LG, Samsung head to market with new Android flagship candidates

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 51
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Competition is always a great thing. I'm glad that the Samsung and LG phones have improved their phones with newer technology for many functions of their flagship phones. The cameras in particular are very impressive. By having this kind of competition it raises the bar for Apple to keep innovating the iPhone lineup. It also happens in the reverse, Apple innovates and the competition in return must improve. All the competition, Apple, Samsung and LG as well as other high end phones, keep improving because they are competing for customers at the high end of the market. Competition is a good thing.

    I am an iPhone user and have been since the iPhone 3g. I like the iOS interface. I have had Android tablets and personally don't care for how it's laid out and had to deal with bloatware that can't be removed. Others like Android and Google continues to improve the underlying layers.

    One problem that Samsung and LG have is they are not making as much profit from their phones where Apple continues to lead in that area. The computer and smartphone company graveyard is full of those that made decisions to sacrifice profit in return for increased market share. However Samsung and LG are huge corporate conglomerates with different divisions. Some divisions are extremely profitable and some not so much. The corporations as a whole can absorb all of the divisions and it will allow each one to function. Several Samsung divisions make a huge amount of money from Apple by manufacturing processors and displays for the iPhone, Apple Watch and iPads. Unfortunately for Samsung Apple continues to move toward other companies for those components however it won't affect the smartphone division.

    The most important thing is choice from competitors. Without it the technology wouldn't be where it's at today.
    singularity
  • Reply 42 of 51
    After all of this time the Samsung flagship remains visually similar (both in software and hardware) than the Apple offering. They've squandered all of this time to actually create their own product, instead of me-too'ing from Apple's design.
    It worked very well for them in the past.
  • Reply 43 of 51
    After all of this time the Samsung flagship remains visually similar (both in software and hardware) than the Apple offering. They've squandered all of this time to actually create their own product, instead of me-too'ing from Apple's design.
    It worked very well for them in the past.
    Past performance does not guarantee future results. 
  • Reply 44 of 51
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    And welcome to our new and painfully insecure first-timers from the Android camp! Come in! Pull up a seat and watch the upholstery while you're foaming at the mouth.
    They will fit in well with the painfully   insecure old timers  (from both camps)

    The difference being that the painfully insecure Apple fans only pollute their own forums. 
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 45 of 51
    joshajosha Posts: 901member
    The OP is saying that the S7 looks like the iPhone, and that Samsung squandered an opportunity to make something other than a 'me too' device. 
    Me too in looks only, but that's as far as many Android buyers look after seeing a low up front price.
    I know several people who bought a new older model android phone cheaply.
    None have succeeded in getting some online functions to work correctly.
    When they tell me with sad eyes,
      I have to honestly say I'm of no help as I don't know that technology and I'm not into spending any time learning how to debug it.
    Of course I suggest they see their carrier or phone seller for help, but they don't.

    With my  new iPhone5c I had an Email problem my low end carrier declined to help me with.
    They did suggest the Apple store, who fixed my carrier problem in a few minutes.

  • Reply 46 of 51
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    It worked very well for them in the past.
    Past performance does not guarantee future results. 
    Nor the opposite, yet every year we get yahoos crapping in Apple forums about their god sent new phone that will kill the Iphone (tm)
    I've never seen the opposite BTW.


    edited February 2016
  • Reply 47 of 51
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Rayz2016 said:
    It's likely smartphone manufacturers are running out of useful features to add to smartphones. I would think most consumers would be happy with minor improvements from year to year. It's only tech-heads who are asking for some futuristic improvements in smartphones every year. It might be nice to have thin, indestructible smartphones and batteries that last for days, but it's highly unlikely that's going to happen any time in the near future. No tech products take those types of leaps and can still be affordable by the masses. I'm curious as to what features a "show-stopping" smartphone might have. Most high-end smartphones are pretty impressive to me. I'm sure smartphones in general lead the tech industry in yearly tech advancements.

    Well, that is the truth of it I'm afraid. I'm not sure what new feature would encourage me to stump up for a new iPhone this year, but I'm always ready (with my credit card) to be proved wrong :-/

    And though (gorilla5/saphire) phone made completely of screen all around with no ports and all haptic/3d touch, which could reprogram any surface as any interface/button would be a hoot to own (and pretty small too). You'd need speaker that work accross that screen (not sure how that works), LiFO for fast data and wireless induction charging.

    I think it's just a failure of imagination that prevents us from seeing the future.



    edited February 2016
  • Reply 48 of 51
    foggyhill said:
    Past performance does not guarantee future results. 
    Nor the opposite, yet every year we get yahoos crapping in Apple forums about their god sent new phone that will kill the Iphone (tm)
    I've never seen the opposite BTW.


    I can't remember the last time anything was called an iPhone killer. That's ancient history technology wise. 
  • Reply 49 of 51
    Rayz2016 said:
    They will fit in well with the painfully   insecure old timers  (from both camps)

    The difference being that the painfully insecure Apple fans only pollute their own forums. 
    I will have to disagree with you there. Those that like  proselytising obout their choice of platform will be found on (almost) every forum. Ymmv 
  • Reply 50 of 51
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    tele1234 said:
    maestro64 said:
    Actually the only NAND today that has endurance of 100K cycles is SLC which is not used in phone or SD card, they all use the lower cost MLC and it is  more like 1500 cycles and heading to about 300. Also the faster you write to the card the worse the endurance becomes. I spent a lot of time with my job working with the technology and know the downside since we were consider using to for real time video recording, NAND does not hold up and it has nothing to do with the camera or ESD. The point about MircoSD cards is  the fact they are not the same quality of the NAND Apple is using inside the phone. The lowest quality NAND is used in SD and MircoSD cards, that is a fact. Yeah you can get better quality going to Class 10 certify SD cards, but consumer are not going to spend the money they going to use the cheapest memory they can find and expect it to work flawlessly. This was the issue we ran into, could not guaranty the consumer would spend the money and buy the right SD cards to guaranty performance. 

    Lastly, there is no NAND memory support 312 Mbytes/sec do you know how much data that is 2.4Gbits/sec. Most HD video is only streaming at 10 to 20 Mb/s That is Mbits/sec not Bytes. even if you meant bits not Bytes. Also it not the read speed that is the issue it is the write speed, and writing is far slower than reading and it get worse with time as the device is used over and over again the wear leveling algorithm slows things down even further.


    >the only NAND today that has endurance of 100K cycles is SLC which is not used in phone or SD card, they all use the lower cost MLC and it is  more like 1500 cycles and heading to about 300. 
    Try closer to 10,000 and up. True though, and SD cards tend to be MLC, sometimes TLC. CompactFlash and SD/SDHC cards are designed to transparently map out cells that go bad, or in some cases when they reach a predefined limit, to increase longevity. They're rated at 10-year odle data retention.


    >Also the faster you write to the card the worse the endurance becomes.
    I heard this myth years ago when SSDs were just becoming a thing, there's no evidence for it being the case. Are you referring to garbage collection? In which case yes, lack of it does cause very bad performance degradation. If you're curious, iOS doesn't support TRIM and Apple only introduced it for 3rd-party SSDs with El Capitan.

    >
    you can get better quality going to Class 10 certify SD cards
    Class is nothing to do with quality of the NAND, it's speed. You can get some mighty shit class 10s, but the faster are currently the UHS class 1 and 3 (which is confusing, I know, considering Class 2 was previously the slowest)

    >The point about MircoSD cards is  the fact they are not the same quality of the NAND Apple is using inside the phone.
    Apple uses MLC for its NAND in iPhones, and from the 6 and owards some used TLC. I don't think Apple considers it something worth talking about, as it's likely to make little difference to the end user and if you only use your phone a year, it's not likely to make a difference either way. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you can check your bits per cell and determine if it's TLC or MLC. Apple does not use SLC, and has little reason to. It's enterprise-class, with the longest data retention and looking at Amazon, 32GB SLC SSDs still cost upwards of $300.

    >there is no NAND memory support 312 Mbytes/sec
    Absolute bull. The reason SATA3 became a thing was to break the 3.0Gb/s cap, and many consumer SSDs are reaching into the 500MB/s and above.


    First before I get into this, I will share with you I work with defining NAND Spec and Roadmap for STB DVR products for the largest manufacture of STB in the world. I have direct OEM experience with NAND suppliers. I know the difference between Market hype and actually guaranty specifications. I negotiate the contract with the suppliers and I know exactly what they are willing to sign up for especially when it will cost them money to be wrong.

    no MLC NAND today has10 yr retention, it is more like 3 yrs or less I actually had supplier said it is no more than 30 days once the device has been completely wear leveled. All NAND today will fall of a cliff when it its the limits and could be graceful and other times catastrophic. Suppliers tried implementing a feature which would lock the device when it hit some predefined error rate thus not allowing you to write anymore data and protecting what was on devices. This never happen since had too much down side issue to the user.

    The subject of writing speed, In order to write to the NAND device faster you need to increase the write voltage , it has direct impact on the cell reliability, the higher the voltage the more life taken out of the cell at a given time. NAND is all about trade offs, you have to give up one thing for another. Also you keep talk about SSD. I am not talking about SSD,  SD card and the raw NAND are completely different. SSD has other things in the device to improve overall performance like DRAM/SRAM and very complex controllers,  some incorporate SLC NAND to improve reliability and performance. SD also have NAND controllers and not all NAND controllers are created equal. The best controllers are the ones designed by the NAND suppliers since they Know their NAND properties which other controller company do not know.

    Class has all to do with the quality of the actual NAND, NAND like any memory device goes through water fall process of sorting devices for various parameters. The best devices go to OEM customer and consumers get the worse of the bunch. For higher Class SD card they use a better grade of NAND which sorts out better in the parameters.

    The other thing to remember, Apple buys raw NAND chips and they use their own controller chips they design in house from the Israel company they bought a number of years ago. Endurance and performance of an NAND chip is highly dependent on the controller chip. The company that Apple bought at the time had the best NAND controller on the market. Their design was an separate chip, but companies were looking to use their design in the actually NAND chips.

    The rest of your point as confusing and SSD with raw NAND. and I am not going to go through all the technology which goes into an SSD to allow it hit SATA3 performance. TO keep it simple, in an SSD application you are not writing directly to the NAND, you have a SATA control an DRAM and a NAND controller all in the process.  I also handling the selection and sourcing of SSD as well as HDD for the same companies and Know these technologies very well and you confusing SSD spec with a NAND device.


    edited February 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.