Yeah, about that...
Google itself makes updates available to any phone that wants them. Unlike Apple, Google does not try to blacklist phones from getting any update they want. Even KitKat on the Galaxy nexus was like that...Google does not provide an official update, but does not attempt to stop anyone from making KitKat ROMs if they want.
It is up to the vendors roll out the updates they want. If non-Nexus phones don't get updates, it is because that Vendor does not want to push them...not because Google is refusing to provide them.
Nobody has a Galaxy Nexus. It flopped at launch. It is not a popular model. Every Nexus model has been a sales flop.
But come now Mr Troll, you keep skirting every point you raise after it gets shot down as wrong. For example, you cite Moto E as a great low cost phone. But when challenged by the fact that a) it isn't selling, b) Google seeks to sell off the entirety of Motorola, and c) non of Motorola's other low priced, Verge-applauded models sold in any real quantity, you change the subject.
Fact are pretty clear here. Android ASP is around $215 and IDC forecasts that will continue plunging. People are not buying the Nexus/Moto phones Google wanted to sell. They're being sold low end Samsung phones that can only be called smartphones because they run a version of Android. Phones that are barely functional. Two thirds of "Android."
That's a fact.
You can copy/paste all sorts of links about how much The Verge likes Google Nexus phones and Moto experiments, but they've all failed. They are not selling in significant quantities anywhere.
Android is not whatever you want it to be. It is very clearly something: a low end platform that replaced Java/Linux among the vendors who failed to sell Symbian, WiMo and other Linux variants, with Android now being all they have left to work with. That's simply a fact.
Android is not moving upscale. It's collapsing. Google itself recognized that in the move from Nexus to Moto-cheapo.
Back in 2010 you could imagine that Android 2.0 was going to take off and be the iPhone of Verizon. That failed (as predicted).
Back in 2011 you could imagine that Android 3.0 Honeycomb was going to take off and defeat the iPad in tablets. That failed (as predicted).
Back in 2012 you could imagine that Android 4.0 was going to take off and defeat iOS. That failed (I don't recall predicting that specifically).
Back in 2013 you could imagine that Samsung was going to take over and defeat Apple. That failed (and was essentially live-blogged on AI).
In 2014, it's getting a bit late to imagine that Android is going to do anything but piss away into irrelevance.
Speaking of which, what happened to Android 5.0? It's overdue by almost a year.
Try reading the words before replying to them. I said the opposite of what you are saying here.
Just shut up.
Sure you haven’t.
You honestly believe the iPhone 4 costs anywhere near $300 to make?
1. What does this question have to do with the statement made?
2. Why are you pretending you know how much it costs to make?
Shut up and go away.
Are you trying to imply sales = better?
You made a claim that google does not support their devices for more than a year. That is clearly wrong. Thats what my evidence shows.
Yes, how dare I change the subject after you've changed the subject.
You are trying to refute claims I never made.
...while marketshare remains steady or increases. What does it say about Apple products when people are more willing to buy cheap Android phones than pay what Apple is asking for it's phones?
and yet...everyone seems to have Android phones. Someone is making money somewhere.
...that actually does more than iOS's best phones.
What does that say about iOS products when they can be out-performed by low-end competing OS's?
LOL, is this post from 2010? Because I remember hearing that before.
Android's marketshare was about 25% then.
Android's marketshare was about 45% then.
Android's marketshare was about 60% then.
Android's marketshare topped 80% then.
(do you see a pattern developing?)
Yes, their skyrocketing markletshare is clear evidence Android will die any day now. As we all know, dominating marketshare is definitely the fastest way to become irrelevant.
Maybe it's not needed...Apple seems to have a hard enough time competing with 4.2.
I don't see how this is constructive. Why are you replying at all if you really think I'm a troll?
What does it say about Android products when people are more willing to use Apple phones and, you know, not use Android at all. For anything it was designed to do?
Samsung is making money. By stealing Apple’s work. Everyone else in the industry is losing money.
BECAUSE THAT IS IN NO WAY OUTPERFORMING. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT PERFORMANCE.
Use share is, what, 10-20%. Talk about channel stuffing!
So we can add “competing” to the list of words you don’t know.
What does it say about Android products when people are more willing to use Apple phones
How are they "more" willing to use Apple when Android marketshare is increasing? Seems to be the opposite.
What was it designed to do?
Well, if that is true, they will win lawsuits in court. And Apple will be paid. So Apple is losing nothing anyway. And who exactly is stealing from who anyway?
And it is not as if Apple is a blushing virgin when it comes to stealing.
"We have always been SHAMELESS about stealing great ideas" - The emphasis was his, not mine.
Stop saying the word ‘marketshare’. Do we need to add that one, too?
Android is a smartphone OS. People aren’t using it as a smartphone. They’re using it as a regular phone.
Samsung. Is stealing. From Apple.
Let’s see, ‘shameless’, ‘stealing’, ‘performance’, and ‘competing’ are words you don’t know.
Stop saying the word ‘marketshare’.
Does it bring back bad memories?
How dare Samsung steal all the stuff Apple stole from other people. The nerve.
I was not the one who said them...Steve Jobs was.
Bad memories of you being a moron, at least.
Prove me wrong, then.
This means that you can kill anyone you want any time you want. What? He’s the one who said it, not me. I just interpreted it. You mean that my interpretation can be wrong? Gee.
Why is Android going down and iOS going up?
Must be so bitter to resort to name calling.
LOL, if that chart continued exactly like that it'd still take years for iOS to catch up.
The words aren’t blue because I like the color. Go to the link and shut up.
Ok, I'll try. He is persistent though.
Flexibility and advanced features not found on feature phones.
80% of cell phones sold are smartphones, however.
Correct. "Junk" is of course a subjective term.
You intentionally miss the point: a Retina display (or the equivalent from another manufacturer) has a resolution so high that the vast majority of users cannot see any individual pixels - job done. Making the display even higher resolution could only be of interest to people who fetishise specs because, obviously, further "improvements" yields no visible benefit. In this case, more is not more.
I never implied or stated that people "could not read iPhones" before the Retina display - I'm not sure where you got such a daft idea. I had a 1st Gen iPad and a 5th Gen iPod touch with Retina display concurrently and although the iPad display was very good the individual pixels were as visible as they are on the iMac on which I'm typing this, but when using the iPod touch I could never see an individual pixel. If Apple's design goal was to create a better display with maximum clarity for humans then the Retina display is clearly an advance over the one on my iMac, which is why Apple have migrated most mobile devices to them.
I expected you might be annoyed by a phone with higher resolution because you seem like someone who sees high specs as synonymous with the best kit. As it is fairly easy to add more memory, bigger screens, more MPs, faster processors and so on then you are likely to be disappointed when the next month a gadget with better specs that yours is released. You quoted the specs of another phone which has more memory, higher screen resolution and a bigger MP count for the camera and all for less money than an iPhone - why do this unless you believe that specs are the deciding factor? Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, made the point when introducing the iPhone 5S that it would have been easy to have put more megapixels in the camera, but they left it at 8MP. Given that other companies already have higher MP counts (the Galaxy S5 being 16MP and the Nokia having 41MP) it's obvious that the wealthiest tech company on the planet could easily have given the iPhone 5S more MP - maybe even a 50MP camera! You might like to consider why Apple chose not to and took a different approach.
Over reliance on specs is like buying a car with a 400BHP engine for £20,000 on the basis that it must be better than one with a 300BHP engine costing £30,000. Specs only tell part of the story - for proof, go and listen to 10 different pairs of top quality HiFi loudspeakers with similar specs and, assuming your ears are working properly and that you pay attention, you will realise that all 10 sound similar but different and you will probably prefer one or two over the others. The trouble with specs is they only tell part of the story, an important part of course, but only a part.
You intentionally miss the point: a Retina display (or the equivalent from another manufacturer) has a resolution so high that the vast majority of users cannot see any individual pixels
...at an arbitrary distance. They CAN see pixels, if they hold it close enough. That is true of every other display out right now. There is nothing special about the Retina display...or at least nothing "more" special than any other display with the same or higher ppi.
1080p displays are far closer to "pixelless" than the retina Display is.
...because Apple decided that no one can possibly need more that 326ppi? LOL
The Retina Display is a special snowflake huh?
..and likewise, a 1080p display is an advance over the Retina display for the same reason.
Even Apple people agree with this. Thats why they prefer newer iPhones over older ones. Newer iPhones have better cameras, speed, and displays. And Shinier logos, which is the most important part.
No, I will look forward to upgrading. I can do that. I don't need to take out a mortgage every time I upgrade, because Android phones are not overpriced.
So...if Tim Cook believes specs don't matter, and that current specs are plenty to deliver a great experience...why do newer iPhones have better specs than older ones? You tell me.
Why did Apple upgrade to an 8MP camera at all? Why was 5MP not enough? Why does it need a better processor or more RAM?
Why be stupid enough to hold a phone eight inches from your face?
And 6000000000p is even closer. What’s your point?
Guess you don’t know what the word ‘maximum’ means, either.
Even Apple people agree with this. Thats why they prefer newer iPhones over older ones. Newer iPhones have better cameras, speed, and displays. And Shinier logos, which is the most important part. I don't need to take out a mortgage every time I upgrade, because Android phones are not overpriced.
Go find another website to spew your insanity on. MacRumors is anti-Apple. Try there.
If you were to use a 20x magnifying glass you would certainly see pixels and if you used a microscope you would see the elements making up the physical aspects of the display itself! Apple surely have the money and the technical resources to design and incorporate a display with even higher pixel densities than they use at present, but they don't? Why not? The answer is that for the vast majority of their customers, using their devices at a normal distance, then individual pixels cannot be seen on a Retina display or anyone's display with an equivalent resolution. Some people with extremely good eyesight may notice pixellation, average users who look at their display from a distance of 2 inches may notice pixellation. If you are one of those lucky people then you need to buy something with a better screen as the rest of us find such resolution to be extremely crisp, clear and detailed. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done.
Why do you write that "Tim Cook believes specs don't matter?" Has he told you? Do you have a quote from him saying that? Where?
Every time Apple, or any company including Google, Samsung, HTC or whoever, make anything, they have to decide what to put in and what to leave out - I think even you can see the logic in that. Different companies have different priorities. Any company, in line with its own philosophy, will obviously aim to make the best device. Again, given that Apple is the wealthiest tech company in the world we can assume that if they wished, they could have made an iPhone 5S with a standard USB 3 slot, a 41MP camera, even higher screen resolution, a 5-inch screen, a slot for more memory, an ethernet port and more. They didn't do any of those things because that is not how Apple envisage the iPhone. Apple, again like others, will use the best technologies available at the time, consistent with their vision for the device's design, reliability, performance and price amongst other factors. Apple did not add a 41MP camera in the iPhone 5S but they designed, built and used the first 64-bit processor in any mobile phone or tablet. Do you really think it's easier for Apple to go for the 64-bit chip than the camera? Apple clearly have intentions for iOS and the resulting breadth of apps that would become possible by using such a processor. Certainly, they feel it has the potential to make for a better long-term experience for their customers than a 41MP camera.
Everything is a compromise. Bigger MPs lead to slower camera "shutter speeds". More RAM or a bigger screen needs more power. More power needs a bigger and heavier battery. More ports and slots require more electronics and connectors and alter the overall design. In time, technological advances reduce these effects but at any given time they will be true.