morgle

ericthehalfbee said:

morgle said:

ericthehalfbee said:

morgle said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

bb-15 said:

saltyzip said:

I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!

The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite. 

I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much  better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones. 

To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.

But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested.  I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.

No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming  be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02

But if you can't compare 'em yourself,  fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor. 

EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience. 

Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.


So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?

Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to. 

Huh? I’m pretty sure I....

- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective.
- Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway.
- Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.

Don’t try to turn this back on me.

YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?

Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.

Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.

Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).

To help you, here are a three examples:

- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster.
- Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner.
- A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.

Tasker

You’re either a complete idiot or a troll. First off, Tasker doesn’t require any processor power. Second, Tasker isn’t available for iOS making it impossible to do a comparison.

You've explained in rich detail just how useless and impractical the A12 processor's power actually is. Full disclosure.

If games are subjective and the picture quality is  indistinguishable from the competition, what could the point possibly be? Except to name off an app that evidently doesn't exist but would demand that much power.

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

bb-15 said:

saltyzip said:

I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!

The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite. 

I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much  better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones. 

To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.

But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested.  I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.

No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming  be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02

But if you can't compare 'em yourself,  fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor. 

EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience. 

Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.


So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?

Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to. 

Huh? I’m pretty sure I....

- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective.
- Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway.
- Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.

Don’t try to turn this back on me.

YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?

tmay said:

morgle said:

StrangeDays said:

morgle said:

iPhone IS the smartphone. This category didn't exist before iPhone.

One-post-moron see yourself out.>>>

False.

SAUCE: The first commercially available device that could be properly referred to as a "smartphone" began as a prototype called "Angler" developed by Frank Canova in 1992 while at IBM and demonstrated in November of that year at the COMDEX computer industry trade show.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

477 posts does not make you righteous

I assumed he meant the category of modern smartphone was defined by the iPhone and its mass marketed feature set. It wasn’t the first smartphone, or the first touch screen, but it was the first smartphone that mattered. 

Can't blame you for making a common mistake. But you'd still be wrong. BlackBerry demonstrated that such a device could be manufactured and commercially successful. They were extremely popular, and powerful at the time.

Is it not enough to satisfy you that your device is the most powerful? Must it also be of pure lineage from the first device as well? 

iPhone was a pioneer product, but it rested the success of its many features on the successes and failures of older products and the pioneering research and development of many other scientists from many other companies and the legal acquisition of the patents for its component pieces, of which all preceding "smartphone" devices, including the blackberry, were crucial contributors.

Also, you have to give Alexander Graham Bell some credit for the telephone. The first telephone that mattered, that is. No avoiding that. Apple had nothing to do with it .

Apple is not a self-contained universe. It lacks the resources to ever accomplish that. Amazon and Google, on the other hand, might be able. I'm excited to see.

There are plenty of phones in the lineage prior to the release of the iPhone, but as you are quite aware, the death of physical keyboards can trace its demise directly to the release of the iPhone. The iPhone was the disruption in the then current market. This isn't in dispute.

I wasn't aware that Blackberry still made phones with physical keyboards, until today.

These must sell in the thousands, and you must be so proud.

Point is Blackberry preceded the iPhone as a commercially successful smartphone

Google is an AI technology company. The pixel is a more interesting phone because of its experimental features and AI integration. I am more interested in Google as a company than Apple, and that's my preference. iOS has been around for ages now and it's still pretty much the same. I've never found it to be as user friendly as windows and Android UI. Plus Apple's interest in progressing their AI doesn't seem incredibly pronounced. I haven't heard a lot of good feedback about Siri, and while Assistant is flawed it does work very well for my purposes.

The concern for user data privacy is strange to me. Folks don't want privacy, they want secrecy, anonymity. Apple does farm its user data, only "anonymously". Every time you buy a monster energy, a demon bird flies off to tell Coke, thereby harvesting your data anonymously. What's so scary about that?

Google seeks to provide a personalized user experience by tracking personal user data and using it to simplify the user interface. Searching personal archives of emails and photos is one of my favorite features. Searching information is what Google does all day every day. Machine learning and algorithms. A Google user typically wants access to as much information as they can get their hands on, as fast and conveniently as possible. Apple is still the oldschool tech model, hardware and software. I refuse to waste a moment of time with fortnite, but if that was my tea iPhone would be my cup.

To summarize, Apple is the Perfect Machine, while Google is the New Machine. Fear them both!