Typical response. You can't attack the arguments so attack the person. WTF does being an Oilers fan have anything to do with a discussion on patents and lawsuits? Like usual, when you can't make a proper answer you avoid the issue altogether.

People are whining and saying Apple's patents are somehow "inferior" by claiming they are too generic, obscure or whatever tag you want to add to them.

I come along and show you that the patents HTC is suing Apple for are equally as "vague", "obscure" or "non-specific" and, as expected, not even a peep.

^ have to agree with him about the attacking the person thing.
Posted via RS Mobile

There's no point to attack, just crap gleaned from Apple fan blogs. I'm not going to bite on the :troll: bait :lol

Basically all he has done is acknowledge that HTC is in a patent war with Apple, and is acquiring similarly cheesy patents to counter sue, and give them leverage. IE, if they lose a patent or two, maybe they can win their own patents, and enter a patent exchange agreement. But of course, he did it in his "usual" way, and may not even be aware he's trolling (just like with his whatsapp comment, it is so out there that I don't even know if it was on purpose or not)
Posted via RS Mobile

The question is.. will iPhone5, or more importantly, iOS5, make the iPhone competitive again?

I've been doing a lot of research regarding the SGS2, and can't help but think Apple is shaking in their booties right now since they've finished engineering the iPhone5 probably. It seriously has to be something special in order to beat it.

Perhaps my favorite feature of the iPhone4 is the screen res and the durability of the front glass. I've been banging it around and it really is scratch free unless you look under extreme sunlight.

I disagree. It only needs to have a few more features - big ones or not - to be successful. How they announce and market it is what will make it sell. Not how it actually performs. Apple has never made a phone that is more feature packed than what already exists. What they do is present it to their HUGE number of followers better. So the same millions of people (though this number is shrinking) buy their products over and over.

There is some truth to this. Apple has ALWAYS had one thing as a top priority: ease of use. Even back in the original Mac days, their tight control of software and hardware meant you never had to worry whether certain hardware would work with your Mac, and you never had to fuck around with IRQ conflicts and other headaches that plagued PC users.

My brother has been slowing moving to all-Apple because he likes how straightforward everything is... I recently helped him set up in his new place, connecting his new AirPort router to the cable modem upstairs... then setting up his iMac, Macbook, iPad 2, iPhone 4, and AppleTV... and even I was impressed with how utterly seamlessly everything integrated. No screwing around needed - just pull up iTunes on the iPad... it finds the library on the iMac... start playing a video... select "AppleTV", and the video switches to the TV, while still being controlled from the iPad... switch control the iPhone without missing a beat. It JUST WORKED. OUT OF THE BOX. No additional software required, no funky licensing.

Microsoft hasn't come close to this level of simplicity and just making everything WORK TOGETHER. I have Windows 7 on my netbook and my desktop... they see each other, but it's still a hassle to get them to share files... forget about using one to control the other this seamlessly.

THIS is Apple's bread-and-butter.

Even with Android, you still get different interfaces from different manufacturers, on different models, and from different carriers. You can't simply put down your Bell HTC phone and pick up a Rogers Samsung phone or a Telus Motorola phone and find everything in the same place... my brother's old Rogers iPhone 3G he gave me, though, works exactly the same (if a little slower) as my wife's Telus iPhone 4. The interface functions the same as my brother's iPad. The settings are all in the same place. I could go from one to the other without a moment's thought, without expending more than two seconds to figure out what's changed.

And THAT TOO, is why Apple users keep going back to Apple.

I'm pretty sure Apple is looking at the new Android stuff coming down the pipe and thinking, "Meh," and just keeping on doing what they're doing. Everyone's already pretty much copied the iPhone interface, or at least its concepts... why should they be worried?

Sick of my Blackberry. Someone offered me their Galaxy S for it. Should I do it?!

yes

Yes of course. Blackberries are a dying race :troll:
More importantly though, what kind of bb do you have? It might not be a good trade money-wise.
Posted via RS Mobile

So what's the latest and greatest Android phone that is coming out and with which make?

Also which brand should I go with if I were to purchase one? (I recall someone saying it's best to stick with the Google phones?)

This is one of the things I like about Apple. Just one phone to keep track with.

Currently. Samsung Galaxy S2

Fuck, i want the SGS2....ugh.

You're saying that not having choice is a GOOD thing? :seriously:

in this case, yes.

9780.

I love the keyboard, push e-mail, LED notifications but I want to try something new. Only if this jerk could respond to my e-mails faster.

Back in the day with the old school phones a lot of choices was good because there were different designs and different OS and stuff that people could choose from.

But all these Android phones are virtually the same in design and they run on the same OS. So what's the difference between them all?

And this is an honest question as I do not know.

And if it's the hardware that's different and the prices are more or less the same, why settle for the crappier ones?

^ same could be said about buying laptops, pc's, and cars.

OK thanks for wanting a more clear picture, instead of sticking your head in the sand like many would :)

Basically, with Android, you can get a similar experience no matter which phone you buy. Some things may differ such as the launcher, camera app, etc, but all those can be replaced anyway.

The key is, if you don't want a $600 or $700 phone, but still want a capable smartphone, you can simply buy one with lower specs. You can get one without the best Super AMOLED screen or SLCD, but a normal screen instead. Or perhaps you don't want a big 4.2" screen, you can get a smaller one instead, but still with a fast CPU and lots of memory.

It's not like the days where Android 1.5 phones were still being sold that are incapable of running some software (that's when people were bringing up "market segmentation" for some reason, as if it affected them). Any phone you buy today will be 2.1 and up, so will run any software on the market. So if you want a $600 phone like the SGSII or Sensation, go for it. If you only have the budget for a $400 phone, then you can get the Nexus S or Desire S instead. Or if you really want to just try out Android for the first time, you can buy a Wildfire or Galaxy Mini for $200-250. All these phones will run the same software, but will perform differently, and have different sized screens. But aside from that, choice is ALWAYS a good thing. ALWAYS.

I think the problem people are having is that an iPhone comes with the same software (iOS), and that it only belongs to iPhone. So that makes it one unit.

With android, you have the same software over different phones. I guess using an anology, it's like having an Acer, Samsung, Dell, HP or whatever computer all running the same Windows 7 version, but off different hardware. So different specs of computer can make the software run a bit faster or not (let's take away the marketing power and brand power of the actual hardware of the computer). And an iPhone is like a Mac running only the Mac software.

To be honest, in comparing an iPhone with an Android phone, you are really just comparing iOS and Android software. The iOS will always be with the iPhone so the same speeds and same model, but with the Android you can select different hardware making it have a better screen, slower or faster CPU etc.

Exactly. And that is a GOOD THING. Because with the iphone, you are paying $600-700 for a phone with $300-400 specs. The remaining $300 goes to those record earnings Apple fans love to talk about (even when they gain nothing from it)

So the difference is mainly just based on your budget.

I also read though that updates for the OS is difficult because they have so many different phones with slight differences that google has to tailor to. With the iPhone, they don't have this problem making things easier.


Another question, how does the multitasking work on the Android? Is like it iOS' in that it's basically a state-save feature that doesn't slow down the phone too much?
And are you a iPhone user or Android?

Good analogy, didn't think of that.

It's nothing like iphones multitasking, which actually isn't true multitasking in a strict sense.

Android was built from the ground up to have proper multitasking. Apps go into a 'sleep' state the moment they are minimized or the phone goes into sleep mode. They are put into memory, and it uses up as much memory as it can, to allow for fast multitasking. While they are in this mode, they can still perform tasks, if the developer requires. This way, apps aren't constantly closed and restarted, which wastes battery life and has slow performance. But at the same time, if they need to perform a task, they can. And this can be anything the developers want, leading to more robust apps (but also the developer must be responsible enough not to create an app that wastes battery while in cache). This is why, despite what people might think, you do NOT want to use a 'task killer' to save memory. On Android (and other multitasking OSes like Windows and Linux) you WANT to be using the memory for the apps you are NOT USING. This way, when you switch apps, it's pretty much instant.

How iOS multitasks is different, and sort of 'hacked' into iOS 4 to placate developers (not customers). Originally, these features were only to be used by the native ios apps that came with the device. It basically has 7 'pipes' that can be run in the background:

Background audio - this is to support music apps playing while browsing other apps
Voice over IP - for individual apps like Skype which can take incoming calls while using other apps
Background location - allows the GPS and AGPS to run while using Facebook, Twitter, etc
Push notifications - self explanatory
Local notifications - allows for things like alarms, calendar reminders, etc
Task finishing - allows the app to continue running for a short time after switching from it, to finish tasks
Fast app switching - allows the developer to put the app into memory while switching tasks

As you can see only one of the 7 pipes is actually where the multitasking comes from. A true multitasking OS will let apps do any of these things PLUS more (such as weather, for example, or widgets) And with the tiny amount of ram iDevices have right now, it means very few apps will fit. Even a single web page in Safari can fill that 7th pipe, so switching from ibooks to safari to ibooks will result in the apps having to fully load. The problem with 'fast app switching' is that once an app is stuck in the cache, it can't do anything other than what is available in the other 6 'pipes'. And if you sleep enough apps (which on the ipad 1 won't take much) it gets shut down, and you lose your spot.

Also for apps like Twitter, which uses Push to receive notifications, the PUSH itself is true multitasking, but the app is not. So if you get a twitter (or facebook or IM or email or whatever) notification, you still have to start up the app from ground up. And depending on what you had in the single thread that allows app switching, you may have to completely close the app and start it over again if you want to respond to your notification.

The ios method probably is enough for most users, but is limiting for developers. For instance, it's the reason why iOS doesn't support widgets, only an app launcher.

imo, android is good because it drives technological / software innovation. as Dan Hibiki pointed out, yes it's the same OS so whats the difference between phones?

Well in order for phone makers to survive they must differentiate themselves by creating better hardware, or adding a software component that competitors may not have. This causes companies to go to the drawing board and innovate new hardware/software.

If we all stuck to the 1 phone /1 OS model like on the IOS, innovation and creativity would be MUCH slower imo. How IOS is handled may gaurantee a consistent experience and better "quality" apps, but that control also limits innovation/creativity. Imagine you were in Art class and your teacher gave you one crayon and a 2x2 inch piece of paper, then asked you to draw something creative. Then the teacher tells you that they will decide which ones pass and which ones fail.

Whereas in android, the teacher gives you the entire box of crayons, and several pieces of paper then tells you to draw something creative. Then, as a class you will decide which ones pass and which ones fail.



On a social responsibility level, I still prefer google as they produce products that are free to users (google maps, translation, museum, gmail, etc.) and they regularly donate to charities/schools, and provide scholarships. So at least I know SOME of the money they make is going back to the people. Whereas with Apple, afaik their charitable causes are largely unknown, that tells me that the profit the make they keep to themselves.

Open Source > Closed source

that is all I have to contribute to this thread