Perhaps he didn't realize he was using his own favored image, one that hasn't been available at MG since last fall (and that can't be linked since it doesn't exist), and promptly corrected by Mobile Geeks as soon as they were made aware of their error.
You have been caught out. Get off your fucking high horse of truth.
Hey thanks for that. So Mobile Geeks still offers the image that DED uses? I can't find it there. The only one I found was the one the DED supposedly linked which doesn't match the one he posted. No matter of course. The one in this article is wrong and will be replaced as soon as Daniel gets a chance to do so.
Why does AI's side-by-side "S3/S3 Mini size comparison" look so different from the image they copied from MobileGeeks? Someone at AI did a bit of purposeful alteration perhaps? Some strange re-sizing accidentally took place on just half the image when it was imported?
EDIT: After a bit of research on old AI articles I remember this came up last year and the same point was made then: Daniel didn't use the available MG image at the time but instead clipped an incorrect version what might have been up for a day or two. He didn't bother to correct it last year when he was made aware and didn't care to do so this year either. . . yet. No doubt he'll do so now, right?
Seriously, who gives a sh*t?
Samsung only makes cheap junk like this to artificially inflate sales shipment figures of Galaxy 'S' branded handsets to further blur the distinction of how many high end phones they actually sell.
Before we declare this a victory for the 4" screen, can we agree that it is wise to cover both segments of the market?
No. We can agree that making a phone for el cheapos alongside a proper high-end phone is an OPTION, but "wise" depends on a lot more than the existence of said option in the hands of a bunch of idiots.
I am hoping my switch to this POS Android OS is only temporary!
Samsung introduces a new model, which has a smaller screen than the S3 and Motorola mentions a new model that will have a smaller screen than the S3, and this is twisted to imply that both manufacturers have decided larger screened phones are a mistake and that they have abandoned them. Then by mentioning Cook's defense of not having a larger screened model, we arrive at the right-thinking conclusion that the iP5 is perfect for everyone.
Thing is, Samsung, which is the only Android phone manufacturer that matters, hasn't abandoned larger screens, nor do they think they were a mistake, nor do the considerable sales of the S3 and Notes indicate that consumers think any such thing.
I suspect that the real reason Motorola and Apple aren't currently making larger screened models is the difficulty in sourcing adequate supplies of large displays with very fine dot pitch.
The only real logic that will determine if larger screened phones are a mistake or not is 'ka-ching' logic, not Dilger logic.
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Samsung introduces a new model, which has a smaller screen than the S3 and Motorola mentions a new model that will have a smaller screen than the S3, and this is twisted to imply that both manufacturers have decided larger screened phones are a mistake and that they have abandoned them. Then by mentioning Cook's defense of not having a larger screened model, we arrive at the right-thinking conclusion that the iP5 is perfect for everyone.
"Perfect" size is perhaps not the right word.... Perhaps "market sweet spot"?
So did Samsung discontinue their Note line, or do they continue to offer a diverse range of products and this article is just grasping for something to fill space?
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Well I didn't make that inference, probably because my current phone is a Samsung Wave S8500, so I know that none of those things is true.
Why does AI's side-by-side "S3/S3 Mini size comparison" look so different from the image they copied from MobileGeeks? Someone at AI did a bit of purposeful alteration perhaps? Some strange re-sizing accidentally took place on just half the image when it was imported?
EDIT: After a bit of research on old AI articles I remember this came up last year and the same point was made then: Daniel didn't use the available MG image at the time but instead clipped an incorrect version what might have been up for a day or two. He didn't bother to correct it last year when he was made aware and didn't care to do so this year either. . . yet. No doubt he'll do so now, right?
DED likes to fit reality around his argument rather than the other way around. I've pointed out basic factual errors in the past and he never bothers to correct anything that doesn't enhance his argument.
Ironically, he posts under the pseudonym 'Corrections' on the AI forums.
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Your suggestion that Samsung uses a larger screen _because_ they need a larger battery would make sense if as the display size increases, battery life increases faster than the energy requirements of the screen. But if that were the case, why did Tim Cook mention battery life as a possible tradeoff of having a larger screen?
I loved this article. I have spent some time trying to see which of the Ssmsung Phablet fits better and use with one hand. This helps me narrow down my conclusion that the iPhone size is perfect for me. I believe this is in line with what Steve Jobs has said. "The Customer always is not aware of what he wants" as far as technology is concerned.
Samsung, Google to scale back giant screen sizes on new Android phones
As the headline is written, it is clearly incorrect. They are not reducing the size of their large screen phones. They are simply continuing to offer smaller sizes. And notice I use the word "continuing" because this is nothing new. And of course, these are consider low end Samsung phones.
Of course, a headline that reads "Samsung continues to offer low end phones with bigger screens than the iPhone" probably would not get pass the editors at an Apple fan boy site.
People, I think this refers to, so called, "phablets". I think Asus and Samsung have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. At some point, it will be obvious what sticks and what doesn't, and that's, now, what they're going to aim their product portfolio towards. The current Samsung Galaxy S3/4 size is very popular. There is a market for larger phones, but not a large enough market for ridiculously large phones. After all, it still needs to fit conveniently in your pocket.
You are correct -- it is a mockup and not the actual phone. But your accusation was that they physically altered the MG photo when, in fact, they did not. What they have chosen to do is use the original, incorrect, comparison by MG and, yes, that's disingenuous at best.
I don't understand why it really matters or why anyone is making a big deal out of it though. So what?
Even if the real phone is slightly bigger than the image of it, they are all just mockups or placeholders anyway. The real phone will presumably not look like either, no?
Samsung introduces a new model, which has a smaller screen than the S3 and Motorola mentions a new model that will have a smaller screen than the S3, and this is twisted to imply that both manufacturers have decided larger screened phones are a mistake and that they have abandoned them. Then by mentioning Cook's defense of not having a larger screened model, we arrive at the right-thinking conclusion that the iP5 is perfect for everyone. ...
The only real logic that will determine if larger screened phones are a mistake or not is 'ka-ching' logic, not Dilger logic.
Well you should look up "irony" then because while you are spending your time criticising Dilger for twisting the facts around, you carefully leave out some things yourself in your criticism of him. You conveniently forget to mention the Wicks quotes (all duly referenced and backed up) that support Dilgers main contention, in an article from another source that argues the exact same thing.
Further, by the use of the (rather crass) term "ka-ching logic," I deduce that you are one of those guys that believes all that BS about how nothing matters but money or it all comes down to the money etc. It's that kind of shallow, low-brow reasoning that makes me want to discount everything you say.
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Your suggestion that Samsung uses a larger screen _because_ they need a larger battery would make sense if as the display size increases, battery life increases faster than the energy requirements of the screen. But if that were the case, why did Tim Cook mention battery life as a possible tradeoff of having a larger screen?
Because he wants a phone that's thin and light.
The battery size of the s4 is 3x bigger than that on the iPhone. There's a lot of engineering invested on the iPhone, unlike the garbage that samsung sells.
Since honesty and integrity are demonstratively important to Daniel Eran Dilger he'll no doubt get rid of that incorrect comparison and insert the more accurate and current one from Mobile Geeks. I can't imagine he'd leave a flawed one up after being made aware of it.
Honesty? Integrity? Daniel Eran Dilger? What??? Are you joking, right?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Perhaps he didn't realize he was using his own favored image, one that hasn't been available at MG since last fall (and that can't be linked since it doesn't exist), and promptly corrected by Mobile Geeks as soon as they were made aware of their error.
You have been caught out. Get off your fucking high horse of truth.
It exists.
Hey thanks for that. So Mobile Geeks still offers the image that DED uses? I can't find it there. The only one I found was the one the DED supposedly linked which doesn't match the one he posted. No matter of course. The one in this article is wrong and will be replaced as soon as Daniel gets a chance to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why does AI's side-by-side "S3/S3 Mini size comparison" look so different from the image they copied from MobileGeeks? Someone at AI did a bit of purposeful alteration perhaps? Some strange re-sizing accidentally took place on just half the image when it was imported?
http://mobilegeeks.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Galaxy-S3-Mini-vs-Galaxy-S3.jpg
EDIT: After a bit of research on old AI articles I remember this came up last year and the same point was made then: Daniel didn't use the available MG image at the time but instead clipped an incorrect version what might have been up for a day or two. He didn't bother to correct it last year when he was made aware and didn't care to do so this year either. . . yet. No doubt he'll do so now, right?
Seriously, who gives a sh*t?
Samsung only makes cheap junk like this to artificially inflate sales shipment figures of Galaxy 'S' branded handsets to further blur the distinction of how many high end phones they actually sell.
The Galaxy 2 Mini didn't carry over the 'S'.
Here's another Galaxy lower specced but still counted as a smartphone sale shipment.
Samsung has now released over 174 Galaxy branded devices.
Originally Posted by LarryA
Before we declare this a victory for the 4" screen, can we agree that it is wise to cover both segments of the market?
No. We can agree that making a phone for el cheapos alongside a proper high-end phone is an OPTION, but "wise" depends on a lot more than the existence of said option in the hands of a bunch of idiots.
I am hoping my switch to this POS Android OS is only temporary!
Why move at all, then? My stars.
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The one in this article is wrong and will be replaced as soon as Daniel gets a chance to do so.
Well for your sake I hope not. Then you can continue derailing this thread by making a mountain out of a mini.
"Perfect" size is perhaps not the right word.... Perhaps "market sweet spot"?
So did Samsung discontinue their Note line, or do they continue to offer a diverse range of products and this article is just grasping for something to fill space?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Well I didn't make that inference, probably because my current phone is a Samsung Wave S8500, so I know that none of those things is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why does AI's side-by-side "S3/S3 Mini size comparison" look so different from the image they copied from MobileGeeks? Someone at AI did a bit of purposeful alteration perhaps? Some strange re-sizing accidentally took place on just half the image when it was imported?
http://mobilegeeks.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Galaxy-S3-Mini-vs-Galaxy-S3.jpg
EDIT: After a bit of research on old AI articles I remember this came up last year and the same point was made then: Daniel didn't use the available MG image at the time but instead clipped an incorrect version what might have been up for a day or two. He didn't bother to correct it last year when he was made aware and didn't care to do so this year either. . . yet. No doubt he'll do so now, right?
DED likes to fit reality around his argument rather than the other way around. I've pointed out basic factual errors in the past and he never bothers to correct anything that doesn't enhance his argument.
Ironically, he posts under the pseudonym 'Corrections' on the AI forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Your suggestion that Samsung uses a larger screen _because_ they need a larger battery would make sense if as the display size increases, battery life increases faster than the energy requirements of the screen. But if that were the case, why did Tim Cook mention battery life as a possible tradeoff of having a larger screen?
Good Work.
Regards
So whilst this is called low end, it is simply new low end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung, Google to scale back giant screen sizes on new Android phones
As the headline is written, it is clearly incorrect. They are not reducing the size of their large screen phones. They are simply continuing to offer smaller sizes. And notice I use the word "continuing" because this is nothing new. And of course, these are consider low end Samsung phones.
Of course, a headline that reads "Samsung continues to offer low end phones with bigger screens than the iPhone" probably would not get pass the editors at an Apple fan boy site.
-kpluck
People, I think this refers to, so called, "phablets". I think Asus and Samsung have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. At some point, it will be obvious what sticks and what doesn't, and that's, now, what they're going to aim their product portfolio towards. The current Samsung Galaxy S3/4 size is very popular. There is a market for larger phones, but not a large enough market for ridiculously large phones. After all, it still needs to fit conveniently in your pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpr1
You are correct -- it is a mockup and not the actual phone. But your accusation was that they physically altered the MG photo when, in fact, they did not. What they have chosen to do is use the original, incorrect, comparison by MG and, yes, that's disingenuous at best.
I don't understand why it really matters or why anyone is making a big deal out of it though. So what?
Even if the real phone is slightly bigger than the image of it, they are all just mockups or placeholders anyway. The real phone will presumably not look like either, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Samsung has now released over 174 Galaxy branded devices.
Unf******believable!
Trash for every price/size segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Dilger's twisted logic amazes again.
Samsung introduces a new model, which has a smaller screen than the S3 and Motorola mentions a new model that will have a smaller screen than the S3, and this is twisted to imply that both manufacturers have decided larger screened phones are a mistake and that they have abandoned them. Then by mentioning Cook's defense of not having a larger screened model, we arrive at the right-thinking conclusion that the iP5 is perfect for everyone. ...
The only real logic that will determine if larger screened phones are a mistake or not is 'ka-ching' logic, not Dilger logic.
Well you should look up "irony" then because while you are spending your time criticising Dilger for twisting the facts around, you carefully leave out some things yourself in your criticism of him. You conveniently forget to mention the Wicks quotes (all duly referenced and backed up) that support Dilgers main contention, in an article from another source that argues the exact same thing.
Further, by the use of the (rather crass) term "ka-ching logic," I deduce that you are one of those guys that believes all that BS about how nothing matters but money or it all comes down to the money etc. It's that kind of shallow, low-brow reasoning that makes me want to discount everything you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
You could also infer that Samsung cannot make a smaller phone with the same screen quality, performance and battery life as the iPhone 5 at that size. Perhaps a larger screen is installed because a bigger battery is needed?
Your suggestion that Samsung uses a larger screen _because_ they need a larger battery would make sense if as the display size increases, battery life increases faster than the energy requirements of the screen. But if that were the case, why did Tim Cook mention battery life as a possible tradeoff of having a larger screen?
Because he wants a phone that's thin and light.
The battery size of the s4 is 3x bigger than that on the iPhone. There's a lot of engineering invested on the iPhone, unlike the garbage that samsung sells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Since honesty and integrity are demonstratively important to Daniel Eran Dilger he'll no doubt get rid of that incorrect comparison and insert the more accurate and current one from Mobile Geeks. I can't imagine he'd leave a flawed one up after being made aware of it.
Honesty? Integrity? Daniel Eran Dilger? What??? Are you joking, right?