A joke? Tell me how a lower priced phone with way better software than Apple could ever imagine.. is a joke?
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.
Google/Motorola Developing Flagship Phone to Compete with Apple and Samsung
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A joke? Tell me how a lower priced phone with way better software than Apple could ever imagine.. is a joke?
Well, because the lower priced phone with "way better software then Apple could ever imagine" is outperformed by the high priced phone with bad software.
This is clearly subject to opinion that i dont share. The only thing the iP5 does better than the N4 right now is battery life. And thats MY opinion.
You are certainly entitled to yours but im pretty sure no matter what the Nexus 4 or any Android phone did, you would say the iPhone is better. And thats great....use what you like and what works for you.
No that's the difference between you and I. You're basing your "better" on subjective things, I'm basing mine on benchmarks and real world tests that have been documented.
Oh awesome. Your a benchmark guy....lol. Im one that doesnt care about benchmarks because they really dont mean anything. They only matter to geeks.
You see i dont care which phone loads a second faster or slower. I care what the phone can do and for me and Android does a lot more for me than the iPhone did. And im not even counting the fact that the iPhone screen is too small and too skinny.
Thats the difference between you and I.
So, like i said...it is all subject to ones opinion and i dont share yours.
Well ill say that they dont entirely mean anything. They are an indicator of how well components are performing and it has some merit but only geeks care what those numbers are.
There are several articles (here is One of many you can find) on this that make better points than i am going to give but in the end, who really cares about a benchmark score other than the Geeks who run them all the time?
Here is my stance on it:
I happen to love my Galaxy S3 and it is fast and runs Jelly Bean really well. If i have it beside a iPhone 5 for instance, they are running pretty close to each other. The GS3 loads one thing a second or two faster and then the iPhone loads another thing a second or two faster.....but lets say the iPhone has a much higher benchmark in that particular area in a browser score. Well if it is only loading it a second or two faster and then the next one it is slower....then what good is a benchmark? Does it really mean the iPhone or the GS3 is better?
The GS3 pretty much loaded most things faster than the iPhone 4S but it wasnt like the iPhone was way behind. I care about how the device performs and Benchmarks don’t always reflect real-world implementations.
My GS3 runs smoother on JB 4.1.1 than it did on ICS though it ran well on ICS and it is faster but i liked it before i updated it. So what the benchmark is on it now, i dont even know and dont really know what it was prior to that before the update. All i know is it performs well, does the things i want it do and and runs everything i have on it very well regardless if it has a lower or higher score than the iPhone or the Note or the HTC One X or add any phone here in the equation.
Bottom line is i can do many more things on my GS3 than you can on your iPhone and it runs great doing it so if your benchmark is 50,000 and mine is 40,000 (i dont even know what most of those scores are even tests for) and im right there with you in speed and can do more things...what do i care about a benchmark for?
I can watch video while typing an email or texting. You cant. I like that i can do those things and i like my better notifications system and i love Google Now and how it is implemented with everything i tell it to.
I guess you can like your benchmark scores for bragging rights.
Until a phone such as the Galaxy S4 comes out and then benchmarks wont matter to iphone5 users until the iphone 6 comes out.
Sorry, my Galaxy Nexus has the longest battery life out of any of the 4 Android phones I have had. I get 2 days with moderate use and everything enabled.
You must be talking about the LTE version, not the GED/GSM device. Which version do you own?
This is more than the current annual activations of all Android units combined, including Samsung.
Sorry, but as someone else has mentioned, my discussion with you is over. You don't know what you're talking about and you're basically arguing only for the sake of arguing.
You've been asking me to respond to your questions, and I have in great detail over a number of posts. I pose questions back to you and they get avoided because you've got nothing.
You've asked me and about 2 other users here why Samsung can't do what Amazon did. I answered you about 8 hours ago in detail, you then ignored my response and you keep asking other users the same question since then. That is trolling in my books... because you're not actually looking for an answer
Welcome to my ignore list.
It's the ecosystem, stupid
Yes, and how does Samesung - which has nothing to offer users apart from the phones themselves - compete with Apple at the high end and Amazon at the low end, both of which have immense established ecosystems?
The answer is, they don't. Samsung will be incapable of competing with Amazon for the budget phone market - just as they can't compete in budget tablets. And they can't charge the kind of premium Apple does for its well-designed kit and high-end ecosystem.
Samsung is screwed and Google knows it. Hence Google's move into hardware.
Samsung profits from hardware sales on smartphones - they aren't much of a presence in tablets. When Amazon drops free smartphones into the market that rival or exceed the capabilities of Samsung's more costly phones, how exactly will Samsung compete?
They won't. Game over.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a single "Android". There isn't. Amazon will be using its own fork of Android, one that cuts Google out almost completely.
Saying that there's one "Android" market is like saying that there's one "ARM" market. A whole slew of these phones use ARM chips, but the companies themselves are rivals and the software that runs on one won't necessarily run on another.
Yes, and how does Samesung - which has nothing to offer users apart from the phones themselves - compete with Apple at the high end and Amazon at the low end, both of which have immense established ecosystems?
The answer is, they don't. Samsung will be incapable of competing with Amazon for the budget phone market - just as they can't compete in budget tablets. And they can't charge the kind of premium Apple does for its well-designed kit and high-end ecosystem.
Samsung is screwed and Google knows it. Hence Google's move into hardware.
Samsung profits from hardware sales on smartphones - they aren't much of a presence in tablets. When Amazon drops free smartphones into the market that rival or exceed the capabilities of Samsung's more costly phones, how exactly will Samsung compete?
They won't. Game over.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a single "Android". There isn't. Amazon will be using its own fork of Android, one that cuts Google out almost completely.
Saying that there's one "Android" market is like saying that there's one "ARM" market. A whole slew of these phones use ARM chips, but the companies themselves are rivals and the software that runs on one won't necessarily run on another.
You really are joking, don't you?
It is impossible to have such lack of knowledge about the market and make the claims you make without being joking.
This is drifting off topic but I want to make it clear that my frustration with iTunes overseas is not based on material being unavailable. I don't buy much music but I can tell you that more than 99% of the iPhone and iPad apps in the US store are also in the online Vietnam store. The problem is that Apple insists that one must have a credit card from the country that they see you are in (apparently by tags on your ISP.) Paradoxically they want me to have a Vietnamese credit card but they want to charge the card in US$. So I can't buy from the US store and I can't buy from the Vietnam store either. There is a way to get apps updated but it is inconsistent and difficult. Search for this topic on this forum or on the Apple Support Communities and you will see that I am not alone in my frustration. This has to do with Apple, not some record label. I have no way to test it out but understand the at the Android store is open to users from all countries.
But you're just proving what I said. Your idea of "better"has no value to anyone except for yourself. I have no need or desire to watch videos while typing. Your "better" notification system is an opinion.
Sure benchmarks aren't everything, but they're far more concrete examples of "better" than what you've presented.
Using your school of thought, here are some examples of my own:
I'm always running the latest version of my OS. You're not. This makes my phone better.
I have iTunes where I can get millions of songs movies tv shows. You can't. My phone is better.
I have a better app store with better apps.
Would you agree now, based on my opinions, that iPhone is better? If not, why not? I used the same logic as you.
My apologies, I misunderstood what your problem is. That's a completely ridiculous situation.
Last edited:
No way will Samsung fork Android. Doing so would be detrimental to them. First thing Google would do is block the product due to Android incompatibility which as a member of the OHA Samsung has pledged to uphold. If they moved forward with the fork Google would yank their membership. Losing that would lose them rights to the Android name, logo, and Play Store access. Amazon was never an OHA member so this didn't matter to them.
1. I would consider all the work that Samsung is doing with TouchWiz, especially with S Pen, S Motion, and the others optimizing Android for their hardware.
2. Sure they could freeze APIs but what would that gain them? Google already depreciates APIs by restricting Google Play access for those using old ones. Plus they would loose out on any new APIs introduced in future versions of Android.
3. I don't follow this one. By de-facto standard for all Android developers do you mean that apps are developed for them first or exclusively? The OHA exists to ensure inter-operability and compatibility across the platform. By platform I mean Android. If a person developed an app and tested it against a device that passes Android's CTS ( Compatibility Test Suite) it is guaranteed to work across all devices that pass said test. If that same person tested the same app on a Kindle would it work? More times than not it will but you can't be sure unless you test it on that device. Without looking at the SDK there is really no way of telling what Amazon has changed (APIs, system files, etc).
4. Samsung is flirting with the idea already. They have the their Media Hub. Its there, it works, but its not available in many countries, and not all Samsung phones support it. More importantly the content isn't there yet. No doubt they will get more but I believe they would have the same problem Microsoft is having. The content isn't there yet and as more and more people use their devices as consumption devices that is a big problem. While being a good tablet, I'm convinced the Kindle caught on like it did was because the content was already there.
5. Not with the way it is now. Samsung Smart TVs only support JS, CSS, HTML, and FLASH. So no native Android apps would run. Their TVs would need to be based on their fork to ensure compatibility. Not impossible but still a huge undertaking.
Also don't forget, Samsung already develops its own mobile OS Bada. They recently merged with it with Tizen. Its got some big names behind it and pledged support, but I'm wondering if Samsung effectively EOL'd it earlier this year when they said no new Bada phones in 2012 and no Tizen phones until sometime in 2013. Oh, and its only available in Asian Pacific areas.
The OHA allows them to develop competing mobile OSs but not any that derive from Android. I could see Samsung flooding the market with Android, Bada/Tizen, and WP8. But fork Android, not going to happen.
That's pretty immature. I suppose you use the terms "M$" or "Microshaft" as well?
Because all their products come with Google's immense established ecosystem.
They aren't aiming for the budget market.
They can, and have been charging a similar premium to Apple and they have been doing this very successfully for about the last 18 months. 7 billion a quarter profits from their Android phones supports this. They are competing directly with Apple right now.
And how will Amazon do this? Amazon have shown no inclination to make premium devices and they have little incentive to. They produce capable devices and sell them at cost price so that the customer gains access to their ecosystem. Their OS does not directly compete with Google as it is simply a content delivery platform - they have no web services that are competitive with Google.
No, it's nothing like that and this just further demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge.
ARM is a CPU architecture which must be licensed in order for a company to brand their CPU as ARM and it must conform to certain specifications.
"Android" is trademark owned by Google and is the name of a mobile operating system which uses the Linux Kernel.
If you fork Android you can no longer call it Android. Refer to the Apache License for details on this.
Last edited:
Competition is always good. While many people here seem to fear Android, Google & Samsung, they'd probably fear any competitor. Bashing Android reveals their fear.
As a hardcore Apple enthusiast, I have an excellent iPhone 5, and an excellent MacBook Pro. Neither of these would be as good as they are if not for the competition.
It's a fact in any industry that builds consumer products.
I've never used Android & don't see that changing, but I am happy they're so successful because that pushes Apple.
As a hardcore Apple enthusiast, I have an excellent iPhone 5, and an excellent MacBook Pro. Neither of these would be as good as they are if not for the competition.
It's a fact in any industry that builds consumer products.
I've never used Android & don't see that changing, but I am happy they're so successful because that pushes Apple.
No. He's not proving what you said. He's proving what he said. Benchmarks only matter as a proof point if benchmarks matter to you. I would guess that in reality - most people don't care about benchmarks - they care about performance. Real or perceived. If you and I are both using our phones and one is an iPhone - the other an Android phone and we can do all the same stuff and as quickly - doesn't it matter if one benchmarks at a few nanoseconds faster? No - you notice real lag or the speed apps open. But also - the biggest "benchmark" has little to do with phone these days - it's internet connectivity. Since so many apps rely on internet speeds - you could have the fastest phone on the planet - doesn't matter if you aren't getting a good download/upload rate.
Also depends on what you use your phone for. Some benchmarks are GREAT if you're a gamer. Matters not one iota if you're not. So benchmarks are subjective. Just like everything else.
Sure you can use it at a proof point on a technical level. But on a real use case level - it could mean absolutely nothing - and often times does.
Perfect example - some TVs advertising a contrast ration of 800,000:1 and others 2M to 1. Guess what? Neither matter because the human eye can't even comprehend 800K to 1. So benchmarking that means nothing. Except "bragging rights."
As for the rest of your points.
If his older OS matches your newest OS - how is your phone better? It comes down to use case. I might be running a really old OS but your phone's newest OS might be crap - so who's is better?
Everyone has access to iTunes. And I'm pretty sure the Amazon bookstore has far more offerings than iTunes. And between various other media companies - you can get a variety of music, videos, books, etc. Yay - you have iTunes. Let me know when you can read an iBook on your computer - or on a non-Apple device.
Better app store with better apps? Subjective. More doesn't equal better when so much is crap to begin with.
Let's face it - the argument it totality is STUPID. The best phone is the one that does what you want. It's subjective. Both Android and iOS are great platforms, have great phones running them and have great ecosystems.
Anyone arguing otherwise is just trying to engage in a pissing contest.
Also depends on what you use your phone for. Some benchmarks are GREAT if you're a gamer. Matters not one iota if you're not. So benchmarks are subjective. Just like everything else.
Sure you can use it at a proof point on a technical level. But on a real use case level - it could mean absolutely nothing - and often times does.
Perfect example - some TVs advertising a contrast ration of 800,000:1 and others 2M to 1. Guess what? Neither matter because the human eye can't even comprehend 800K to 1. So benchmarking that means nothing. Except "bragging rights."
As for the rest of your points.
If his older OS matches your newest OS - how is your phone better? It comes down to use case. I might be running a really old OS but your phone's newest OS might be crap - so who's is better?
Everyone has access to iTunes. And I'm pretty sure the Amazon bookstore has far more offerings than iTunes. And between various other media companies - you can get a variety of music, videos, books, etc. Yay - you have iTunes. Let me know when you can read an iBook on your computer - or on a non-Apple device.
Better app store with better apps? Subjective. More doesn't equal better when so much is crap to begin with.
Let's face it - the argument it totality is STUPID. The best phone is the one that does what you want. It's subjective. Both Android and iOS are great platforms, have great phones running them and have great ecosystems.
Anyone arguing otherwise is just trying to engage in a pissing contest.
Well what is it that you're trying to convey? Why beat around the bush? Why not just say what you mean?
No that is false. It's irrelevant if benchmarks "matter" to you. They are a tangible, provable way to show how a device performs better than another. That was my point. You can't prove that having the ability to write emails and watch videos at the same time makes a phone "better" because not everyone might want or need such functionality. Things like that are subjective. Benchmarks are objective. There's quite the difference between the two.
No it doesn't matter to the person if their phone takes a nanosecond longer. But that's not the point. The point is, how to define "better". Better is a subjective term if you're saying things like "my apps are better then yours"...it's an objective term if you're saying things like "my phone outperforms yours". Why? Because you can prove it.
Secondly, I wouldn't say benchmarks have little to do with phones today. A phone with poor benchmarks would not have good performance and would not be popular. Sure, as far as apps are concerned internet speeds etc are important, but no one is going to buy a phone that lags and stalls and crashes.
Again. False. Subjective means based on opinion. Maybe the meaning is lost in translation for you? You can't just say "I think this phone has better benchmarks". A benchmark is as objective as it gets.
Earlier you said benchmarks can only be used as a proof point if it "matters to you". Now you say it can be used as a proof point on a technical level. You also said benchmarks are subjective, but the above statement paints them in an objective light. So..which is it?
(Don't answer, it's obejctive)Correct, but that doesn't make it subjective. It doesn't matter if you perceive the differences between contrast ratios. The fact of the matter is, and it can be proven that TV A has a better contrast ratio then TV B. That's objective, not subjective.
I do believe maybe it is a translation problem? I was using ridiculous examples to show why he was wrong. You seem to agree that he was wrong then, right? Just because my phone has the newer OS doesn't make it better. That's my point. The same way being able to watch a video while writing an email doesn't make his phone better. Word of the day: It's subjective.
See above.
Yes. I know. See above.
Indeed it is STUPID! That's my point. You sure went a long way just to agree with me! Telling me Android is "better" because you can read an email while watching a video (is that a popular use case
) means nothing to me because I have no desire to do that. In other words, the OP might go to a store and say "I need a phone that lets me read and watch at the same time", but I wouldn't. That doesn't make his phone better. It's subjective.I'm really not sure where the "benchmarks don't matter" crap started, as benchmarks have been used to test performance ever since the beginning of computing. The people who say benchmarks don't matter perhaps are not happy with the results of said benchmarks? Benchmarks have always been, and still are an important cornerstone of computing, and there are several industry standard benchmarks (which again are all verifiable and provable). To say that "benchmarks don't matter" or that they're subjective shows an acute lack of understanding on the matter.