Although many on this site don't realize it, there is a large number of people who are relatively platform agnostic and would be willing to switch. If Android truly is as bad as you say, why does Android have a 54% US market share? Simply dismissing the competition outright is pretty short sighted, IMO
Quality and success/acceptance are two entirely different things. While occasionally the masses get something right, usually the masses accept crap. McDonald's is but one example. Why people eat that crappy hamburger instead of the much better ones that are available, I have no idea and it's not just about money because there are plenty of crappy fast food restaurants in places where people earn pretty well. (In New Jersey, there's an amazing old tiny burger place called White Manna which looks like a dollhouse sized White Castle. They make amazing sliders. Right across the street is a McDonald's or Burger King that also seems to do a great business. Why anyone would go there when there's a so much better alternative, I have no idea, but they do.).
I do agree that many people ARE willing to switch to Android, but that doesn't mean it's any good. I've been unhappy with Apple of late, but I really don't trust security on Android or Google's use of my data, so I will never switch.
Although many on this site don't realize it, there is a large number of people who are relatively platform agnostic and would be willing to switch. If Android truly is as bad as you say, why does Android have a 54% US market share? Simply dismissing the competition outright is pretty short sighted, IMO
Most people accept shit quality and don’t care. It’s called the good-enough factor. See McDonald’s. Doesn’t mean Android isn’t garbage. See Windows.
A lot comes down to purchase cost. Most people will buy an inferior product for less money over a quality product costing more even if that inferior product will cost them more over the years. This is not true 100% of the time, but it is true more often than not. For many, comparing products and saying does this give me what I need it to at a better price point. Market share is not always about quality.
I might be hella biased but I think the OP6 images are way better. The images the X produces are blurry and smooth. That's not a good thing. You either get a model with smoother skin or smooth out the skin in post-production. The pictures here are horrible. The iphone produces smoother bokeh but it still looks like shit, you need to use a proper SLR with a 80-135mm lens to get good portrait photos.
The OP6 took a sharper picture of the flower but the white balance was fucked, ok. Well sharpness can't be added later(no, digital sharpening is BS) but colors in RAW photos can be changed, like A LOT.
As for the dynamic range. Well... Not even $50,000 dollar cameras have a high enough dynamic range for that photo, there's a reason people do HDR image stacking.
Ok, this review is on a site for apple fanboys but come on, there's no point in doing a review if you're gonna be biased.
Comments
I do agree that many people ARE willing to switch to Android, but that doesn't mean it's any good. I've been unhappy with Apple of late, but I really don't trust security on Android or Google's use of my data, so I will never switch.
The OP6 took a sharper picture of the flower but the white balance was fucked, ok. Well sharpness can't be added later(no, digital sharpening is BS) but colors in RAW photos can be changed, like A LOT.
As for the dynamic range. Well... Not even $50,000 dollar cameras have a high enough dynamic range for that photo, there's a reason people do HDR image stacking.
Ok, this review is on a site for apple fanboys but come on, there's no point in doing a review if you're gonna be biased.