That is illogical. Not being the largest power drain on a system doesn?t mean that it doesn?t have an affect. iPhones running in EDGE(2G) mode will drain faster than phones running on WCDMA(3G). That disproves your implication that CDMA-based phones are on equal ground with GSM-based phones both running on 3G.
The iphone runs 12 hours of talk time on 2G and 5 hours of talk time on 3G.
There is a big difference in battery consumption between TDMA-based GSM/EDGE vs. CDMA-based technologies. But once, you get into CDMA-based technologies --- the difference is quite small between the 2G version of CDMA and 3G version of CDMA.
The iphone runs 12 hours of talk time on 2G and 5 hours of talk time on 3G.
That was my point. You implied that the LCD display power consumption was great enough to make the 2G v 3g power consumption trival. At 12hrs v. 5 hrs, it?s obviously not.
There is a big difference in battery consumption between TDMA-based GSM/EDGE vs. CDMA-based technologies. But once, you get into CDMA-based technologies --- the difference is quite small between the 2G version of CDMA and 3G version of CDMA.
So GSM and the iPhone are better than CDMA and the Moto Droid? Considering that you only 6 hours of talk time on CDMA(2G) and get 12 hours on GSM(2G).
That was my point. You implied that the LCD display power consumption was great enough to make the 2G v 3g power consumption trival. At 12hrs v. 5 hrs, it’s obviously not.
So GSM and the iPhone are better than CDMA and the Moto Droid? Considering that you only 6 hours of talk time on CDMA(2G) and get 12 hours on GSM(2G).
Except that an iphone in 2G is nearly useless --- and GSM/EDGE can't do voice and data at the same time as well.
And UMTS/HSDPA has a higher spectral efficiency than GSM/EDGE --- which means that if you can't make a voice call on 3G, chances are you also can't make a voice call on 2G.
Except that an iphone in 2G is nearly useless --- and GSM/EDGE can't do voice and data at the same time as well.
Now you are twisting the argument. This is about more powerful chips using more power. Not about whether GSM/EDGE inability to do voice and data at the same time, which is the same as CDMA/EVDO and makes it a non-starter for many with WCDMA phones.
The Moto Droid has 6 hours of talk time and only 270 hours of idle time compared to the iPhone that has 5 hours of talk time on 3G, 12 hours on 2G and 300 hours of idle time. The toll the OS and HW have on the battery in comparison to the iPhone in idle also has to be measured against the battery’s mAh, which I don’t know. But the largest factor isn’t which system is more efficent, but which device has balanced the the features with capabilities the best.
I feel bad for Motorola that Verizon had to tell them to make it less “blocky” so that is appeals to more women. It’s quite sad because it’s still so blocky that it looks like it was designed in Russia during the Cold War. Motorola has a new, young (46yo) CEO, one that used to be an engineer for Qualcom. While this isn’t a good sign for Motorola, so far the OS is shaping up nicely to eat away at the low-end smartphone market.
Quote:
And UMTS/HSDPA has a higher spectral efficiency than GSM/EDGE --- which means that if you can't make a voice call on 3G, chances are you also can't make a voice call on 2G.
That isn’t even close to the truth. WCDMA being implemented well after GSM/EDGE means that both AT&T and T-Mobile have a lot more GSM/EDGE coverage in the US than they do WCDMA.
It appear the Motorola Droid has a 1400mAh battery while the iPhone 3GS has a 1150mAh battery. That is an 18% increase in size for a 17% increase in duration. It looks like on paper the iPhone beats in in power managment. Considering that is ONLY the 3GS’ talk time over a 3G radio compared to the Droid’s talk time over a 2G radio, that doesn’t look good for the Droid.
Have to wonder how it will do with a real world comparison with the Droid actually taxing that EVDO.
On top of that, the iPhone 3GS’ stated times are legitimate. I don’t know about cell phone makers, but PC makers don’t use realistic usage for determining times like Apple and Sony do.
Personally, I am all about battery time, so I bought a case that has a battery built in. I get 2x the stated usage without having to remove a flimsy cover over a compromised device to replace with a battery that is equally as annoying to charge as I’d then have to repeat the charging process for the 2nd battery in the middle of the night. Mophie Juice Pack Air FTW!
As you said it --- it is a balance. The Droid has a bigger screen with higher resolution, has a bigger battery, has a battery door --- so it's going to be thicker, heavier than the 3GS.
Didn't the iphone community went mad in July on the 3GS battery life issue?
Ummm... I think Sprint's shareholders will in the final end kick the shit out of their CEO to divert his technological strategy towards LTE and to get iPhone as all normal people did.
By the way, how about the Pre? Remember the Pre? Sure you do-- there was a thread very much like this one, about how the mightiness of it showed Apple how it was done, how customers would begin to see how Apple was dropping behind the curve, what with their inability to multi-task (remember multi-tasking? Really, really, really important there for a little while) and stale UI and lack of customization options.
The Pre was amazing, astonishing, fantastic, almost unbelievable.
Forgotten. On to the next big thing. After all, anyone who can't see how iPhone killer v.x is pure sex is just a fanboy.
In Sprints? defense, the Pre and cheaper plan offers may be helping them maintain subs. I only grabbed the first quarterly report I could find. In May 2008 Sprint reported a "loss of 1.09 million subscribers, the vast majority of whom where standard, ?post-paid? subscribers.? They lost less money for the quarter, but it was still a substantial loss.
It?s a arterial wound. They may be bleeding fast, and they might no survive, but you can stanch it to a point that it?ll give you a few minutes of life. The Pre might be doing this for Sprint. Remember, Sprint was mortally wounded well before the Pre?s existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
By the way, how about the Pre? Remember the Pre? Sure you do-- there was a thread very much like this one, about how the mightiness of it showed Apple how it was done, how customers would begin to see how Apple was dropping behind the curve, what with their inability to multi-task (remember multi-tasking? Really, really, really important there for a little while) and stale UI and lack of customization options.
The Pre was amazing, astonishing, fantastic, almost unbelievable.
Forgotten. On to the next big thing. After all, anyone who can't see how iPhone killer v.x is pure sex is just a fanboy.
In Palm?s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
In Palm?s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
Sure, I think the Pre is pretty nice. But the Pre fans went way past that. The Pre was so obviously, massively, decisively superior that it would quickly become the gold standard. It was a staple of the tech press and blogs for several months. A home run for Palm.
What I think is amazing is that it as if none of that ever happened. Total amnesia. Just, Pre who?
Which is why I take big bursts of new release ecstasy with a grain of salt. The Droid might be a huge hit for Verizon, or it might do just OK. Android in general may come to be a dominant force in smart phones, or it might be just another player.
Tech blogs and marketing hype can give the impression that a given piece of tech is a huge deal, then you find out that most people have never heard of it. So: when I read about Droid I remember the Pre.
CNBC?s Goldman on Apple iPhone analysts: Everybody really knows the game is over and who won
RBC's wireless analyst this morning Mike Abramsky and team "met with top execs at Apple and came away smitten," Jim Goldman reports for CNBC. "And for good reason: it seems Wall Street is coming around to the fundamentals that many of us have been preaching."
Following the meeting, Abramsky wrote in a note to clients, "'The discussions reaffirmed our Outperform thesis: iPhone Channel Leverage Remains High. Despite intensifying competition (Android, RIM, etc.) Apple continues to enjoy strong global carrier interest in iPhone...' He adds that iPhone's secret weapons include: 'Vertical integration (hardware/software) and iTunes ecosystem remain a significant competitive advantage over contenders, with evolving innovations pending, applications leadership and content ecosystem,'" Goldman reports.
As for Android, '"'Multiple configurations' is viewed as a disadvantage to application developers, vs. Apple's single-platform model,' he writes. Apple's App Store continues to be the key differentiator with 90,000 titles versus the Android's 12,000... [plus] Apple has something none of the other smart phone makers do, namely everything else: Macs, iPods, an OS for computers and phones, a robust retailing strategy, iTunes, the App Store, the intangible of market mojo, and the executive talent to pull it off," Goldman reports.
Goldman reports, "On the operating system side, Abramsky says, 'Windows 7? Bring It.' The upgrade cycle is another opportunity to get consumers and enterprise customers in a shopping mode again, and if they're gonna crack open the checkbook, why not spend the cash on a Mac?"
Much more in the full article, in which Goldman explains that "watching Apple [iPhone] at this stage is like watching 'Sunday Night Football.' It's a total blow-out late in the fourth quarter and yet the commentators try to come up with scoring possibilities and formulas to make the game a little more interesting, to hold the viewer, even though everybody really knows the game is over and who won."
First and foremost I'm a Mac user. The iPhone is rock solid with the Mac so everything just plain works whereas the Android requires several additional programs.
Second, I've seen enough of the two interfaces to know that I like both but I still give the iPhone the edge.
Third, Currently there are more useable apps available for the iPhone although that will likely change.
So for me I still would prefer the iPhone but could accept the Android at least for now.
I just wish that Apple would announce when they would make the iPhone available to Verizon but we know they won't. Personally I think it's in their best interest to do so as it would take some of the wind out of Androids sails because there are many that would likely wait if they knew for sure the iPhone was coming next June or July. Without that knowledge many will likely move to the Droid.
What I don't want to do is switch to AT&T, thus loosing my 15 year seniority with Verizon, then have the iPhone come out next Summer. Since I've not done a phone upgraded for 5 even if I get a Droid now I fairly sure I can get Verizon to give me the iPhone at the lower price next summer.
Seen, but not used? Android 2.0's first venture into the wild is on the Droid. Sure there's some videos out there that show bits and pieces of it, but you can't really base it all on that can you? Just one more week until user reviews start rolling in! But I do understand the appeal for the iPhone, since you're a Mac user (easier integration). I'm a 7 user, so I don't have the same issues as you.
The problem right now is that Verizon and AT&T are both switching to a new standard, LTE. No one really know how long the testing phase will take. It's not like they can flip a switch and LTE works nation-wide. That's the real reason I think why there's no firm dates being announced. Add to that savings from not having to create a CDMA version, just to switch out for another standard. I'm thinking more like 2012 for the iPhone to get over to Verizon.
And, how much of our digital lives are we willing to let Google have access to? If you look to their Maps Nav software for direction to Johnny's Bike Shop, are you willing to be peppered with ads for bicycles, helmets, and gear thru Google's ad services, mapping software, and mail platforms? Don't get me wrong, Google is great and they make some cool products. But folks, they make money by selling ads. Don't kid yourselves, everything else they do is about data mining to sell more ads and get more clicks.
Yes. I would rather see ads for stuff I want than useless crap like teeth whitener or penis enlargement. Or Windows software. So, yes.
I love Google. If Apple doesn't pull its head out of its ass, Google will be the Windows to Apple's MacOS. The iPhone will be that phone people remember....but only 5% of people now use...Droid will be on 70-80% of phones. Game over AAPL! Goddamnit how can Steve make the same mistake AGAIN.
I want this Google Map app, anyway. I want an iPhone and cool Google apps. Hopefully jailbreaking can add it, if so I will. I assume probably half of people with an iPhone jailbroke it already anyway. Apple is being so stupid, just like Verizon. Why must Apple always F*CK things up for a great product and idea. Why!!!
They didn't **** it up because the majority of iPhone users are not like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic
I want this Google Map app, anyway. I want an iPhone and cool Google apps. Hopefully jailbreaking can add it, if so I will. I assume probably half of people with an iPhone jailbroke it already anyway. Apple is being so stupid, just like Verizon. Why must Apple always F*CK things up for a great product and idea. Why!!!
This app looks really cool. The kind of cool (and useful) most people want. Most people also wouldn't want a platform that can't access the newest/coolest Google stuff. Android is Windows, iPhone is MacOS. If Apple had played it right in the 90s, Microsoft would be an awesome Mac developer, not the goliath it is now.
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass. It's so sad they are making the same mistake. Sorry to be melodramatic but I want an iPhone this year and five years from now, I don't want to see it be the next Newton product!
This is only vapourware at this point, but the UI is pretty slick. I don’t think they could make it that smooth with so many UI elements, but maybe Android has grown in ways that I am not yet aware. So far the iPhone is the smoothest device I’ve tested.
Here is a decent comparison of Moto Droid v iPhone 3GS. The reviewer champions the Droid as the ultimate winner, but his comparison is fair. We can’t all have the same personal choice. The browser tests had interesting results considering both devices are essentially the same HW and use essentially the same browser engine.
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass!
AAPL Market Cap: $169.78B
GOOG Market Cap: $169.72B
You imply that Google is so big that they can destroy Apple, which has never been the case. On top of that, Apple is valued slightly more than Google is. So exactly how will Google’s size crush Apple?
This app looks really cool. The kind of cool (and useful) most people want. Most people also wouldn't want a platform that can't access the newest/coolest Google stuff. Android is Windows, iPhone is MacOS. If Apple had played it right in the 90s, Microsoft would be an awesome Mac developer, not the goliath it is now.
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass. It's so sad they are making the same mistake. Sorry to be melodramatic but I want an iPhone this year and five years from now, I don't want to see it be the next Newton product!
Except that Google has said they're bringing this app to the iPhone. Why wouldn't they? They're not device manufacturers, they only wrote Android to make sure Google services get as big a piece of the mobile pie as possible. If Google services do well on the iPhone, it's still a win for Google.
It is, in fact, pretty melodramatic to imagine that because Apple gets the Google apps a little while after Android gets them that they're on the fast track to irrelevance. The smartphone market isn't the PC wars redux; vertical integration actually makes a lot more sense for handsets, where tight hardware/software integration can have a huge impact on the user experience.
Plus, the original Mac had nothing like the iTunes ecosystem, it never had the huge app advantage that the iPhone enjoys, and Google isn't MS. They're big, and they're ambitious, but there's just too many differences between the cusp of the personal computer revolution and now to make easy analogies.
In Sprints’ defense, the Pre and cheaper plan offers may be helping them maintain subs. I only grabbed the first quarterly report I could find. In May 2008 Sprint reported a "loss of 1.09 million subscribers, the vast majority of whom where standard, “post-paid” subscribers.” They lost less money for the quarter, but it was still a substantial loss.
It’s a arterial wound. They may be bleeding fast, and they might no survive, but you can stanch it to a point that it’ll give you a few minutes of life. The Pre might be doing this for Sprint. Remember, Sprint was mortally wounded well before the Pre’s existence.
In Palm’s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
I'm not so sure what the Pre is doing for them.
For the first three months, Palm is estimated to have sold about 550,000 phones to Sprint, who then sells them to their customers, and to Best Buy, WalMart, Radio Shack, etc.
but only 375,000 of them had been sold to customers who activated their units.
That means that there were 175,000 Pre's in the channel for this quarter. That's very bad, as they were sitting on shelves, and the word is that Pre sales were still dropping.
Even if Palm sells a fair number this quarter, those 175,000 phones are already on their books for last quarter, and so this quarter's numbers won't reflect them, which will be bad for them.
If the Pre doesn't sell very well this quarter, they're in big trouble.
How is the Pixi going to do when the Pre is $149 at Sprint, $79 at Walbaum, and free at O2?
Comments
That is illogical. Not being the largest power drain on a system doesn?t mean that it doesn?t have an affect. iPhones running in EDGE(2G) mode will drain faster than phones running on WCDMA(3G). That disproves your implication that CDMA-based phones are on equal ground with GSM-based phones both running on 3G.
The iphone runs 12 hours of talk time on 2G and 5 hours of talk time on 3G.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
There is a big difference in battery consumption between TDMA-based GSM/EDGE vs. CDMA-based technologies. But once, you get into CDMA-based technologies --- the difference is quite small between the 2G version of CDMA and 3G version of CDMA.
The iphone runs 12 hours of talk time on 2G and 5 hours of talk time on 3G.
That was my point. You implied that the LCD display power consumption was great enough to make the 2G v 3g power consumption trival. At 12hrs v. 5 hrs, it?s obviously not.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
There is a big difference in battery consumption between TDMA-based GSM/EDGE vs. CDMA-based technologies. But once, you get into CDMA-based technologies --- the difference is quite small between the 2G version of CDMA and 3G version of CDMA.
So GSM and the iPhone are better than CDMA and the Moto Droid? Considering that you only 6 hours of talk time on CDMA(2G) and get 12 hours on GSM(2G).
That was my point. You implied that the LCD display power consumption was great enough to make the 2G v 3g power consumption trival. At 12hrs v. 5 hrs, it’s obviously not.
So GSM and the iPhone are better than CDMA and the Moto Droid? Considering that you only 6 hours of talk time on CDMA(2G) and get 12 hours on GSM(2G).
Except that an iphone in 2G is nearly useless --- and GSM/EDGE can't do voice and data at the same time as well.
And UMTS/HSDPA has a higher spectral efficiency than GSM/EDGE --- which means that if you can't make a voice call on 3G, chances are you also can't make a voice call on 2G.
Except that an iphone in 2G is nearly useless --- and GSM/EDGE can't do voice and data at the same time as well.
Now you are twisting the argument. This is about more powerful chips using more power. Not about whether GSM/EDGE inability to do voice and data at the same time, which is the same as CDMA/EVDO and makes it a non-starter for many with WCDMA phones.
The Moto Droid has 6 hours of talk time and only 270 hours of idle time compared to the iPhone that has 5 hours of talk time on 3G, 12 hours on 2G and 300 hours of idle time. The toll the OS and HW have on the battery in comparison to the iPhone in idle also has to be measured against the battery’s mAh, which I don’t know. But the largest factor isn’t which system is more efficent, but which device has balanced the the features with capabilities the best.
I feel bad for Motorola that Verizon had to tell them to make it less “blocky” so that is appeals to more women. It’s quite sad because it’s still so blocky that it looks like it was designed in Russia during the Cold War. Motorola has a new, young (46yo) CEO, one that used to be an engineer for Qualcom. While this isn’t a good sign for Motorola, so far the OS is shaping up nicely to eat away at the low-end smartphone market.
And UMTS/HSDPA has a higher spectral efficiency than GSM/EDGE --- which means that if you can't make a voice call on 3G, chances are you also can't make a voice call on 2G.
That isn’t even close to the truth. WCDMA being implemented well after GSM/EDGE means that both AT&T and T-Mobile have a lot more GSM/EDGE coverage in the US than they do WCDMA.
Have to wonder how it will do with a real world comparison with the Droid actually taxing that EVDO.
On top of that, the iPhone 3GS’ stated times are legitimate. I don’t know about cell phone makers, but PC makers don’t use realistic usage for determining times like Apple and Sony do.
Personally, I am all about battery time, so I bought a case that has a battery built in. I get 2x the stated usage without having to remove a flimsy cover over a compromised device to replace with a battery that is equally as annoying to charge as I’d then have to repeat the charging process for the 2nd battery in the middle of the night. Mophie Juice Pack Air FTW!
As you said it --- it is a balance. The Droid has a bigger screen with higher resolution, has a bigger battery, has a battery door --- so it's going to be thicker, heavier than the 3GS.
Didn't the iphone community went mad in July on the 3GS battery life issue?
Guess the Pre isn?t helping.
http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoen...oom&ID=1348150
The Pre was amazing, astonishing, fantastic, almost unbelievable.
Forgotten. On to the next big thing. After all, anyone who can't see how iPhone killer v.x is pure sex is just a fanboy.
Sprint Loses $478M, 135,000 Subscribers in Quarter
Guess the Pre isn?t helping.
http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoen...oom&ID=1348150
In Sprints? defense, the Pre and cheaper plan offers may be helping them maintain subs. I only grabbed the first quarterly report I could find. In May 2008 Sprint reported a "loss of 1.09 million subscribers, the vast majority of whom where standard, ?post-paid? subscribers.? They lost less money for the quarter, but it was still a substantial loss.
It?s a arterial wound. They may be bleeding fast, and they might no survive, but you can stanch it to a point that it?ll give you a few minutes of life. The Pre might be doing this for Sprint. Remember, Sprint was mortally wounded well before the Pre?s existence.
By the way, how about the Pre? Remember the Pre? Sure you do-- there was a thread very much like this one, about how the mightiness of it showed Apple how it was done, how customers would begin to see how Apple was dropping behind the curve, what with their inability to multi-task (remember multi-tasking? Really, really, really important there for a little while) and stale UI and lack of customization options.
The Pre was amazing, astonishing, fantastic, almost unbelievable.
Forgotten. On to the next big thing. After all, anyone who can't see how iPhone killer v.x is pure sex is just a fanboy.
In Palm?s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
In Palm?s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
Sure, I think the Pre is pretty nice. But the Pre fans went way past that. The Pre was so obviously, massively, decisively superior that it would quickly become the gold standard. It was a staple of the tech press and blogs for several months. A home run for Palm.
What I think is amazing is that it as if none of that ever happened. Total amnesia. Just, Pre who?
Which is why I take big bursts of new release ecstasy with a grain of salt. The Droid might be a huge hit for Verizon, or it might do just OK. Android in general may come to be a dominant force in smart phones, or it might be just another player.
Tech blogs and marketing hype can give the impression that a given piece of tech is a huge deal, then you find out that most people have never heard of it. So: when I read about Droid I remember the Pre.
CNBC?s Goldman on Apple iPhone analysts: Everybody really knows the game is over and who won
RBC's wireless analyst this morning Mike Abramsky and team "met with top execs at Apple and came away smitten," Jim Goldman reports for CNBC. "And for good reason: it seems Wall Street is coming around to the fundamentals that many of us have been preaching."
Following the meeting, Abramsky wrote in a note to clients, "'The discussions reaffirmed our Outperform thesis: iPhone Channel Leverage Remains High. Despite intensifying competition (Android, RIM, etc.) Apple continues to enjoy strong global carrier interest in iPhone...' He adds that iPhone's secret weapons include: 'Vertical integration (hardware/software) and iTunes ecosystem remain a significant competitive advantage over contenders, with evolving innovations pending, applications leadership and content ecosystem,'" Goldman reports.
As for Android, '"'Multiple configurations' is viewed as a disadvantage to application developers, vs. Apple's single-platform model,' he writes. Apple's App Store continues to be the key differentiator with 90,000 titles versus the Android's 12,000... [plus] Apple has something none of the other smart phone makers do, namely everything else: Macs, iPods, an OS for computers and phones, a robust retailing strategy, iTunes, the App Store, the intangible of market mojo, and the executive talent to pull it off," Goldman reports.
Goldman reports, "On the operating system side, Abramsky says, 'Windows 7? Bring It.' The upgrade cycle is another opportunity to get consumers and enterprise customers in a shopping mode again, and if they're gonna crack open the checkbook, why not spend the cash on a Mac?"
Much more in the full article, in which Goldman explains that "watching Apple [iPhone] at this stage is like watching 'Sunday Night Football.' It's a total blow-out late in the fourth quarter and yet the commentators try to come up with scoring possibilities and formulas to make the game a little more interesting, to hold the viewer, even though everybody really knows the game is over and who won."
That's simple.
First and foremost I'm a Mac user. The iPhone is rock solid with the Mac so everything just plain works whereas the Android requires several additional programs.
Second, I've seen enough of the two interfaces to know that I like both but I still give the iPhone the edge.
Third, Currently there are more useable apps available for the iPhone although that will likely change.
So for me I still would prefer the iPhone but could accept the Android at least for now.
I just wish that Apple would announce when they would make the iPhone available to Verizon but we know they won't. Personally I think it's in their best interest to do so as it would take some of the wind out of Androids sails because there are many that would likely wait if they knew for sure the iPhone was coming next June or July. Without that knowledge many will likely move to the Droid.
What I don't want to do is switch to AT&T, thus loosing my 15 year seniority with Verizon, then have the iPhone come out next Summer. Since I've not done a phone upgraded for 5 even if I get a Droid now I fairly sure I can get Verizon to give me the iPhone at the lower price next summer.
Seen, but not used? Android 2.0's first venture into the wild is on the Droid. Sure there's some videos out there that show bits and pieces of it, but you can't really base it all on that can you? Just one more week until user reviews start rolling in! But I do understand the appeal for the iPhone, since you're a Mac user (easier integration). I'm a 7 user, so I don't have the same issues as you.
The problem right now is that Verizon and AT&T are both switching to a new standard, LTE. No one really know how long the testing phase will take. It's not like they can flip a switch and LTE works nation-wide. That's the real reason I think why there's no firm dates being announced. Add to that savings from not having to create a CDMA version, just to switch out for another standard. I'm thinking more like 2012 for the iPhone to get over to Verizon.
Droid = Pre Killer, not iPhone Killer.
And, how much of our digital lives are we willing to let Google have access to? If you look to their Maps Nav software for direction to Johnny's Bike Shop, are you willing to be peppered with ads for bicycles, helmets, and gear thru Google's ad services, mapping software, and mail platforms? Don't get me wrong, Google is great and they make some cool products. But folks, they make money by selling ads. Don't kid yourselves, everything else they do is about data mining to sell more ads and get more clicks.
Yes. I would rather see ads for stuff I want than useless crap like teeth whitener or penis enlargement. Or Windows software. So, yes.
I love Google. If Apple doesn't pull its head out of its ass, Google will be the Windows to Apple's MacOS. The iPhone will be that phone people remember....but only 5% of people now use...Droid will be on 70-80% of phones. Game over AAPL! Goddamnit how can Steve make the same mistake AGAIN.
I want this Google Map app, anyway. I want an iPhone and cool Google apps. Hopefully jailbreaking can add it, if so I will. I assume probably half of people with an iPhone jailbroke it already anyway. Apple is being so stupid, just like Verizon. Why must Apple always F*CK things up for a great product and idea. Why!!!
I want this Google Map app, anyway. I want an iPhone and cool Google apps. Hopefully jailbreaking can add it, if so I will. I assume probably half of people with an iPhone jailbroke it already anyway. Apple is being so stupid, just like Verizon. Why must Apple always F*CK things up for a great product and idea. Why!!!
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass. It's so sad they are making the same mistake. Sorry to be melodramatic but I want an iPhone this year and five years from now, I don't want to see it be the next Newton product!
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass!
This app looks really cool. The kind of cool (and useful) most people want. Most people also wouldn't want a platform that can't access the newest/coolest Google stuff. Android is Windows, iPhone is MacOS. If Apple had played it right in the 90s, Microsoft would be an awesome Mac developer, not the goliath it is now.
Look at it this way: how big is GOOG? AAPL? Yeah, that's right. Google could and possibly will crush Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't pull his head out of his ass. It's so sad they are making the same mistake. Sorry to be melodramatic but I want an iPhone this year and five years from now, I don't want to see it be the next Newton product!
Except that Google has said they're bringing this app to the iPhone. Why wouldn't they? They're not device manufacturers, they only wrote Android to make sure Google services get as big a piece of the mobile pie as possible. If Google services do well on the iPhone, it's still a win for Google.
It is, in fact, pretty melodramatic to imagine that because Apple gets the Google apps a little while after Android gets them that they're on the fast track to irrelevance. The smartphone market isn't the PC wars redux; vertical integration actually makes a lot more sense for handsets, where tight hardware/software integration can have a huge impact on the user experience.
Plus, the original Mac had nothing like the iTunes ecosystem, it never had the huge app advantage that the iPhone enjoys, and Google isn't MS. They're big, and they're ambitious, but there's just too many differences between the cusp of the personal computer revolution and now to make easy analogies.
In Sprints’ defense, the Pre and cheaper plan offers may be helping them maintain subs. I only grabbed the first quarterly report I could find. In May 2008 Sprint reported a "loss of 1.09 million subscribers, the vast majority of whom where standard, “post-paid” subscribers.” They lost less money for the quarter, but it was still a substantial loss.
It’s a arterial wound. They may be bleeding fast, and they might no survive, but you can stanch it to a point that it’ll give you a few minutes of life. The Pre might be doing this for Sprint. Remember, Sprint was mortally wounded well before the Pre’s existence.
In Palm’s defense, the Pre might be a shitty phone, but WebOS has some definite potential. As a first release mobile OS it looks to be doing better than the Android on the HTC G1 did. There are some cues I hope Apple takes from WebOS for the iPhone OS v4.0.
I'm not so sure what the Pre is doing for them.
For the first three months, Palm is estimated to have sold about 550,000 phones to Sprint, who then sells them to their customers, and to Best Buy, WalMart, Radio Shack, etc.
but only 375,000 of them had been sold to customers who activated their units.
That means that there were 175,000 Pre's in the channel for this quarter. That's very bad, as they were sitting on shelves, and the word is that Pre sales were still dropping.
Even if Palm sells a fair number this quarter, those 175,000 phones are already on their books for last quarter, and so this quarter's numbers won't reflect them, which will be bad for them.
If the Pre doesn't sell very well this quarter, they're in big trouble.
How is the Pixi going to do when the Pre is $149 at Sprint, $79 at Walbaum, and free at O2?