Correction, Android can be tinkered with. I haven't tinkered with my phone at all...
----------
I already had a phone for two years prior to the iPhone's release that "showed you THE web, not a dumbed-down mobile VERSION of the web".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you think Apple is concerned about the rumours of the Galaxy S4?
- Thread starter The Game 161
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Correction, Android can be tinkered with. I haven't tinkered with my phone at all...
----------
I already had a phone for two years prior to the iPhone's release that "showed you THE web, not a dumbed-down mobile VERSION of the web".
Do you think Apple is concerned about the rumours of the Galaxy S4?
For all intents and purposes bump works pretty much the same. The only time it wouldn't really work for transferring files is if you're on the subway or underground for any other reason. You can nitpick all you like but the vast majority of the time you will be able to send files using Bump!
As for an NFC tag equivalent... (Insert qr code reader here). Can print qr codes too, no need to buy tags!
For all intents and purposes bump works pretty much the same. The only time it wouldn't really work for transferring files is if you're on the subway or underground for any other reason. You can nitpick all you like but the vast majority of the time you will be able to send files using Bump!
As for an NFC tag equivalent... (Insert qr code reader here). Can print qr codes too, no need to buy tags!
-jc
macrumors member
Apple pays attention to their competitors, and what products they're working on, but I doubt they are "concerned", especially if we're just talking about specs here. Apple doesn't develop their products in accordance with the current market - according to what Steve always used to say, they build stuff for tomorrow's market.
As far as I know bump also compresses photos, which was annoying when I was trying to transfer pictures from my ipad (that I had uploaded through the camera connection kit) to my iphone. Why isn't the iphone compatible with the camera connection kit anyway?
It might be compatible with the iphone 5, but no version before that, despite there being no reason it shouldn't.
----------
I would add 'multiwindow' to that list, it's an awesome feature and one that I genuinely find useful. I mean, you're watching a video on youtube when a text comes in. No need to switch apps, just drag the messaging app to half the screen, read and/or reply quickly and get back to watching the video. Pretty seamless.
Just a shame you have to root to get access to all apps
----------
I would add 'multiwindow' to that list, it's an awesome feature and one that I genuinely find useful. I mean, you're watching a video on youtube when a text comes in. No need to switch apps, just drag the messaging app to half the screen, read and/or reply quickly and get back to watching the video. Pretty seamless.
Just a shame you have to root to get access to all apps
cambookpro
macrumors 604
My point is, Apple does not play the specs game.
I know I may have chosen arbitrary specs etc, they don't put in a quad core for the sake of it, as it may sound better when they market it.
They put in what they need to put in and no more.
Fernandez21
macrumors 601
Apple does play the spec game, only they go for performance and not marketability. The dual core apple uses in the iPhone performs at the same level as other quad cores in the market. Did apple really need to boost performance? Not really, but they did because they knew they needed to keep up with market.
No...it isn't close to being the same, for the reasons I've already spelled out. It's nothing more than an attempt at a workaround. You're talking about something involving a data connection, uploading to a 3rd party server, and a subsequent download from said third party server, versus simply sending a file direct from one device to the other. There's no comparison. I can send a 1gb file via Wifi direct in a matter of about a minute. If you're on your data connection, it will take you quite a while to upload that 1gb file to Bump's servers, and it will take the recipient quite a while to download it. Also, don't forget, if you're on your data connection, you're going to be using 1gb of your monthly allotment of data for that one file transfer. With Wifi Direct, you don't have these issues, as it is peer to peer. Like I said, there is no comparison.
We've been over this before. Taking a picture of a QR code is nowhere near the same as being able to simply tap your phone. Like I've told you before, I can simply get in my car and sit the phone in the car mount, and when the screen turns on (when it starts charging), it will read the tag and my automated tasks will begin. You can't compare simply sitting your phone down, to having to take a picture of a QR code.
I had a Qtek 9100 (HTC Wizard) at the time the original iPhone was released. Before that, I had a Motorola A1200. A full browser was absolutely nothing new when the iPhone came out. As a matter of fact, the iPhone's browser was considerably less capable than the ones I had already been using.
Do you think Apple is concerned about the rumours of the Galaxy S4?
I've gotta say I've never had to send a 1GB file using my phone..I doubt many have. Bump sends only photos, videos and contacts without involving iTunes and a computer, so the chances of you actually having such a large file to send are pretty slim.
We can all come up with exceptional use cases that only one in every 10,000 people will ever use and claim that as an advantage over the other, but for most people Bump will work perfectly fine for sending quick photos and videos.
Also, if wifi direct is available then wifi is available, so you wouldn't need to use data.
As for the QR code readers; of course they're COMPARABLE, they're just not EXACTLY the same. It's a similar technology; both can be stuck in various locations and can prompt your phone into performing tasks. It's just that the way you read the tags is different. There are advantages to the QR code way too; the main one being that it will work no matter which case you're using, even if its thick metal.
Lets just stop this nitpicking and admit that there are comparable features on both devices.
I've gotta say I've never had to send a 1GB file using my phone..I doubt many have. Bump sends only photos, videos and contacts without involving iTunes and a computer, so the chances of you actually having such a large file to send are pretty slim.
We can all come up with exceptional use cases that only one in every 10,000 people will ever use and claim that as an advantage over the other, but for most people Bump will work perfectly fine for sending quick photos and videos.
Also, if wifi direct is available then wifi is available, so you wouldn't need to use data.
As for the QR code readers; of course they're COMPARABLE, they're just not EXACTLY the same. It's a similar technology; both can be stuck in various locations and can prompt your phone into performing tasks. It's just that the way you read the tags is different. There are advantages to the QR code way too; the main one being that it will work no matter which case you're using, even if its thick metal.
Lets just stop this nitpicking and admit that there are comparable features on both devices.
Last edited:
Dont know why people keep saying that but its not true, every spec they now is better they use :
weight, resolution, thinness , connectivity,... hell even the type of glass used in the lens cover.
The specs they know are obsolete or will be by the time the new iphone gets out usualy arent mentioned. Ram is a good example, and the amount of ram (less now) is quite important and does impact people's usage a lot more then a lens cover or a mm thinner.
Not true. Wifi Direct will work without the need to be connected to a wifi hotspot, which is why it's such a great feature
Nope. Shooting a pub / social scene and, the, immediately distributing it to all the people there. A very common scenario.
Also, shooting videos on holiday, then, when back in the apartment or hotel, wifi direct them to a galaxy tab for larger screen viewing
Maybe every video isn't 1gb, but plenty of them are in 200mb+. For example, this past Christmas, I shot a video of my son opening his gifts for the first time. My mother wanted a copy of the video also. With the video being HD, it was easily around 400mb or so. With Wifi Direct, it took no time for it to be sent to her phone. If I used something like Bump, it would have taken a significantly longer amount of time. The majority of the videos in my phone are no less than 50mb, due to them being high resolution, so Bump would come up short in a large way. It might be fine for tiny files, but then again, so is bluetooth... The bottom line is, it's nothing more than a workaround, which is why it isn't feasible for all situations. I shouldn't have to think about how large a file is or isn't. I should just send it. With Bump, a person has to be cognizant of how large a file they are trying to transmit, otherwise they may be stuck waiting for quite a while.
It appears you don't understand what Wifi Direct is. Wifi Direct has nothing to do with a Wifi Network being present or not. Wifi Direct creates a DIRECT ad hoc connection between two devices via Wifi. It has nothing to do with Wifi networks or anything of the sort. It is strictly an ad hoc peer to peer connection.
That is not even remotely similar, for the reasons I previously stated. It's really that simple. Having to take a picture of something is a workaround in an attempt to achieve the same functionality. What if I'm in the car at night? Now I have to turn on the light and to photograph the QR code? With NFC, I could have simply sat the phone down, and once it started charging and the light turns on, it will automatically read the tag and begin the automated tasks. Sorry, your workaround is just that...a workaround.
No...there are the real deal features like Wifi Direct, and then there are workarounds like Bump. They way Bump transmits data is no different than if you were to email a file to someone. The only difference is it allows you to "bump" the devices. In the end it's nothing more than a subpar workaround, same as with QR codes instead of NFC tags.
Why would a video taken in a pub weigh in at 1.5gb? Are you shooting two hours of continuous footage? Why aren't you uploading it to Facebook later, as most people would do?
I'm just saying, it's not a very common scenario. It's even less likely that everyone at your hypothetical pub scene would have a Galaxy device and/or would actually WANT you to "beam" them a 1.5gb movie of the event.
Maybe he was recording an iOS vs. Android debate?
Those never seem to end 😛
Isn't 1.5gb about 10 minutes of raw footage? Not sure what compression is done on any of the phones.
I don't think you understand how large high definition recordings can be. I have a video that is 2:33 long that is 149mb large. It's isn't difficult to have a recording be 1.5gb (I've done it before).
I shoot 1080p videos all the time with my phone and the video files come in at roughly 18mb per minute. So there's a lot of compression going on (and it still looks great). So, three very unlikely things would have to happen for that scenario to occur:
1) You'd have to take a (roughly) 85.3-minute, continuous video with your phone.
2) There would have to be some need to "beam" this video to people in person, at the event itself, rather than editing it and uploading it later.
3) Everyone you wanted to "beam" the video to would need to have a Galaxy, I guess.
I estimate the chances of this scenario occurring to be around zero point zero per cent.
Edited: Okay, so I've done some googling and I see that many people are getting much larger video sizes, in the range of 2GB/hour. STILL. How often do you actually shoot an hour of continuous HD footage and then have the need to immediately beam that footage, without any editing, to someone nearby who also has a Galaxy phone? It still seems like a really niche feature to me.
Last edited:
It's all completely subjective. It's a niche product, absolutely, but a niche is a niche.
Let me pose this scneario. Say me and my wife both have GSIII's. We don't have to be stuck to the idea of 1.5 gigs, lets just say 500 megs, that's still a pretty big file. Too big to email. Lets say I shoot a video of kids opening Christmas presents, say 30 minutes long, and she wants it to show her co-workers or to edit herself. Boom!
The reason I bring that up, is because FaceTime comes to mind. It, too, is proprietary and doesn't seem to offer much functionality to most people. But my wife and I use it all the time. We both have iPhones. Anyone else, I'd probably skype. But, rather than dealing with skype, logging in, waiting, etc., it's just a bit nicer to use FaceTime. So, I 'call' my wife with FaceTime all the time.
It's a niche product, it's not the end of the world, I wouldn't miss FaceTime if it wasn't there. But, it IS nice, and I DO use it, even though other people have owned even iPhone since the 4 (when FaceTime was introduced) and have never used it!
It's a niche product, so what. It doesn't HURT anything to have features like that, and if that happens to be a feature you need, go for it!
Also... I just wanted to quickly mention that I hate the 'Android is for tinkerers' argument. Anyone who can 'tinker' with an Android phone can also Jailbreak an iPhone. Sometimes it takes a few months for a jailbreak to come out for the latest OS and the latest phone, but that's true of rooting Android phones, and some Android headsets are nearly as locked down as Vanilla iOS.
A 'tinkerer' like myself can jailbreak an iPhone and do whatever I want with it, even access the terminal or change things Apple doesn't want me to change (like the lock screen).
I agree with this post completely. Most smartphones offer features that you don't really need or use that often, but are nice to have.
I found features like face time and imessage nice to have, but I haven't really missed it moving to android. At the same time features like wifi direct wouldn't stop me from returning to apple.
I found features like face time and imessage nice to have, but I haven't really missed it moving to android. At the same time features like wifi direct wouldn't stop me from returning to apple.
So are you telling me that the video file I mentioned earlier is a figment of my imagination?
Well put.
TacticalDesire
macrumors 68020
Android CAN be tinkered with. So it's great for people who are or aren't prone to tinkering. It gives you the option to. Options aren't a bad thing. Android is different in some ways to iOS but I have used both extensively (4+ years) and have no real bias towards either platform. Android is just as efficient as iOS and in some cases even more so. Not an attack on iOS and I'm not saying it's bad (so don't get all emotional) just something that has been and can be proven. Some things are just different. It is also just as smooth as iOS with Jellybean provided no manufacturer bloat (skins) and even then the difference is usually negligible. Does it have it's cons? It sure does, but so does everything. All this bickering is pointless. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything they don't already agree with. There's plenty of wrong people on both sides of the argument. What bothers me is when people get facts wrong. Not opinions being pushed off as fact but actual facts. I couldn't care less what someone else thinks. They're entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Just don't get facts wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by efficient? I'm not fanboy-ing here but the Nexus 7 I owned for 4 months was nowhere near as smooth or stable as the ipad mini that has just replaced it. Even with its virgin Jelly Bean and quad core processor. Also, the battery life was nowhere near the ipad mini's. I may have just had a bad one but if it hadn't been for it slowing right down and the stock launcher crashing regularly, I would've kept it as I really liked the OS and found it very intuitive.