I care. If the big boss of a company can't stand behind his own product, then what does that say about the product?
I never truly understand the intelligence of fandroids. For the last six years they keep buying Samsung Galaxys which is obviously inferior to the iPhones and iOS.
Yeah saw that. It's all about getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP, helping them move beyond China.
"....Getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP?" Samsung's IP!?
LOL. The first para of the Fortune article says: "Huawei said on Wednesday it has filed lawsuits against Samsung claiming infringement of smartphone patents, in the first such case by the Chinese firm against the world’s biggest mobile maker."
It's possible that Fortune is in the tank for Huawei, but it doubt it.
Yeah saw that. It's all about getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP, helping them move beyond China.
"....Getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP?" Samsung's IP!?
LOL. The first para of the Fortune article says: "Huawei said on Wednesday it has filed lawsuits against Samsung claiming infringement of smartphone patents, in the first such case by the Chinese firm against the world’s biggest mobile maker."
It's possible that Fortune is in the tank for Huawei, but it doubt it.
Well doubt no more good sir. Yup, it's all about forcing Sammy to license their IP to them in return for settling the lawsuit. "Unlike what you see in many such lawsuits, though, the Chinese tech leader isn't demanding a straight financial penalty -- it wants a cross-licensing deal where the two sides share patents, much like the ones it has with "dozens" of other partners."
I think it's kinda cool. Remember that Gates famously forbade any iOS devices in his home (his poor kids had to suffer that brown turd, the Zune). At least the thief-in-chief eats our dog food.
I think it's kinda cool. Remember that Gates famously forbade any iOS devices in his home (his poor kids had to suffer that brown turd, the Zune). At least the thief-in-chief eats our dog food.
Didn't Jobs forbid his own kids having iPads? Yeah, sometimes company leaders surprise us with their choices don't they.
"....Getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP?" Samsung's IP!?
LOL. The first para of the Fortune article says: "Huawei said on Wednesday it has filed lawsuits against Samsung claiming infringement of smartphone patents, in the first such case by the Chinese firm against the world’s biggest mobile maker."
It's possible that Fortune is in the tank for Huawei, but it doubt it.
Well doubt no more good sir. Yup, it's all about forcing Sammy to license their IP to them in return for settling the lawsuit. "Unlike what you see in many such lawsuits, though, the Chinese tech leader isn't demanding a straight financial penalty -- it wants a cross-licensing deal where the two sides share patents, much like the ones it has with "dozens" of other partners."
Hmm... That sentence does not seem to appear anywhere in the Fortune article to which the poster linked. Unless I totally missed it.
"....Getting a cross-license to Samsung's IP?" Samsung's IP!?
LOL. The first para of the Fortune article says: "Huawei said on Wednesday it has filed lawsuits against Samsung claiming infringement of smartphone patents, in the first such case by the Chinese firm against the world’s biggest mobile maker."
It's possible that Fortune is in the tank for Huawei, but it doubt it.
Well doubt no more good sir. Yup, it's all about forcing Sammy to license their IP to them in return for settling the lawsuit. "Unlike what you see in many such lawsuits, though, the Chinese tech leader isn't demanding a straight financial penalty -- it wants a cross-licensing deal where the two sides share patents, much like the ones it has with "dozens" of other partners."
Hmm... That sentence does not seem to appear anywhere in the Fortune article to which the poster linked. Unless I totally missed it.
Did you get that from some other article?
Yup. More than one article written by others mentioned that fact. Fortune isn't one of my personal go-to's.
Hmm... That sentence does not seem to appear anywhere in the Fortune article to which the poster linked. Unless I totally missed it.
Did you get that from some other article?
Yup. More than one article written by others mentioned that fact. Fortune isn't one of my personal go-to's.
Ah, back to your change-the-premise (by sneaking it in) posting style we've seen in the past.
You should know by now -- given how long you go back on this Forum -- that, when people do what you just did here to the OP, they usually provide a link to the new info/premise/fact they're referencing. (I am sure you will now, but I am just noting that you may have expected that someone wouldn't bother to note that).
Hmm... That sentence does not seem to appear anywhere in the Fortune article to which the poster linked. Unless I totally missed it.
Did you get that from some other article?
Yup. More than one article written by others mentioned that fact. Fortune isn't one of my personal go-to's.
Ah, back to your change-the-premise (by sneaking it in) posting style we've seen in the past.
You should know by now -- given how long you go back on this Forum -- that, when people do what you just did here to the OP, they usually provide a link to the new info/premise/fact they're referencing. (I am sure you will now, but I am just noting that you may have expected that someone wouldn't bother to note that).
I really don't know what you mean by "change-the-premise". Maybe you could explain a bit more clearly?
When I made the short comment earlier that you replied to I didn't think it needed citation. It was not the topic of the thread to begin with and was easy enough to verify for those with more than a passing interest, and I would think the OP himself to whom it was directed was curious enough to look into it further. I understand if your "LOL" now seems a bit silly in retrospect but it certainly wasn't my intent to cause any embarrassment if there was any. I didn't bother reading the Fortune article the OP linked since I'd already seen the news earlier in the day, and at more than one site. Fortune's write-up may well have been incomplete.
Yup. More than one article written by others mentioned that fact. Fortune isn't one of my personal go-to's.
Ah, back to your change-the-premise (by sneaking it in) posting style we've seen in the past.
You should know by now -- given how long you go back on this Forum -- that, when people do what you just did here to the OP, they usually provide a link to the new info/premise/fact they're referencing. (I am sure you will now, but I am just noting that you may have expected that someone wouldn't bother to note that).
And Gator wonders why I think he's a resilient troll.... In fact, there is no "wonder", he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. He has a very definite way of posting and responds in exactly the same way to all posts on Google; almost bot like (maybe Google is testing their AI right in this forum). If that is the case, their algorithm needs a bit of tuning ;-).
Yup. More than one article written by others mentioned that fact. Fortune isn't one of my personal go-to's.
Ah, back to your change-the-premise (by sneaking it in) posting style we've seen in the past.
You should know by now -- given how long you go back on this Forum -- that, when people do what you just did here to the OP, they usually provide a link to the new info/premise/fact they're referencing. (I am sure you will now, but I am just noting that you may have expected that someone wouldn't bother to note that).
And Gator wonders why I think he's a resilient troll... He has a very definite way of posting and responds in exactly the same way to all posts on Google
It was not a post having anything to do with Google, and no I have no concern whatsoever what you think of me so there's no wondering about it. FWIW tho I would guess you are not nearly so rude sounding in person. It's a pretty common way for strangers to treat each other on the internet tho which is too bad as it doesn't encourage discussion.
What I find funny about these articles is that the anti Apple morons always have excuses for these people using iPhone, "oh they're just studying the competition so it's not so bad!"
Now imagine if Tim Cook or Jony Ive were caught using a Galaxy phone?
"They're just testing the competition" excuse suddenly wouldn't be valid and the media would have an ABSOLUTE CIRCUS about it.
P.S. Fandroids all claim the S7 has the superior camera in the industry. Why is an android God snapping photos with an iPhone instead?
None of us want to admit it, but chances are we're all fanboys of something. Whether it's a particular brand of software, gadget, or anything else, we often rally behind companies and ideologies without even realizing it. Here's why we become fanboys and how to prevent it from happening to you.
By definition, a fanboy (or fangirl) is someone who defends their favorite phone/politician/city/browser/OS/game/console/genre/etc. while attacking everything else. Whether it's the blind trust in the next iPhone, a rallying argument about President Reagan, or a fervent argument for the PS4 over the Xbox One, we like to pick sides and stick to them. This alone is obnoxious, but it causes more than just minor annoyances: it means we attach ourselves to brands and can't think critically about the choices we make when shopping.
As a result we waste money and buy crappy products based solely on who makes them. There's no single reason this happens, but we do know a few things about basic human nature that explains why a lot of people tend to become fanboys.
All kinds of factors play into fanboyism, but there's one theory that explains where it starts: Social identity theory suggests that your idea of self-concept is derived from the social group you identify with. When you're part of a group, you're more likely to sympathize and treat other members of the group with rewards. Essentially, it helps you define "us" and "them," which our brain likes to do.
We define ourselves into groups in all kinds of ways, but one way is through the stuff we own. and it eventually transfers over to our group as a whole.
Part of who you are—and how you communicate that to others—is defined by what groups you belong to. And we naturally want to belong to high-status groups, right? Okay, fine, but everything is relative; a group isn’t high status unless there’s a low status group for it to be contrasted against. So not only do some people identify themselves as Xbox fans, they attack PlayStation owners in order to raise their status. This tendency is human nature, the researchers concluded, and a lot of other data support them. What’s more, we’re perfectly willing to do it at the drop of a hat.
These put-downs aren’t always a conscious choice, but once we pick a side, whether it's Windows vs OS X, Xbox vs Playstation, paid vs free software, or whatever else, we're going to create an "other." Once we do that, we're already accidentally on our way to fanboyism.
Another possible cause of fanboyism is what economists call the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy means you'll spend more money (and time) to salvage a purchase you've already made. but it fuels fanboyism just as well. And we keep looking for reasons to justify our previous purchase decisions because lo and behold we actually admit to ourselves we actually made a bad purchase decision. How would our fragile ego deal with that?
I also think Apple are doing some DSP to modify skin tones and I personally don't like the result. The audio recording quality with video on the iPhone 6S+ only uses a single mic and high compression and results are not very good.
While I'm not giving up my iPhone 6 for a Samsung anything, as a photographer who normally shoots with a Nikon D800 and high-end lenses, I'd say the Samsung easily won this comparison, although the results are more mixed IMO than in the reviewer's opinion.
The Samsung's color was generally better and the focusing was definitely faster. However, in that video where they're walking on the road, the iPhone had much more detail in the path even though it has lower resolution. In some of the face shots (not the ones in the car), the Galaxy image looked quite compressed and in spite of what the tester claimed, the iPhone actually had more detail, especially in the cheeks. The Galaxy tended to look "pasty" - like the noise reduction was turned up way too high or a bad Photoshop job. In the wide angle shot of the building, the vertical lines were far straighter on the iPhone than the Galaxy, especially on the left side, so there's far more distortion in the lens of the Galaxy. The night shots of the tree were obviously far superior on the Galaxy since the iPhone turned the bark green. And the skin tone in the car shots was far better on the Galaxy. The audio quality was also far superior on the Galaxy.
I don't think the audio quality issue is because there's multiple mics in the Galaxy - it just seemed like the Galaxy had better overall frequency response, although the distance from the phone may have been a factor, so we don't know if that aspect of the test was fair. The iPhone had a much thinner sound. Multiple mics is not always a good solution because you can get phasing issues that can result in cancellations when listened to in mono, although it would provide for stereo recording.
Personally, I think Apple has to up their game and push for improvements in the technology faster. They've certainly got the resources and headcount necessary. It seems to me that Apple has been making only incremental improvements. If Apple would put a little less emphasis on "thinness" and the look of a phone that most people put into a case anyway and more on the technology that people actually use, I think they (and we) would be better off. Besides, incremental improvements will cause consumers to buy new phones far less often. They've really got to change the game every year, so that consumers feel they have to buy a new phone (and even though i personally think it's wasteful and ridiculous to buy a new phone every year).
Apple doesn't publicly reveal (AFAIK) the sensor size in their phones, but it's reputed to be 4.89mm x 3.67mm in the iPhone 6. That's just 4.8% the size of an APS-C sensor and 2.1% the size of a full-frame sensor. They could really improve the quality substantially if they could find the room to increase the size of the sensor. IMO, it would be worth a thicker phone to accomplish that.
Schmidt carries both an iPhone 6s and a Samsung Galaxy S7, he toldCNBC during an event in Amsterdam. Asked which one he prefers, Schmidt gave the nod to Samsung.
"Samsung S7 is better. It has a better battery. And those of you who are iPhone users (know) I'm right," Schmidt is quoted as saying.
Perhaps the most surprising admission is not that Schmidt uses an iPhone -- he was spotted snapping photos with an iPhone earlier this year -- but that his Android device is made by Samsung, rather than Google.
Google partners with mobile phone makers to produce a line of Nexus devices, which run pure Android and are designed as showcase machines for the mobile platform. Nexus phones are held in mostly high regard, and it would seem a logical choice for Schmidt to carry the latest and greatest from his own firm.
Nexus phones are simply meant as solid reference designs for new Android features and versions. The OEM's would of course be expected to take that hardware set and add their own flair to it. Some will be more premium and fully-features while others might be more basic. So Nexus smartphones aren't meant to be the latest, greatest top-of-the-line premium Android handsets, tho they're certainly not shabby for the price. I'd expect some folks would be willing to pay more for larger/higher res screens, or more input choices and functions, or larger battery's or. . .
Seems like the narrative is being re-written now. Weren't Nexus supposed to be the premium Android experience phones?
Comments
LOL. The first para of the Fortune article says: "Huawei said on Wednesday it has filed lawsuits against Samsung claiming infringement of smartphone patents, in the first such case by the Chinese firm against the world’s biggest mobile maker."
It's possible that Fortune is in the tank for Huawei, but it doubt it.
"Unlike what you see in many such lawsuits, though, the Chinese tech leader isn't demanding a straight financial penalty -- it wants a cross-licensing deal where the two sides share patents, much like the ones it has with "dozens" of other partners."
Did you get that from some other article?
You should know by now -- given how long you go back on this Forum -- that, when people do what you just did here to the OP, they usually provide a link to the new info/premise/fact they're referencing. (I am sure you will now, but I am just noting that you may have expected that someone wouldn't bother to note that).
When I made the short comment earlier that you replied to I didn't think it needed citation. It was not the topic of the thread to begin with and was easy enough to verify for those with more than a passing interest, and I would think the OP himself to whom it was directed was curious enough to look into it further. I understand if your "LOL" now seems a bit silly in retrospect but it certainly wasn't my intent to cause any embarrassment if there was any. I didn't bother reading the Fortune article the OP linked since I'd already seen the news earlier in the day, and at more than one site. Fortune's write-up may well have been incomplete.
He has a very definite way of posting and responds in exactly the same way to all posts on Google; almost bot like (maybe Google is testing their AI right in this forum). If that is the case, their algorithm needs a bit of tuning ;-).
None of us want to admit it, but chances are we're all fanboys of something. Whether it's a particular brand of software, gadget, or anything else, we often rally behind companies and ideologies without even realizing it. Here's why we become fanboys and how to prevent it from happening to you.
By definition, a fanboy (or fangirl) is someone who defends their favorite phone/politician/city/browser/OS/game/console/genre/etc. while attacking everything else. Whether it's the blind trust in the next iPhone, a rallying argument about President Reagan, or a fervent argument for the PS4 over the Xbox One, we like to pick sides and stick to them. This alone is obnoxious, but it causes more than just minor annoyances: it means we attach ourselves to brands and can't think critically about the choices we make when shopping.
As a result we waste money and buy crappy products based solely on who makes them. There's no single reason this happens, but we do know a few things about basic human nature that explains why a lot of people tend to become fanboys.
All kinds of factors play into fanboyism, but there's one theory that explains where it starts: Social identity theory suggests that your idea of self-concept is derived from the social group you identify with. When you're part of a group, you're more likely to sympathize and treat other members of the group with rewards. Essentially, it helps you define "us" and "them," which our brain likes to do.
We define ourselves into groups in all kinds of ways, but one way is through the stuff we own. and it eventually transfers over to our group as a whole.
Part of who you are—and how you communicate that to others—is defined by what groups you belong to. And we naturally want to belong to high-status groups, right? Okay, fine, but everything is relative; a group isn’t high status unless there’s a low status group for it to be contrasted against. So not only do some people identify themselves as Xbox fans, they attack PlayStation owners in order to raise their status. This tendency is human nature, the researchers concluded, and a lot of other data support them. What’s more, we’re perfectly willing to do it at the drop of a hat.
These put-downs aren’t always a conscious choice, but once we pick a side, whether it's Windows vs OS X, Xbox vs Playstation, paid vs free software, or whatever else, we're going to create an "other." Once we do that, we're already accidentally on our way to fanboyism.
Another possible cause of fanboyism is what economists call the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy means you'll spend more money (and time) to salvage a purchase you've already made. but it fuels fanboyism just as well. And we keep looking for reasons to justify our previous purchase decisions because lo and behold we actually admit to ourselves we actually made a bad purchase decision. How would our fragile ego deal with that?
The Samsung's color was generally better and the focusing was definitely faster. However, in that video where they're walking on the road, the iPhone had much more detail in the path even though it has lower resolution. In some of the face shots (not the ones in the car), the Galaxy image looked quite compressed and in spite of what the tester claimed, the iPhone actually had more detail, especially in the cheeks. The Galaxy tended to look "pasty" - like the noise reduction was turned up way too high or a bad Photoshop job. In the wide angle shot of the building, the vertical lines were far straighter on the iPhone than the Galaxy, especially on the left side, so there's far more distortion in the lens of the Galaxy. The night shots of the tree were obviously far superior on the Galaxy since the iPhone turned the bark green. And the skin tone in the car shots was far better on the Galaxy. The audio quality was also far superior on the Galaxy.
I don't think the audio quality issue is because there's multiple mics in the Galaxy - it just seemed like the Galaxy had better overall frequency response, although the distance from the phone may have been a factor, so we don't know if that aspect of the test was fair. The iPhone had a much thinner sound. Multiple mics is not always a good solution because you can get phasing issues that can result in cancellations when listened to in mono, although it would provide for stereo recording.
Personally, I think Apple has to up their game and push for improvements in the technology faster. They've certainly got the resources and headcount necessary. It seems to me that Apple has been making only incremental improvements. If Apple would put a little less emphasis on "thinness" and the look of a phone that most people put into a case anyway and more on the technology that people actually use, I think they (and we) would be better off. Besides, incremental improvements will cause consumers to buy new phones far less often. They've really got to change the game every year, so that consumers feel they have to buy a new phone (and even though i personally think it's wasteful and ridiculous to buy a new phone every year).
Apple doesn't publicly reveal (AFAIK) the sensor size in their phones, but it's reputed to be 4.89mm x 3.67mm in the iPhone 6. That's just 4.8% the size of an APS-C sensor and 2.1% the size of a full-frame sensor. They could really improve the quality substantially if they could find the room to increase the size of the sensor. IMO, it would be worth a thicker phone to accomplish that.
Seems like the narrative is being re-written now. Weren't Nexus supposed to be the premium Android experience phones?