linuxplatform

This isn't as bad as Daniel Eran Dilger's demonstrably false yet never recanted "Android will fail and Google is going to go broke and Chromecast is a blatant inferior ripoff of AirPlay that will fail" columns from not long ago but still, don't put out nonsense like this that clearly lack a modicum of research.

1. No love lost for Microsoft, as they - along with Apple and Oracle - were among the cabal that tried to push Linux, open source databases and Android out of the marketplace during the last decade using a variety of legal and marketplace pressure tactics. But Microsoft makes it clear that this device is not a phone, is not a tablet and is not meant to compete with the iPhone, iPad or even any Android device. Instead, it is a companion device for their somewhat successful line of Surface 2-in-1s. Basically, if you already like and use their Surface devices at work or in your home/office, you will want this device because it will have the same sort of "ecosystem" benefits that iPads have with MacBooks. But if you are not a Surface user, you will have no need or want for this device. Yes, this device is expensive - but similar to Apple fans - Surface device owners are used to paying a premium instead of just getting Lenovo or Dell devices that offer the same form factor and superior performance/specs for hundreds less.

2. Instead of comparing this device with the Samsung Galaxy Fold - which is an entirely different one - someone who actually knows something about Android would compare them to LG phones. LG has been releasing dual screen devices for over a year ... the LG Thinq G7, the LG Thinq G8 and the LG Velvet. All of them have detachable 6.8' screens, much bigger than the Duo's 5.6' screens. All of them have the latest - meaning much faster - CPUs. They also have more RAM, and lack of RAM is a killer in Android devices with big screens (Google tried lower RAM devices with "software optimizations" for no reasons other than sheer arrogance for years before finally giving up and putting 6 GB of RAM in their Pixel 4A and the Pixel 5 will have 8 GB). Oh yes, and they all have 5G and NFC. A couple of mobile bloggers who are actually knowledgeable about Android - yes such creatures are rare outside Android enthusiast blogs themselves - flat out recommended buying the Thinq or Velvet (especially the Velvet) instead of this device.

3. Claiming the Z Fold has "bad software" is ignorant. Compared to what? Because here's the deal: Apple doesn't have a product in this category yet. As usual. It would have been dumb to call the Samsung Galaxy Note Pro back in 2012 "a device with bad software" because Apple didn't come out with their own "Pro" tablet device with true multitasking support, stylus support and keyboard/trackpad support until later. (Actually MUCH LATER as the iPad Pros were in name only initially with the multitasking and trackpad features not added to OS, turning iOS into iPadOS, for several years.) Similarly, Apple currently has no software to drive a true folding device. The only true folding devices in existence are the 2019 and 2020 Galaxy Fold devices as well as a competing Huawei device that Huawei was only able to manufacture a few thousand units of (but the few who have actually seen and used them say that they are outstanding). Here's the thing: people who have actually used the Galaxy Fold and Flip devices say that they are great, especially the second generation versions of each that were just released and didn't have the "first generation iPhone/first ever MacBook Air" roughness. Which means that - by default - the software on these devices are GREAT until something comes along that's BETTER. We will see a Pixel folding phone (that will probably be similar to the Surface Duo) and allegedly a folding iPhone (which will be more like the Galaxy Z Fold) next year. At that point you will be able to SUBJECTIVELY claim that the Z Fold has bad software. Till then there is no way to even SUBJECTIVELY make that claim because A) the Z Fold's software works great in that it does what it is supposed to do in operating the device and delivers a good experience in the process - a consensus opinion held by nearly everyone who has bought or reviewed the device and no product with "better" software exists.

seanismorris said:

killroy said:

Kuyangkoh said:

Hmmm..... these LTE modems are made And supplied by Intel or Qualcom?? 

So why are they off the hook?

Maybe not the hook, but it’s Qualcomm responsibility to cover them and pay any damages.

Not true at all. As someone said above, you can sue anywhere in the supply chain. This "responsibility" would exist only if it is in the contract terms with the suppliers. But no major supplier - which clearly Qualcomm and Intel are - would agree to such terms in a million years.

Also, PanOptis went to Apple for licensing. Apple - bizarrely - refused to negotiate or pay licensing terms and instead claimed in court that the patents were invalid. They did this despite a previous court ruling against Huawei that these patents were invalid. Which means that Apple had no chance of winning this case, has no chance of winning outright on appeal and knows it. Their only shot at a "win" would be if the lawsuit judgment is revised below what PanOptis requested as licensing fees. 

For all we know, PanOptis may have already worked out licensing terms with Intel and Qualcomm. Or they may have decided based on whatever prerogatives and criteria of theirs to only go after the end manufacturers and not the component suppliers. (Qualcomm, for example, owns tons of 3G and 4G patents. This fact might tend to mitigate the size of any judgment against Qualcomm, making suing them not worth PanOptis' efforts.) PanOptis has threatened lawsuits against ZTE, Blackberry and Kyocera also but decided to proceed with the lawsuits against Huawei and Apple first. Now that they are 2-0 against Huawei and Apple, the other companies that they approach will almost certainly enter licensing agreements rather than deal with attorney's fees and court costs for cases that they now know they have no chance of winning.

d.j. adequate said:

So these aren’t really noise canceling at all. Just reducing low frequency hum. That’s a deal breaker right there for me. 

It is more like Samsung created their own definition of ANC, which by the way isn't a protocol or anything else based internationally or industry agreed upon standards i.e. 4G, Bluetooth 5 or waterproof ratings anyway. Reviews on this are basically split down the middle with about half saying "their ANC is fine" and the other half claiming that the product doesn't have ANC at all.

It isn't as if Samsung tried to achieve ANC with this product and somehow failed. That would make no sense as plenty of their past audio products have had traditional (for lack of a better term) ANC, and particularly since they made ANC among the most central features in the promotional materials for this product. Meaning that they didn't just list it in the specs and features area as an aside or throw in detail. Instead ANC was heavily promoted as a core feature and a major reason to anticipate this product and  choose it over its competitors. So it is more likely that Samsung is creating their own spin on ANC starting with this product, and that their future headphones and earbuds will adopt it also. As to whether Samsung's (re)definition of ANC suits your preferences or needs, caveat emptor and YMMV.

If this review has to resort to "Apple prestige" and denigrating a form factor that both innovates AND is a proven one based on hearing aids - when this same site just trashed OnePlus for ripping off the AirPod design just a couple of weeks ago - it is an admission that there are no real differences between the Samsung and Apple products. In that, this review reaches the same conclusion as everyone else: that this is a fantastic product in its own right. The only legit criticism then is the ANC, which most other reviews cited. So, there has been only one bad review for this much maligned in advance product and that one seems to be an outlier.

As to which one is better: simple. If you own Apple hardware then buying this product makes no sense. Buy AirPods or AirPod Pros. But if you do not own an iPhone, iPad or Mac, then based on the reviewer this is what you need to get. The prestige of the Apple name means nothing to you already apparently, Siri and other ecosystem benefits will be useless for you, and the lack of true ANC isn't worth the $70 price differential.

The key takeaways from this review isn't whether Apple device owners should buy this for their Apple devices over AirPods. They shouldn't and won't. The question is whether Samsung is capable of making an excellent product of comparable quality with Apple's best and do so without copying Apple (indeed quite the opposite, as it is difficult to arrive at a product that is less like the AirPod than this except by sitting down and centering the design of the device around that purpose from the outset). While the reviewer will never concede so the answer to this is clearly yes, which makes this an obvious buy to pair with whatever non-Apple products an Apple fan may find himself owning.

mdriftmeyer said:

9secondkox2 said:

As much as Apple has their reasons, this is not a good look. 

A consumer buys a device, has an internet connection, so they should be able to do what they want. 

This is kind of shocking. 

If those services were full of horrible code, that’s one thing. 

But blocking them based on business model? 

It’s really kind of difficult to take Apples side here. 

I owe MS an apology for a post I made a few days ago. Really surprised here. 

Let me know when Microsoft xCloud publishes their APIs for review and their architecture and its necessary communication and security privileges open to share across its Azure Cloud back end with iOS security protocols and privileges. Same goes for Google. If folks insist this is a sandboxed dumb terminal ala VT3270 emulation just leveraging iOS drawing services aka a video stream then you’ll believe in anything.

Sure. I can tell you already ... they use the same APIs and architectures that their other streaming apps that are already on iOS use. That is because the apps that Stadia and xCloud use are no different from other apps. The only difference is the content being streamed. We know this because Apple said precisely this in their statement explaining why they rejected the app.

Hey, you are perfectly free to accept, defend and promote Apple's position. (I myself have no problem with it because my position is that if you want Stadia and xCloud, just buy a device that supports them. It is easy and cheap to do so ... much less than buying a gaming rig, a gaming console ... or an iPad or iPhone for that matter. If Apple doesn't want to support a particular product or service, fine. It is their choice in the democratic free market capitalist system that we have and forcing Apple to support a product or service that they don't want me smacks of socialism - democratic socialism or some other form - and as a right winger I adamantly oppose such measures. ) But please, just stick to the factual stuff when you do.