apple investor I prefer the fragmentation that comes with no clear winner on the Android platform. If Samsung becomes the defacto hardware manufacturer for Android it could be similar to the Intel/Microsoft alliance that did so much damage to Apple in the past. Google can keep collecting money from ads (and apps if Samsung allows it) while it maintains OS parity with Apple, and meanwhile Samsung can make money on the hardware (and perhaps apps) and maintain hardware parity. Seems like an environment that will at a minimum shrink margins for Apple. I'm not asserting that the risk is for Apple to return to it's "beleagured" past, but just that their margins and competitive advantages suffer enough to erode their market leading position.
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi
I love fandroids with their meaningless specs trying to sound important. You would have to be an idiot to buy a smartphone based on hardware specs alone. Most people are waking up to that. The cloner manufacturers don't like to hear that, but that is the truth.
In one case we have a serial numbered so-called iPad killers trying to cannibalize its own sales by releasing multiple 10.1 Tabs. (see what I did there?)
yeah I did, still not funny.
Please stop.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to read.
1) It captures video in "full HD" but the display is actually a lower resolution than the iPhone by far.
2) The only reason Android phones are bigger than iPhones, is that it's the only way they can fit al the hardware in and still make it thin. If they stuck with a 4.3" screen the average Android phone would be an inch thick.
The truth is that Apple's hardware in the 4s beats every phone out there in terms of camera quality, speed, battery life, screen, volume, sound quality, etc. etc. There is no better.
1) The display resolution is actually higher on a lot of Android devices. (720p)
2) My 4.3" Galaxy S2 is more thin than any iphone4 / 4s.
-Camera quality goes to the N8, not the 4S
-Speed, in terms of benchmarks would EASILY go to the Galaxy note with the 1.4ghz Exynos dual core w/ mali 400 gpu
-Battery life goes to the Galaxy Note in both call-time, video playback, and standby time
-Volume goes to HTC Surround
-Sound quality? The winners would be the HTC Desire and Nexus one for their superb DAC and FLAC support.
Rather than typing up these responses that are based on facts, I'll probably just start replying with "[citation needed]" so maybe people would stop pulling facts out of their asses
I love fandroids with their meaningless specs trying to sound important. You would have to be an idiot to buy a smartphone based on hardware specs alone. Most people are waking up to that. The cloner manufacturers don't like to hear that, but that is the truth.
And I love how in this thread, people start defending the screen quality of the iphones, even though the topic is about the Galaxy Tab.
They said it was the best screen, with the highest PPI.
And then all the sudden somebody points out that that's just wrong, and the Rezound has the highest PPI with a 720p display.
And then you completely dismiss it, saying it doesn't matter.
Samsung Nexus screen : 1280x720 on a 4.6" screen. 316ppi
Iphone 4S screen : 960x640 on a 3.5" screen. 330ppi
I am sorry but the samsung display is NOT of a lower resolution than the iphone "by far", they both have over 300ppi
And WTF are you to tell me to stop posting....
Both phones have there ups and downs, but people walk in, see a bigger phone with 4G LTE and this hurts iphone sales, like it or not.
Bullshit! You failed to note that you're counting PenTile sub-pixels which makes you A) ignorant of the technology, or
Only the HTC Rezound released last month to one carrier (Verizon) has a display that beats out the 1.5 year old iPhone's pixel density. BTW, it's an LCD-based device, not AMOLED.
Now, being PenTile isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vendors use them because they can be thinner and use less power, but you'll have to get about 50% more pixel density than the Nexus S in order to give the "Retina Display"-quality effect as the iPhone 4/4S and Rezound offer users today.
Also, more pixels are great? until you get to a point that you can't determine the pixels when you look at the device. Now that Android-based devices can finally start besting the iPhone's pixel density ? note, again, it's currently with an LCD not AMOLED ? I'm sure Apple would love for them to keep pushing their spec sheets further and further with the result of costing more money, reducing battery life, making the GPU work harder for no visual benefit for anyone but those with superhuman eyesight. Be practical. Be rational. Be sensible.
Bullshit! You failed to note that you're counting PenTile sub-pixels which makes you A) ignorant of the technology, or
Only the HTC Rezound released last month to one carrier (Verizon) has a display that beats out the 1.5 year old iPhone's pixel density. BTW, it's an LCD-based device, not AMOLED.
Now, being PenTile isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vendors use them because they can be thinner and use less power, but you'll have to get about 50% more pixel density than the Nexus S in order to give the "Retina Display"-quality effect as the iPhone 4/4S and Rezound offer users today.
Also, more pixels are great? until you get to a point that you can't determine the pixels when you look at the device. Now that Android-based devices can finally start besting the iPhone's pixel density ? note, again, it's currently with an LCD not AMOLED ? I'm sure Apple would love for them to keep pushing their spec sheets further and further with the result of costing more money, reducing battery life, making the GPU work harder for no visual benefit for anyone but those with superhuman eyesight. Be practical. Be rational. Be sensible.
For the rezound, we know it's LCD. But so is the iphone 4S.
We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
-Lower power draw
-better contrast
-brighter
-thinner panel
But for whatever reason Apple chose not to include it in the 4S even though it's becoming a standard technology in smart phones.
For the PPI, at a certain point, subpixels do not matter. A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.
We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
Bullshit!
A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Dogshit !
For the rezound, we know it's LCD. But so is the iphone 4S.
We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
-Lower power draw
-better contrast
-brighter
-thinner panel
But for whatever reason Apple chose not to include it in the 4S even though it's becoming a standard technology in smart phones.
For the PPI, at a certain point, subpixels do not matter. A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.
you don't know what you are talking about, do you?
you don't know what speed (it isn't just about processors, there's no smartphone faster than the 4s) sound and the quality of any screen is about. you showed what you know. nothing. i'm sure you are the "typical" "high-end" android costumer. A spec-whore. you don't know what makes the iPhone so special, the mac so awesome, the ferrari so charismatic, f-22 so different. you know nothing.
EDIT 2: Found one - Galaxy Note - 1280x800, although it's a 5.3 inch screen (that's ~285 ppi, for those playing along at home). Remember the 5" Dell Streak? Ya, they killed that for a reason - too big for a "phone". At that point, it's become a mini-tablet. Dell couldn't sell those to save it's life (such as it is
I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.
High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels
Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.
HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi
Yes, you're absolutely correct that resolution and density are different metrics. However, you seem to have conveniently missed a major point of information from my response; the poster supported their statement with pixel resolution and display dimensions (which in and of itself implicitly defines pixel density), they also explicitly specified the calculated pixel density, and all of this with respect to a specific device (Samsung Nexus), which is what I in turn explicitly commented on.
beating the iphone retina display in terms of pixel density.
Samsung Nexus screen : 1280x720 on a 4.6" screen. 316ppi
Iphone 4S screen : 960x640 on a 3.5" screen. 330ppi
To address your complaints of 'higher higher resolution "by far"' (again subjective and grossly abused - but accurate) of other devices. Yes, there are other Android phones that have greater screen resolutions and/or pixel densities than the iPhone. This was not a fact I contended. Had the original poster cited metrics for a device which supported their argument, I would have been inaccurate in my response (I also wouldn't have posted the response in the first place), however, they did not. My response to the original post was valid.
Sorry, no points this round.
You may want to be more careful with the crowd on these forums.
My response was to the logical/factual nature of the original posts, and a cheeky suggestion to be sure to quote accurate numbers when posting comments on a forum frequented by highly detail-oriented individuals. You've introduced information of a related nature, however it does not change the facts asserted of the original post. Thanks for playing though.
2) My 4.3" Galaxy S2 is more thin than any iphone4 / 4s.
Samsung is dishonest about their dimensions. They should call this phone the Quasimodo because of its hunchback. Samsung cheats and lies about it's thickness by advertising it at its THINNEST point, not its thickest. So they lump all their thickest components into a hump at the bottom which is the same thickness as an iPhone, and then measure the screen thickness only. Laughable. Even the camera adds its own little hump. Apple is all about design integrity. They would rather have the thickest element determine the thickness and have an elegant shape rather than all warty and humpy. Samsung has no integrity. All about marketing and advertising. Look at the photos of the phone on their website--they hide the hump from view. Apple shows it all.