That was in 2007, in 2009 the HTC HD2 was 4.3", and LTE phones didn't come out until 2011.
Who are you even arguing with? I don't think anyone said otherwise. Apple or any other company could have easily made a 5 or 6 inch phone before LTE as well if they wished. Any more historical facts you want to point out for us Captain Obvious?
Sony managed it, perhaps it is beyond the scope of a sleazy company like Samsung who can only get performance by hiding a massive battery behind an oversized screen.
I'll agree that they're sleazy, but I don't believe for a second that it's beyond Samsung's scope to build a high end device with a smaller screen.
Bollocks. If that were the case, they would have gone head on with Apple. Why would they want to pass up on 150 million phones and $40 billion profit a year? What a fucking stupid comment you made.
Bollocks. If that were the case, they would have gone head on with Apple. Why would they want to pass up on 150 million phones and $40 billion profit a year? What a fucking stupid comment you made.
Why would they? They've done pretty good at beating everyone else. Being the same wasn't profitable so they went different.
Because no one cares about that point besides you. You keep harping on it as if someone is invested in defending that theory. Who cares why they went big, they did. Whether it was because of the size of first gen LTE radios or the fact that they needed more battery life or the daughter of the CEO of Samsung asked him to make a larger one it really doesn't matter.
Because no one cares about that point besides you. You keep harping on it as if someone is invested in defending that theory. Who cares why they went big, they did. Whether it was because of the size of first gen LTE radios or the fact that they needed more battery life or the daughter of the CEO of Samsung asked him to make a larger one it really doesn't matter.
All I'm asking is for some proof of your claim. It's quite common for a member to ask another for a citation. I've never seen a claim get repeated so much without so much as one single link to support it.
Bollocks. If that were the case, they would have gone head on with Apple. Why would they want to pass up on 150 million phones and $40 billion profit a year? What a fucking stupid comment you made.
Because the only reasonable way to attack an entrenched competitor is to offer something different. Otherwise Samsung would probably have ended up as the Bing of smartphones. Bing is functionally equivalent to Google for all intents and purposes. But just how successful has it been by going "head on" with Google? That MS feels the need for their "Scroogled" PR campaign should provide a clue. Having larger, higher-res displays compared to the iPhone has obviously been a successful differentiating feature for Samsung.
Because the only reasonable way to attack an entrenched competitor is to offer something different. Otherwise Samsung would probably have ended up as the Bing of smartphones. Bing is functionally equivalent to Google for all intents and purposes. But just how successful has it been by going "head on" with Google? That MS feels the need for their "Scroogled" PR campaign should provide a clue. Having larger, higher-res displays compared to the iPhone has obviously been a successful differentiating feature for Samsung.
Except Samsung's "larger, higher-res displays" have not outsold the iPhone.
Samsung outsells the iPhone only when their cheaper, smaller screened, lower-res devices are thrown into the mix.
Comments
That was in 2007, in 2009 the HTC HD2 was 4.3", and LTE phones didn't come out until 2011.
Who are you even arguing with? I don't think anyone said otherwise. Apple or any other company could have easily made a 5 or 6 inch phone before LTE as well if they wished. Any more historical facts you want to point out for us Captain Obvious?
Sony managed it, perhaps it is beyond the scope of a sleazy company like Samsung who can only get performance by hiding a massive battery behind an oversized screen.
I'll agree that they're sleazy, but I don't believe for a second that it's beyond Samsung's scope to build a high end device with a smaller screen.
Bollocks. If that were the case, they would have gone head on with Apple. Why would they want to pass up on 150 million phones and $40 billion profit a year? What a fucking stupid comment you made.
Why would they? They've done pretty good at beating everyone else. Being the same wasn't profitable so they went different.
That was in 2007, in 2009 the HTC HD2 was 4.3", and LTE phones didn't come out until 2011.
At that time, even without LTE, Android phones were getting shockingly poor battery life.
Due mainly to requiring higher powered processors to try and get around Android's inherent sluggishness and ill thought out, inefficient multitasking.
The most popular Android applications back then were task killers to try and extend the battery.
Except that the HTC HD2 was a Windows phone, so what was the reason for making it 4.3"?
What, this HD2?
Yes I was mistaken, but not one single person that's claimed that bigger screens were a result of needing a bigger battery has given any proof.
Because no one cares about that point besides you. You keep harping on it as if someone is invested in defending that theory. Who cares why they went big, they did. Whether it was because of the size of first gen LTE radios or the fact that they needed more battery life or the daughter of the CEO of Samsung asked him to make a larger one it really doesn't matter.
P.S. Wrong HD2 above. That was the Desire
http://www.amazon.com/HTC-Unlocked-Screen-Windows-Professional/dp/B0030MHQXO
All I'm asking is for some proof of your claim. It's quite common for a member to ask another for a citation. I've never seen a claim get repeated so much without so much as one single link to support it.
Bollocks. If that were the case, they would have gone head on with Apple. Why would they want to pass up on 150 million phones and $40 billion profit a year? What a fucking stupid comment you made.
Because the only reasonable way to attack an entrenched competitor is to offer something different. Otherwise Samsung would probably have ended up as the Bing of smartphones. Bing is functionally equivalent to Google for all intents and purposes. But just how successful has it been by going "head on" with Google? That MS feels the need for their "Scroogled" PR campaign should provide a clue. Having larger, higher-res displays compared to the iPhone has obviously been a successful differentiating feature for Samsung.
Because the only reasonable way to attack an entrenched competitor is to offer something different. Otherwise Samsung would probably have ended up as the Bing of smartphones. Bing is functionally equivalent to Google for all intents and purposes. But just how successful has it been by going "head on" with Google? That MS feels the need for their "Scroogled" PR campaign should provide a clue. Having larger, higher-res displays compared to the iPhone has obviously been a successful differentiating feature for Samsung.
Except Samsung's "larger, higher-res displays" have not outsold the iPhone.
Samsung outsells the iPhone only when their cheaper, smaller screened, lower-res devices are thrown into the mix.
Is that the only metric for success? Since they outsell iPhones they should close up shop, and call it quits?
Is that the only metric for success? Since they outsell iPhones they should close up shop, and call it quits?
Well you could take into account Samsung's shareholder warnings as their earnings fall.
Due mainly to a lower than expected demand for their large screened, high resolution premium models.
Demand might be be as strong as expected, but it's strong enough.