Verizon corrects Droid X ad error touting 720p screen
A Verizon Wireless web promo for its Droid-branded Android phones originally promoted the upcoming Droid X as having a "720p screen," stoking some brief excitement that iPhone 4 and its Retina Display might be eclipsed, at least until the error was corrected.
Verizon's Flash-based web promo presented a series of mouse-over animations that highlighted the big new phone's 4.3 inch display and HDMI output (a hardware feature still missing from any of Apple's iOS devices).
However, it also specified the new model as having a "720p screen," leading some sites to report that the new phone "might carry a resolution of 1280x720 pixels." The actual resolution of the new Droid X is 854x480, the same resolution as the original Droid released last winter, but on a bigger screen that delivers less pixel density.
A variety of new Android phones are now targeting the supersized 4.3 inch screen form factor (including Sprint's HTC Evo), hoping that customers will be impressed by girth rather than screen clarity, quality and manufacturing competency. In its race to differentiate itself in the Android landscape, HTC's Evo has raced to market features including 4G networking, a WiFi hotspot, Adobe Flash support, and video calling, all things that iPhone 4 does not do.
Specs touted above reality
While Evo hardware features sound great, the advertised numbers (like Verizon's inaccurate "720p screen") and features of Android phones aren't necessarily living up to their hype. For example, the HTC Evo really only supports WiMAX 802.16e, not the minimum WiMAX 802.16m standard that is the actual minimum for classification as a 4G network, making its claim to be the first 4G phone dubious. Sprint doesn't even offer 4G in many cities, and even in the few where it's available the service inhales extraordinary battery life.
A review by David Pogue in the New York Times notes that Evo's WiFi hotspot feature "eats through a full battery charge in as little as one hour. [?] And beware: the hot spot feature costs an extra $30 a month."
In regards to Flash, Pogue clarifies that "Evo runs something called Flash Lite, which is marketing-ese for, 'Sometimes works and sometimes doesn?t,'" noting that while it plays some videos that iOS devices can't, it mostly just delivers all the blinking ads on the web while it doesn't work with a variety of other Flash videos and content, including CNN and Hulu content.
And as for Evo's video calling, Pogue notes, "this feature is head-bangingly unstable. After two days of fiddling, downloading and uninstalling apps, manually force-quitting programs and waiting for servers to be upgraded, I finally got video calling to work ? sort of. Sometimes there was only audio and a black screen, sometimes only a freeze-frame; at best, the video was blocky and the audio delay absurd." Making calls requires installing third party software, unlike Apple's FaceTime solution.
Android loses display battle in feature war with Apple
The hardware-centric hype of Android is being used to make up for major deficiencies in Google's Android OS itself, writes Jack Shedd, who documented his own experiences with Android before giving up and making plans to head back to the Palm Pre.
"There?s a sense, not just from reviewers, but from fans of the device, that what Android really needs is just killer hardware," Shedd wrote. "Which is just absolute horse [poo]."
"I?ve been subjected to every inconsistency, idiocy and poor quality of thought Android has to offer," he complained. "Every 'unique to Android' feature seems, at best, a technological demo. Best I can explain it, Android is how an iPhone would work if Google designed it."
Screen resolution has been a notable exception where Android phones were decisively leading Apple's offerings, at least until the comparison changed from last year's iPhone 3GS to the new iPhone 4. Last winter's Verizon Motorola Droid introduced a 854x480 resolution screen with a density of 265ppi, significantly higher in both resolution and pixel density than last summer's iPhone 3GS and its 480x320 screen with a 163ppi density.
However, Apple is now launching the new Retina Display of iPhone 4, which delivers a resolution of 960x640 at a density of 326ppi. New Android big-screen models such as the Evo and Droid X don't deliver higher resolution screens, they're just bigger, much like the Nintendo DSi XL, a fact that seems ironic given all the pundits' contempt that was shoveled upon iPad for being "just a big iPod touch," despite introducing a much higher resolution display.
The larger screens at the same resolution now being promoted on the new big format Android phones means less pixel density and more obvious pixelation. The pixel density on the Evo and Droid X drop to 217ppi when their 854x480 resolutions are stretched across their larger screens.
OLED displays like that used on the HTC Evo present even less accuracy when stretched out, compared to Google's Nexus One, due to their use of skipped subpixels.
That's not a problem for the Droid X because it uses the same TFT screen technology as the iPhone 4 and iPad, just in a lower resolution. However, with Apple stealing the high resolution crown from Android, there's little left to recommend the less polished, less secure, less integrated, and more frustrating experience that Android offers.
Verizon's Flash-based web promo presented a series of mouse-over animations that highlighted the big new phone's 4.3 inch display and HDMI output (a hardware feature still missing from any of Apple's iOS devices).
However, it also specified the new model as having a "720p screen," leading some sites to report that the new phone "might carry a resolution of 1280x720 pixels." The actual resolution of the new Droid X is 854x480, the same resolution as the original Droid released last winter, but on a bigger screen that delivers less pixel density.
A variety of new Android phones are now targeting the supersized 4.3 inch screen form factor (including Sprint's HTC Evo), hoping that customers will be impressed by girth rather than screen clarity, quality and manufacturing competency. In its race to differentiate itself in the Android landscape, HTC's Evo has raced to market features including 4G networking, a WiFi hotspot, Adobe Flash support, and video calling, all things that iPhone 4 does not do.
Specs touted above reality
While Evo hardware features sound great, the advertised numbers (like Verizon's inaccurate "720p screen") and features of Android phones aren't necessarily living up to their hype. For example, the HTC Evo really only supports WiMAX 802.16e, not the minimum WiMAX 802.16m standard that is the actual minimum for classification as a 4G network, making its claim to be the first 4G phone dubious. Sprint doesn't even offer 4G in many cities, and even in the few where it's available the service inhales extraordinary battery life.
A review by David Pogue in the New York Times notes that Evo's WiFi hotspot feature "eats through a full battery charge in as little as one hour. [?] And beware: the hot spot feature costs an extra $30 a month."
In regards to Flash, Pogue clarifies that "Evo runs something called Flash Lite, which is marketing-ese for, 'Sometimes works and sometimes doesn?t,'" noting that while it plays some videos that iOS devices can't, it mostly just delivers all the blinking ads on the web while it doesn't work with a variety of other Flash videos and content, including CNN and Hulu content.
And as for Evo's video calling, Pogue notes, "this feature is head-bangingly unstable. After two days of fiddling, downloading and uninstalling apps, manually force-quitting programs and waiting for servers to be upgraded, I finally got video calling to work ? sort of. Sometimes there was only audio and a black screen, sometimes only a freeze-frame; at best, the video was blocky and the audio delay absurd." Making calls requires installing third party software, unlike Apple's FaceTime solution.
Android loses display battle in feature war with Apple
The hardware-centric hype of Android is being used to make up for major deficiencies in Google's Android OS itself, writes Jack Shedd, who documented his own experiences with Android before giving up and making plans to head back to the Palm Pre.
"There?s a sense, not just from reviewers, but from fans of the device, that what Android really needs is just killer hardware," Shedd wrote. "Which is just absolute horse [poo]."
"I?ve been subjected to every inconsistency, idiocy and poor quality of thought Android has to offer," he complained. "Every 'unique to Android' feature seems, at best, a technological demo. Best I can explain it, Android is how an iPhone would work if Google designed it."
Screen resolution has been a notable exception where Android phones were decisively leading Apple's offerings, at least until the comparison changed from last year's iPhone 3GS to the new iPhone 4. Last winter's Verizon Motorola Droid introduced a 854x480 resolution screen with a density of 265ppi, significantly higher in both resolution and pixel density than last summer's iPhone 3GS and its 480x320 screen with a 163ppi density.
However, Apple is now launching the new Retina Display of iPhone 4, which delivers a resolution of 960x640 at a density of 326ppi. New Android big-screen models such as the Evo and Droid X don't deliver higher resolution screens, they're just bigger, much like the Nintendo DSi XL, a fact that seems ironic given all the pundits' contempt that was shoveled upon iPad for being "just a big iPod touch," despite introducing a much higher resolution display.
The larger screens at the same resolution now being promoted on the new big format Android phones means less pixel density and more obvious pixelation. The pixel density on the Evo and Droid X drop to 217ppi when their 854x480 resolutions are stretched across their larger screens.
OLED displays like that used on the HTC Evo present even less accuracy when stretched out, compared to Google's Nexus One, due to their use of skipped subpixels.
That's not a problem for the Droid X because it uses the same TFT screen technology as the iPhone 4 and iPad, just in a lower resolution. However, with Apple stealing the high resolution crown from Android, there's little left to recommend the less polished, less secure, less integrated, and more frustrating experience that Android offers.
Comments
this is it.
Thats different now -- ISN'T IT!
ha!
If anyone didn't know what epic fail meant.
this is it.
I think we need a new term. 'Epic fail' isn't big enough.
Add that to companies who can't even count the number of phones sold and the entire Android thing is getting more and more laughable.
However, this article is a lousy excuse for journalism. The motivation, and clear partisanship of the content is absurd. I respect AppleInsider much less because I read this article.
However, with Apple stealing the high resolution crown from Android, there's little left to recommend the less polished, less secure, less integrated, and more frustrating experience that Android offers.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Except that you can get an Android phone on a network besides the abysmal AT&T.
Best I can explain it, Android is how an iPhone would work if Google designed it
Actually, Android IS how the iPhone would work if Google copied it.
Really, a phone with a resolution of 1280x720 got a lot of people excited, but is it SO far off that whatever person was putting the page together meant 720p output?
It seems that Android is always a new phone away from obliterating the iPhone. However with each successive phone the target seems to slip away. It's starting to become a familiar Cubs Fans slogan: there is always next year. One can only hope that this next year will be some time soon.
And as for Evo's video calling, Pogue notes, "this feature is head-bangingly unstable. After two days of fiddling, downloading and uninstalling apps, manually force-quitting programs and waiting for servers to be upgraded, I finally got video calling to work ? sort of. Sometimes there was only audio and a black screen, sometimes only a freeze-frame; at best, the video was blocky and the audio delay absurd." Making calls requires installing third party software, unlike Apple's FaceTime solution.
"There?s a sense, not just from reviewers, but from fans of the device, that what Android really needs is just killer hardware," Shedd wrote. "Which is just absolute horse [poo]."
"I?ve been subjected to every inconsistency, idiocy and poor quality of thought Android has to offer," he complained. "Every 'unique to Android' feature seems, at best, a technological demo. Best I can explain it, Android is how an iPhone would work if Google designed it."
His review is consistent with everything I've seen and read about Android. This also validates my suspicion that the hardcore Android fanboys are just living in their own little bubble to think that Android is a more "superior" platform.
The reality that the Android-cult refuses to believe and will forever live in denial is that unless you have the intimate hardware/software cohesion that Apple has proved successful with, Android devices will always be the bottom-barrel option for tech-heads with too much time on their hands fiddling away with the PC-paradigm on mobile handsets to feed their ADHD personalities.
The regular Joe just wants their phone to simple "work" and not spend hours fiddling with some obscure rogue app that works on one handheld but not another due to fragmentation.
Android may in fact eventually become the "M$ Windows" of mobile OS, but like the desktop counterpart, it does everything good, but nothing well.
Thank you, but I'll continue enjoying my soon-to-arrive iPhone4 to replace my original iPhone2g. Not only is/will it be a stunning example of hardware engineering, it will also (continue to) be a great example of how to correctly design a mobile operating system.
I use nothing but Apple products, because I rely on their stability. And I get that AppleInsider makes more money when Apple has a positive public image.
However, this article is a lousy excuse for journalism. The motivation, and clear partisanship of the content is absurd. I respect AppleInsider much less because I read this article.
Oh, get over it.
ugh it was a simple mistake that was corrected. get over it. People were saying it was a mistake from the first moment it came out.
Yeah, that might be reasonable - if there weren't a whole string if 'simple mistakes' in both this article and elsewhere.
Really, a phone with a resolution of 1280x720 got a lot of people excited, but is it SO far off that whatever person was putting the page together meant 720p output?
What are you trying to say? The resolution is no where near the claimed resolution whether you call it 720p or 1280x720.
That said, in the bigger picture, I think Android and iPhone/iOS reflect the different priorities of their respective companies. Apple wants/needs iPhone to be a great experience for users because they need to drive revenue by having people buy more iPhones in the future. Google on the other hand derives no benefit what so ever from having a positive user experience. Rather, they need people to _use_ handsets to drive ad revenue. The user experience for Google is centered around figuring out how to maximize this ad revenue even if it's at the expense of the overall user experience. If google can keep people bouncing around from one manufacturers android based phone to another, they would be perfectly happy.
When Apple finally starts selling iPhones on other networks in the US, it will be interesting to see how the landscape changes and how Google reacts (as well as the handset manufacturers).
AI said, "and video calling, all things that iPhone 4 does not do." The iPhone DOES support video calling.