My mistake it is the Galaxy Ace - too many Galaxy models on market. Her 3G connection was on full bars. Also the point I was trying to make, irrespective of the model, is that Google counts this phone as being one if the 80% market share. The fact is that it is next to useless as a smartphone and is little better than a feature phone.
Keep in mind Apple does the same thing. They count the first iPhone, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs as part of their market share too. These phones aren't going to be running the latest apps or even latest iOS version and will run into the same problems. The Ace is a 3 year old phone so you're going to start having issues with some of the latest apps. It's not much any different with Apple.
On a side note, in most cases the bars shown on your connection do not represent your data connection. It's usually set to your celluar reception which in most cases are on a lower frequency which give better connection. So while she may have had full bars, her actual 3G connection could've been much lower. I think all Android devices are displayed this way. iPhones did the same up until a year or so ago (maybe a little longer). The bars now correctly represent what connection is shown now on iPhone though.
Keep in mind Apple does the same thing. They count the first iPhone, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs as part of their market share too. These phones aren't going to be running the latest apps or even latest iOS version and will run into the same problems. The Ace is a 3 year old phone so you're going to start having issues with some of the latest apps. It's not much any different with Apple.
The iPhone 3G and 3GS can run iOS 6 which is still immensely popular and supported by every app on the app store. The original iPhone is stuck at iOS 3 so that ship sailed a long time ago. The original iPad is stuck at 5.1 which kind of sucks, but that's limited only because of it's memory (256 Mb) Otherwise, every other device sold in the past 6 years has a very capable and modern OS.
In a bid to counter the popularity of the Touch ID system found in Apple's iPhone 5s, South Korean electronics giant Samsung will reportedly outfit the home button of its upcoming flagship Galaxy S5 handset with a swipe-style fingerprint reader.
Wow...how DO they keep innovating like this? It's simply astonishing?
More importantly, how long will one of the biggest corporations in the WORLD continue to be little more than a cheap knock-off factory of stolen ideas and lawsuits? Hyundai started like that, building cheap copies of Mercedes and other cars, but they've left that world FAR behind with their recent cars, specifically the magnificent Genesis sedans and coupes and the Veloster, innovative and edgy and definitely not a copy of anything. Why doesn't Samsung follow suit instead of just stealing stuff and tying it up in the courts long enough for no one to give a **** anymore? A DISGUSTING way to do business, by a disgusting company, IMHO. I won't buy ANYTHING from them till they change their business model completely.
And the owner of Samsung should also give back the stolen Ferrari; what a jerk!
The iPhone 3G and 3GS can run iOS 6 which is still immensely popular and supported by every app on the app store. The original iPhone is stuck at iOS 3 so that ship sailed a long time ago. The original iPad is stuck at 5.1 which kind of sucks, but that's limited only because of it's memory (256 Mb) Otherwise, every other device sold in the past 6 years has a very capable and modern OS.
It's not just about the OS though. The 3G and 3GS run iOS 6 and all apps are supported. But supported doesn't necessarily mean it'll run well. You're probably going to be subject to a lot of lag, stutters and freezes if you tried running something like Temple Run or any of the newer games. In Androids case, they just omit them from being able to be installed because it's assumed the experience using those apps will be very poor.
Safari in all versions of iOS works just fine. As does e-mail. That’s feature phone now? And there are tens of thousands of apps (hundreds) that work in iOS 3, 4, and 5.
i believe finger print sensor technology has been implemented in laptops, but
they never seem to be as effective as we would like them to be, it will be good to see if samsung's finger print sensor is better than iPhones? the technology is old and to be quite honest no one has yet made it a successful consumer product addition to have the mission impossible style sensor i think we would have to go military grade and that would just be too expensive, i hope I'm wrong but i can't see this technology really being the selling point of any gadget until it proves to be like that of the military.
If email and web are the main criteria then all those android phones that many claim aren't real smartphones actually are.
Can't have it both ways.
The technical definition of a smartphone used to be a phone capable of installing and running native applications.
Whether they are used that way or not is another issue.
I sell a lot of cheap Android phones, where part of the set up involves switching the data off for example because granny doesn't want to blow all her credit via the phone using data to do something she doesn't understand or parents don't want their kids having unsupervised access to the Internet.
Obviously there is a huge dark mass of Android phones which in spite of the often trumpeted 80% market share figures, simply do not show up anywhere on the web.
Ok, now I want to see all those people who were against a fingerprint scanner from Apple chiming in on how bad an idea it is for Android phones. Where are all those "I don't trust Apple with my fingerprint" people now? Are you more trusting of Samsung, a Korean company run by a convict?
For what it's worth, I own an Android and I'd likely never use a fingerprint scanner on it for the exact same reasons as on an iPhone. I don't really want to have to change my fingerprints when someone copies them, and I wear gloves a fair chunk of the time.
We all know Samsung tends to ensure their devices have every feature of every competitor. We'll have to see what sort of quality sensor they've been able to acquire.
We all know Samsung tends to ensure their devices have every feature of every competitor. We'll have to see what sort of quality sensor they've been able to acquire.
Not one of Apple's innovative, custom made ones, that's for sure.
Not one of Apple's innovative, custom made ones, that's for sure.
Well obviously, Apple bought Authentec lol. That's why I'm saying, it'll be interesting to see what sensor is even available to them. I have no doubt that TouchID will be superior but to me they both seem a little bit silly. I don't use my old laptop's touch authentication either.
The technical definition of a smartphone used to be a phone capable of installing and running native applications.
Whether they are used that way or not is another issue.
Wouldn't that mean that the first iPhone wasn't a smartphone?
I think that's a pretty bad definition, really a 'smartphone' is anything which is a general purpose computer rather than having only a specific subset of computing features available. My old Sony Ericsson bar phone could play games, but I couldn't write Perl on it. That's the difference in my eyes.
Wouldn't that mean that the first iPhone wasn't a smartphone?
No.
The fact that it wasn't open to 3rd party developers at that time, did not detract from the fact that Apple was able to install any number of Apps they felt like.
If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbian phone it was a smartphone, if it ran their generic OS and could install generic Java ME applications running in a VM it wasn't, native is the key word.
The fact that it wasn't open to 3rd party developers at that time, did not detract from the fact that Apple was able to install any number of Apps they felt like.
If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbian phone it was a smartphone, if it ran their generic OS and could install generic Java ME applications running in a VM it wasn't, native is the key word.
Aah I see your point now. Yeah I have no complaint with this, I just get frustrated when people claim that cheap phones are no better than feature phones. I remember my feature phones and I was so glad to get a real computer in my pocket, even crap old Windows Mobile phones were way better than not being able to run arbitrary software.
If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbian phone it was a smartphone, if it ran their generic OS and could install generic Java ME applications running in a VM it wasn't, native is the key word.
Would that count as a smartphone in today's market, or only in a historical sense?
Would that count as a smartphone in today's market, or only in a historical sense?
I would argue that even the original iPhone is not a 'modern smartphone' although it certainly was a smartphone at the time, but Symbian is capable of running on more modern devices. It really is quite difficult to draw a strict line that divides categories.
I would argue that even the original iPhone is not a 'modern smartphone' although it certainly was a smartphone at the time, but Symbian is capable of running on more modern devices. It really is quite difficult to draw a strict line that divides categories.
I made a similar argument jut last week against the original iPhone with iOS 1.0 installed.
This is why there is no "smartphone" market as the definition is arbitrary. There is just a cell phone market.
Does cell phone include any device that can be used as a phone on the cellular/MNO network, or only those with the proper HW for making calls on the MNO's dedicated cellular network with QoS, and not simply as a VoIP call? BTW, this gets more tricky in a few years when even MNOs will be moving their calls to VoIP with QoS.
Personally, I think definitions should change and I have no problem with people creating their own definitions… providing they at least try to be crystal clear about the parameters in which they create those definitions. Case in point, every standards organization.
Comments
My mistake it is the Galaxy Ace - too many Galaxy models on market. Her 3G connection was on full bars. Also the point I was trying to make, irrespective of the model, is that Google counts this phone as being one if the 80% market share. The fact is that it is next to useless as a smartphone and is little better than a feature phone.
Keep in mind Apple does the same thing. They count the first iPhone, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs as part of their market share too. These phones aren't going to be running the latest apps or even latest iOS version and will run into the same problems. The Ace is a 3 year old phone so you're going to start having issues with some of the latest apps. It's not much any different with Apple.
On a side note, in most cases the bars shown on your connection do not represent your data connection. It's usually set to your celluar reception which in most cases are on a lower frequency which give better connection. So while she may have had full bars, her actual 3G connection could've been much lower. I think all Android devices are displayed this way. iPhones did the same up until a year or so ago (maybe a little longer). The bars now correctly represent what connection is shown now on iPhone though.
But they’ll actually be used.
I know someone who still uses a Windows 6 HTC smartphone. Longevity isn't an Apple-only phenomenom.
The iPhone 3G and 3GS can run iOS 6 which is still immensely popular and supported by every app on the app store. The original iPhone is stuck at iOS 3 so that ship sailed a long time ago. The original iPad is stuck at 5.1 which kind of sucks, but that's limited only because of it's memory (256 Mb) Otherwise, every other device sold in the past 6 years has a very capable and modern OS.
In a bid to counter the popularity of the Touch ID system found in Apple's iPhone 5s, South Korean electronics giant Samsung will reportedly outfit the home button of its upcoming flagship Galaxy S5 handset with a swipe-style fingerprint reader.
Wow...how DO they keep innovating like this? It's simply astonishing?
More importantly, how long will one of the biggest corporations in the WORLD continue to be little more than a cheap knock-off factory of stolen ideas and lawsuits? Hyundai started like that, building cheap copies of Mercedes and other cars, but they've left that world FAR behind with their recent cars, specifically the magnificent Genesis sedans and coupes and the Veloster, innovative and edgy and definitely not a copy of anything. Why doesn't Samsung follow suit instead of just stealing stuff and tying it up in the courts long enough for no one to give a **** anymore? A DISGUSTING way to do business, by a disgusting company, IMHO. I won't buy ANYTHING from them till they change their business model completely.
And the owner of Samsung should also give back the stolen Ferrari; what a jerk!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196193/Samsung-chairman-thought-Ferrari-stolen-owner-Atlanta-1977.html
Cheers,
Cameron
But they’ll actually be used.
Yes they will - as a feature phone.
Quote:
The iPhone 3G and 3GS can run iOS 6 which is still immensely popular and supported by every app on the app store. The original iPhone is stuck at iOS 3 so that ship sailed a long time ago. The original iPad is stuck at 5.1 which kind of sucks, but that's limited only because of it's memory (256 Mb) Otherwise, every other device sold in the past 6 years has a very capable and modern OS.
It's not just about the OS though. The 3G and 3GS run iOS 6 and all apps are supported. But supported doesn't necessarily mean it'll run well. You're probably going to be subject to a lot of lag, stutters and freezes if you tried running something like Temple Run or any of the newer games. In Androids case, they just omit them from being able to be installed because it's assumed the experience using those apps will be very poor.
Safari in all versions of iOS works just fine. As does e-mail. That’s feature phone now? And there are tens of thousands of apps (hundreds) that work in iOS 3, 4, and 5.
i believe finger print sensor technology has been implemented in laptops, but
they never seem to be as effective as we would like them to be, it will be good to see if samsung's finger print sensor is better than iPhones? the technology is old and to be quite honest no one has yet made it a successful consumer product addition to have the mission impossible style sensor i think we would have to go military grade and that would just be too expensive, i hope I'm wrong but i can't see this technology really being the selling point of any gadget until it proves to be like that of the military.
Can't have it both ways.
If email and web are the main criteria then all those android phones that many claim aren't real smartphones actually are.
Can't have it both ways.
The technical definition of a smartphone used to be a phone capable of installing and running native applications.
Whether they are used that way or not is another issue.
I sell a lot of cheap Android phones, where part of the set up involves switching the data off for example because granny doesn't want to blow all her credit via the phone using data to do something she doesn't understand or parents don't want their kids having unsupervised access to the Internet.
Obviously there is a huge dark mass of Android phones which in spite of the often trumpeted 80% market share figures, simply do not show up anywhere on the web.
Ok, now I want to see all those people who were against a fingerprint scanner from Apple chiming in on how bad an idea it is for Android phones. Where are all those "I don't trust Apple with my fingerprint" people now? Are you more trusting of Samsung, a Korean company run by a convict?
For what it's worth, I own an Android and I'd likely never use a fingerprint scanner on it for the exact same reasons as on an iPhone. I don't really want to have to change my fingerprints when someone copies them, and I wear gloves a fair chunk of the time.
We all know Samsung tends to ensure their devices have every feature of every competitor. We'll have to see what sort of quality sensor they've been able to acquire.
We all know Samsung tends to ensure their devices have every feature of every competitor. We'll have to see what sort of quality sensor they've been able to acquire.
Not one of Apple's innovative, custom made ones, that's for sure.
Not one of Apple's innovative, custom made ones, that's for sure.
Well obviously, Apple bought Authentec lol. That's why I'm saying, it'll be interesting to see what sensor is even available to them. I have no doubt that TouchID will be superior but to me they both seem a little bit silly. I don't use my old laptop's touch authentication either.
The technical definition of a smartphone used to be a phone capable of installing and running native applications.
Whether they are used that way or not is another issue.
Wouldn't that mean that the first iPhone wasn't a smartphone?
I think that's a pretty bad definition, really a 'smartphone' is anything which is a general purpose computer rather than having only a specific subset of computing features available. My old Sony Ericsson bar phone could play games, but I couldn't write Perl on it. That's the difference in my eyes.
Wouldn't that mean that the first iPhone wasn't a smartphone?
No.
The fact that it wasn't open to 3rd party developers at that time, did not detract from the fact that Apple was able to install any number of Apps they felt like.
If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbian phone it was a smartphone, if it ran their generic OS and could install generic Java ME applications running in a VM it wasn't, native is the key word.
No.
The fact that it wasn't open to 3rd party developers at that time, did not detract from the fact that Apple was able to install any number of Apps they felt like.
If your old SonyEricsson was a Symbian phone it was a smartphone, if it ran their generic OS and could install generic Java ME applications running in a VM it wasn't, native is the key word.
Aah I see your point now. Yeah I have no complaint with this, I just get frustrated when people claim that cheap phones are no better than feature phones. I remember my feature phones and I was so glad to get a real computer in my pocket, even crap old Windows Mobile phones were way better than not being able to run arbitrary software.
Would that count as a smartphone in today's market, or only in a historical sense?
Would that count as a smartphone in today's market, or only in a historical sense?
I would argue that even the original iPhone is not a 'modern smartphone' although it certainly was a smartphone at the time, but Symbian is capable of running on more modern devices. It really is quite difficult to draw a strict line that divides categories.
I made a similar argument jut last week against the original iPhone with iOS 1.0 installed.
Does cell phone include any device that can be used as a phone on the cellular/MNO network, or only those with the proper HW for making calls on the MNO's dedicated cellular network with QoS, and not simply as a VoIP call? BTW, this gets more tricky in a few years when even MNOs will be moving their calls to VoIP with QoS.
Personally, I think definitions should change and I have no problem with people creating their own definitions… providing they at least try to be crystal clear about the parameters in which they create those definitions. Case in point, every standards organization.