Do you have concrete evidence, or are you just regurgitating nonsense that's been said over and over?
Do you dispute that these early generation Android devices were very inefficient compared to the iPhone and battery life suffered?
My contention is that these Android devices needed larger battery capacities comparative to the iPhone for the same battery life. Thicker wasn't sexy, so the housings had to increase the height, width and depth. Adding a larger screen, 4 to 4.3 inch was a decent tradeoff as a feature against added bulk so the larger screen became a marketed feature.
Not saying that Android didn't evolve the larger screen, nor that it wasn't/isn't popular, merely that the inefficiency kept it from competing at that time with the iPhone in form factor.
Samsung's operations management is way better than Apple's, since Samsung not only sells way more smartphones, but it also sells other products like PCs, tablets, microwave ovens, home appliances, smart TVs and semi-conductors etc. The supply chain of Samsung is simply big and efficient.
Samsung has a lot of different supply chains, and many start and end in South Korea.
Microwave ovens are not the same division nor supply chain as smartphones or PC's so stating Samsung is so great at this doesn't mean a whole lot in context of product line competitors. It may even be that the supply chain is inefficient from a cost standpoint from internal sourcing rather than competitive sourcing.
• the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
Sarcasm is most easily recognized when spoken because the inflection denotes the sentiment. This is not as easily conveyed in writing, especially in a forum where there are multiple conversations going on at once and the replies are oft canned or short one-liners. I am not one to ask a question unless I am looking for a more concrete answer than the one I presumed, unless of course I'm asking for rhetorical effect in which case I do my best — although not always succeeding — to make sure my intent is known. Here are two more recent examples of me noting my questions are rhetorical and/or trying to be funny.
Do you dispute that these early generation Android devices were very inefficient compared to the iPhone and battery life suffered?
My contention is that these Android devices needed larger battery capacities comparative to the iPhone for the same battery life. Thicker wasn't sexy, so the housings had to increase the height, width and depth. Adding a larger screen, 4 to 4.3 inch was a decent tradeoff as a feature against added bulk so the larger screen became a marketed feature.
Not saying that Android didn't evolve the larger screen, nor that it wasn't/isn't popular, merely that the inefficiency kept it from competing at that time with the iPhone in form factor.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase.
There isn't a 1:! ratio with display size and battery footprint. A larger backlight, more area for the touch matrix to cover, a higher resolution display, and more effort for the GPU (did I miss anything?) will take more power with all other things being equal but I think the state of large smartphones show that the additional footprint allows for more than enough battery to make this feasible. So much so that they have been able to beat Apple on device thickness even when using less advanced (read: less dense) components, a thicker casing since most are plastic, and oft have additional protective elements over a removable battery. With IGZO or LTPS or something else, coupled with Apple's hard focus on power reduction I think we're talking about something that other vendors have only dreamed of.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase
You haven't commented about Android efficiency, so I'm guessing you agree that it was comparatively poor.
Designs are all about compromise, and as the Android OEM's couldn't compete on UI, OS or form factor with the iPhone at the time, then a larger screen and commensurate larger battery capacity with the same poor battery life would have been marketable. Still, one would think that adding a larger battery capacity to begin with to match the iPhone battery life wouldn't have been all that difficult or costly.
My contention has been that screen size increase forced a larger housing and helped mask the installation of a larger battery, but I'm inclined to change my opinion and that Android users were resigned to poor battery life and user replaceable batteries and the larger screen size models continued that tradition rather than improved it.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">You haven't commented about Android efficiency, so I'm guessing you agree that it was comparatively poor.</span>
Designs are all about compromise, and as the Android OEM's couldn't compete on UI, OS or form factor with the iPhone at the time, then a larger screen and commensurate larger battery capacity with the same poor battery life would have been marketable. Still, one would think that adding a larger battery capacity to begin with to match the iPhone battery life wouldn't have been all that difficult or costly.
My contention has been that screen size increase forced a larger housing and helped mask the installation of a larger battery, but I'm inclined to change my opinion and that Android users were resigned to poor battery life and user replaceable batteries and the larger screen size models continued that tradition rather than improved it.
Except it didn't improve battery life. The big phone were just as inefficient as the smaller ones if not worse.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase.
No, for two reasons: firstly, Androids have always had a very bad reputation for battery life, so the bar was set low from the beginning. Secondly, the power increase is not proportional to the screen size; in other words, a battery that is proportionally bigger than a lower screen size will be more than sufficient to power the additional screen size.
No, for two reasons: firstly, Androids have always had a very bad reputation for battery life, so the bar was set low from the beginning. Secondly, the power increase is not proportional to the screen size; in other words, a battery that is proportionally bigger than a lower screen size will be more than sufficient to power the additional screen size.
And you know this how? Are you just guessing or have numbers to back it up?
Is that sarcasm? Being out less time and still making the top of the ranks makes it more impressive to come in 2nd place for the entire month.
Not just the entire month- the entire quarter! If you look at DED's original post and the data in it, the story is both good and bad for the 5c, but you have to look at the data instead of DED's representation of it. In its first partial month on sale it hit the number 2 spot. It then immediately ceded that spot and became the 3rd best selling phone to the aging S4. Basically it sold tremendously upon release to the Apple faithful in line for it, then quickly faded. Its second quarter in the wild it is no longer in the top 3 on any carrier, being supplanted by the older Note and even older S4 which has been on the market over a year now. Daniel's headline as usual was technically accurate but somewhat misleading in that article. He declared it the 'second best selling phone of the quarter.' That's a true statement but gives the perception that it was the second best selling phone throughout the quarter. Not really true. It sold like hotcakes when Apple opened the doors and then fizzled out fairly quickly (if you can call fourth or fifth or sixth place or wherever it is now 'fizzling').
As irony sometimes goes, DED did the exact opposite math in regards to Samsung's Note. He declared it a dismal 'failure flop' and condemned the entire 'phablet' industry because the Note's first two weeks of sales were less than nearly a years worth of S3 sales and even iPhone sales. So if the Note 3 is a failure but it is now outselling the 5c (despite being released before the 5c), wouldn't that make the 5c a failure too? Ah, wait. It's not a failure, it's an 'iterative learning experiment!' =p Cynicism aside they are both a success in my book and both are solid phones, both in terms of sales and in terms of performance.
And you know this how? Are you just guessing or have numbers to back it up?
Also to add to this, Tim Cook specifically mentioned battery life as a challenge/hurdle when asked about bigger screen sizes.
He said that he was not opposed to introducing bigger screens, but that this should only be done where it can be effectively balanced with other demands (power consumption especially).
Also to add to this, Tim Cook specifically mentioned battery life as a challenge/hurdle when asked about bigger screen sizes.
He said that he was not opposed to introducing bigger screens, but that this should only be done where it can be effectively balanced with other demands (power consumption especially).
The point that dasanman is missing is that the threshold for screen quality is much lower for manufacturers that use Android than it is for Apple. What that means is that they can get away with a much poorer quality screen which takes much less battery power. The reason Apple has stuck to a smaller screen size is because the technology has not been there to produce an efficient enough screen technology in quantity at the larger screen sizes. Maybe this will be the year that the technology comes of age.
The point that dasanman is missing is that the threshold for screen quality is much lower for manufacturers that use Android than it is for Apple. What that means is that they can get away with a much poorer quality screen which takes much less battery power. The reason Apple has stuck to a smaller screen size is because the technology has not been there to produce an efficient enough screen technology in quantity at the larger screen sizes. Maybe this will be the year that the technology comes of age.
I think that's part of the point, yes. It's worth adding to the mix and it goes back to Tim Cook's point about being willing to increase screen size "all things being equal" (which, at least for now, they are not).
The point that dasanman is missing is that the threshold for screen quality is much lower for manufacturers that use Android than it is for Apple. What that means is that they can get away with a much poorer quality screen which takes much less battery power. The reason Apple has stuck to a smaller screen size is because the technology has not been there to produce an efficient enough screen technology in quantity at the larger screen sizes. Maybe this will be the year that the technology comes of age.
Comments
Do you have concrete evidence, or are you just regurgitating nonsense that's been said over and over?
Do you dispute that these early generation Android devices were very inefficient compared to the iPhone and battery life suffered?
My contention is that these Android devices needed larger battery capacities comparative to the iPhone for the same battery life. Thicker wasn't sexy, so the housings had to increase the height, width and depth. Adding a larger screen, 4 to 4.3 inch was a decent tradeoff as a feature against added bulk so the larger screen became a marketed feature.
Not saying that Android didn't evolve the larger screen, nor that it wasn't/isn't popular, merely that the inefficiency kept it from competing at that time with the iPhone in form factor.
Samsung's operations management is way better than Apple's, since Samsung not only sells way more smartphones, but it also sells other products like PCs, tablets, microwave ovens, home appliances, smart TVs and semi-conductors etc. The supply chain of Samsung is simply big and efficient.
Samsung has a lot of different supply chains, and many start and end in South Korea.
Microwave ovens are not the same division nor supply chain as smartphones or PC's so stating Samsung is so great at this doesn't mean a whole lot in context of product line competitors. It may even be that the supply chain is inefficient from a cost standpoint from internal sourcing rather than competitive sourcing.
noun
• the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
irony 1 |??r?n?, ?i?rn?|
noun (pl. ironies)
• the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
Sarcasm is most easily recognized when spoken because the inflection denotes the sentiment. This is not as easily conveyed in writing, especially in a forum where there are multiple conversations going on at once and the replies are oft canned or short one-liners. I am not one to ask a question unless I am looking for a more concrete answer than the one I presumed, unless of course I'm asking for rhetorical effect in which case I do my best — although not always succeeding — to make sure my intent is known. Here are two more recent examples of me noting my questions are rhetorical and/or trying to be funny.
Yes, we all know how great you are. Thank you for the insight.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase.
There isn't a 1:! ratio with display size and battery footprint. A larger backlight, more area for the touch matrix to cover, a higher resolution display, and more effort for the GPU (did I miss anything?) will take more power with all other things being equal but I think the state of large smartphones show that the additional footprint allows for more than enough battery to make this feasible. So much so that they have been able to beat Apple on device thickness even when using less advanced (read: less dense) components, a thicker casing since most are plastic, and oft have additional protective elements over a removable battery. With IGZO or LTPS or something else, coupled with Apple's hard focus on power reduction I think we're talking about something that other vendors have only dreamed of.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase
You haven't commented about Android efficiency, so I'm guessing you agree that it was comparatively poor.
Designs are all about compromise, and as the Android OEM's couldn't compete on UI, OS or form factor with the iPhone at the time, then a larger screen and commensurate larger battery capacity with the same poor battery life would have been marketable. Still, one would think that adding a larger battery capacity to begin with to match the iPhone battery life wouldn't have been all that difficult or costly.
My contention has been that screen size increase forced a larger housing and helped mask the installation of a larger battery, but I'm inclined to change my opinion and that Android users were resigned to poor battery life and user replaceable batteries and the larger screen size models continued that tradition rather than improved it.
Except it didn't improve battery life. The big phone were just as inefficient as the smaller ones if not worse.
I'm seeing a lot of battery life improvements as they move to a larger display.
It only took them 4 years.
Except a bigger display is going to use more power thus negating any battery life increase.
No, for two reasons: firstly, Androids have always had a very bad reputation for battery life, so the bar was set low from the beginning. Secondly, the power increase is not proportional to the screen size; in other words, a battery that is proportionally bigger than a lower screen size will be more than sufficient to power the additional screen size.
And you know this how? Are you just guessing or have numbers to back it up?
Is that sarcasm? Being out less time and still making the top of the ranks makes it more impressive to come in 2nd place for the entire month.
Not just the entire month- the entire quarter! If you look at DED's original post and the data in it, the story is both good and bad for the 5c, but you have to look at the data instead of DED's representation of it. In its first partial month on sale it hit the number 2 spot. It then immediately ceded that spot and became the 3rd best selling phone to the aging S4. Basically it sold tremendously upon release to the Apple faithful in line for it, then quickly faded. Its second quarter in the wild it is no longer in the top 3 on any carrier, being supplanted by the older Note and even older S4 which has been on the market over a year now. Daniel's headline as usual was technically accurate but somewhat misleading in that article. He declared it the 'second best selling phone of the quarter.' That's a true statement but gives the perception that it was the second best selling phone throughout the quarter. Not really true. It sold like hotcakes when Apple opened the doors and then fizzled out fairly quickly (if you can call fourth or fifth or sixth place or wherever it is now 'fizzling').
As irony sometimes goes, DED did the exact opposite math in regards to Samsung's Note. He declared it a dismal 'failure flop' and condemned the entire 'phablet' industry because the Note's first two weeks of sales were less than nearly a years worth of S3 sales and even iPhone sales. So if the Note 3 is a failure but it is now outselling the 5c (despite being released before the 5c), wouldn't that make the 5c a failure too? Ah, wait. It's not a failure, it's an 'iterative learning experiment!' =p Cynicism aside they are both a success in my book and both are solid phones, both in terms of sales and in terms of performance.
From day one I thought Apple forking the 5C and 5S could open the door to different size iPhones.
I hope it happens.
And you know this how? Are you just guessing or have numbers to back it up?
Also to add to this, Tim Cook specifically mentioned battery life as a challenge/hurdle when asked about bigger screen sizes.
He said that he was not opposed to introducing bigger screens, but that this should only be done where it can be effectively balanced with other demands (power consumption especially).
The point that dasanman is missing is that the threshold for screen quality is much lower for manufacturers that use Android than it is for Apple. What that means is that they can get away with a much poorer quality screen which takes much less battery power. The reason Apple has stuck to a smaller screen size is because the technology has not been there to produce an efficient enough screen technology in quantity at the larger screen sizes. Maybe this will be the year that the technology comes of age.
The point that dasanman is missing is that the threshold for screen quality is much lower for manufacturers that use Android than it is for Apple. What that means is that they can get away with a much poorer quality screen which takes much less battery power. The reason Apple has stuck to a smaller screen size is because the technology has not been there to produce an efficient enough screen technology in quantity at the larger screen sizes. Maybe this will be the year that the technology comes of age.
I think that's part of the point, yes. It's worth adding to the mix and it goes back to Tim Cook's point about being willing to increase screen size "all things being equal" (which, at least for now, they are not).
You're very contradictory.