Pixels that are half as big using half the energy. So same efficiency per surface area.
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.
Apple and Google/Motorola Agree to Settle Patent Litigation, Work Together on Patent Reform
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google overpaid. No amount of spin will change that. Yesterday's settlement is an admission that those patents aren't worth that much. Now if Apple overpaid for the Nortel patents, then they overpaid, but that doesn't change the facts on Google's failed purchase of Motorola Mobility.
Lol what baloney. Google's purchase of moto was a complete waste of money for which they lost money every single qtr they owned it.
I guess anything can be spun to look positive. Somehow, I doubt Google execs were in the board meetings saying "but we got the set top business too, guys!"
Nice try, though.
Yup totally agree as well. Lobbying is destroying the US from within, democracy has been turned into nothing but a sideshow clearing house for the interests of multinational giants.
Banking, oil, arms manafacturers etc etc, pretty shocking the current state of affairs. Same things happening here in the UK just to a slightly lesser degree.
Patent abuse is just going to lead to the end of patents - at least I hope so.
Really?... "Battery usage per pixel"?
Can you show me one Anand, Ars, Tomshardware review that uses such a calculation or metric?
*Hint* you wont be able to because it makes no sense. Half dozen pr more glossed over.
Because we should listen to you rather than the guy who actually used logic, reasoning and stats to back up his position ....
----------
Funny how when you are presented with an actual argument you have no response...
Because we should listen to you rather than the guy who actually used logic, reasoning and stats to back up his position ....
----------
Funny how when you are presented with an actual argument you have no response...
Google reported a net operating loss of 645 million its first 9 months for motorola, and over a billion in losses in 2013.
They were paying a 60+% premium over closing price of moto stock and added another 30 some odd percent during negotiations. their net expenditure after everything is still around 4bn. Kdarling did nothing but pull numbers out of air.
Google makes great investments and acquisitions, moto was not one of them and anyone defending it is clueless.
Hows that for logic, reasoning and stats?
Well, let's count screen area
iPhone 5S: 6.7 Square Inches, 1580 mAh, 10 hour
Samsung S5: 11.1 Square Inches, 2800 mAh, 11 hour
66% more screen area, 78% more battery capacity and 10% more duration
1.78/1.66=1,072
iPhone 5S and Galaxy 5S have almost the same efficiency regarding video play
----------
And is this big losses taking into account what they kept?
The patents would have to be worth over 5 billion to not make their purchase a loss. As for the Advanced tech and products group, we have no numbers to say what benefit that will be to them.
Tattooed passwords and stomach acid sounds cool, but its all vaporware right now.
So no, you don't have anything to back that it is a big loss taking into account what they have kept.
"screen area" has no relevant meaning. Erroneous, jibberish.
Are the panels using the same technology?
Same number of sub-pixels?
Same brightness, NITS?
Is the video source the same? 1080P, then one handset would be processing a down conversion.
720P, then both up converting to two different resolutions.
Etc
Etc
This must be a joke.
Well, you win, S5 has a poor battery management. Are you happy now?
What ever makes Samsung look good. But we can spin this the other way by checking energy consumption per sqaure inch.
1570 / 10 / 4 = 39.25
2800 / 11 / 5 = 50.9091
It appears like the Galaxy uses 30% more energy per square inch even though it uses an AMOLED screen, which are known for lower power consumption compared to LCD.
50.9091 / 39.25 = 1.29705
You aren't taking pixel density into account....power consumption is proportional to screen size AND pixel density.
The thing that started all this is my notion that the Java type setup (Byte code interpreter, just in time compilation, garbage collector) of Android is inherently less efficient than iOS (full native code, reference counting). Using video playback time, like I did, is clearly quite useless for showing that.
But, if I go with your calculation, where the Galaxy uses 30% more energy, while the screen should be using less, you could say that this 30% is being used by other components. That would be mostly CPU and RAM, which is what you would need to compensate for the overhead of a VM,JIT and GC.
In which case I could still be right about android being inherently less power efficient than iOS.
Yep, good point.
Partly because Java is not involved, as both players are likely written in C.
And partly because there's too much variation in screen sizes, resolution, display type.
I didn't say anything about whether or not Google overpaid, I simply pointed out that they paid a lot less than most people think. But okay, let's look at it:
The patents are still worth something, because without cross-licensing, Apple will still have to pay Motorola (Google) for their SEPs... including back pay for the past seven years.
As far as keeping the Advanced Technologies group, $3B or so is what Apple just paid for Beats. I think I'd take the Moto 360, Project Ara, and thousands of patents over that.
Diagonal distance is a very poor measure of surface area. The premise here is "I'm right", now all that needs to be done is finding supporting arguments.
A 4x4 square has the same surface area as a 1x16 rectangle. The diagonal distance though is 5.65 and 16.03 respectively.
Yeah, which is why the battery life is so much worse on the retina iPhones compared to the non retina models. Oh wait, it isn't, it's the same.
Maybe true if all pixels are white, for typical use however, not in my experience. I recently switched out an LCD character display here to an OLED, the OLED part has significantly lower power consumption. But this is a rediculous discussion, unless we know the power consumptions of these particular displays it's all speculation, it's also speculation that isn't even supporting the original argument about Java. In the end what matters is the amount of hours that you get out of a device.
At the end of the day does it really matter how much power is drawn from the S5 when it last longer than iPhone and charges faster than iPhone? Even the HTC M8 beats the S5. Don't take my word for it; look at Anandtech own testing.
I don't see the argument here.
So many people here have this misconception that battery life for Android phones are horrible. While true a few years ago Android OEM's have passed Apple in battery life and charge times.
Attachments
Read the last sentence of my last post and you have your answer.
Your examples have larger batteries, so it's hardly surprising. In the extreme case size (and weight) also matters of course.
Exactly. Using the anandtech numbers an iPhone 5S with a Galaxy S5 battery would get 15 hours of web browsing.
But.
Where to put that battery?
The iPhone would need to be bigger. And since fatter is a nono that means taller and wider, so bigger screen. That screen would eat a lot, maybe all, of those gains.
You also seem to be forgetting that an Android homescreen isnt just a grid of static apps. There cold be widgets updating using battery as well.
Have a look at the comparison on PhoneArena - http://www.phonearena.com/news/Gala...lagship-has-the-endurance-of-a-tablet_id55077
The Galaxy S5 is only just beaten on battery life by the iPad Air which lasted 8 hr 38 min.