If the 4G screen is not bigger, switch to EVO?

[corriewf]

Except the G1 is 1 year old, and the first gen iPhone is about 3

There is a reason why the iPhone wins highest customer satisfaction and has the highest retention rate of any other smartphone company out there. It goes a lot DEEPER than the phone itself. It's the user experience/user interface. The reality is Android is geared mostly to MALE TECHIES, Ages 25-35. The iPhone appeals from 7 year olds to 90 year olds, both men and women. HUGE difference. Not only that, the support behind Apple is by far the best. Questions answered for free, tech issues that can be solved most of the time (fast). You just don't get that anywhere else.

God forbid you get an break or have issues with your Incredible or EVO 4G...It's a total nightmare. It's like getting a PC fixed, which in most cases is huge headache. If I break my iPhone right now...I can walk 2 blocks and pay $199 for a replacement and have it synced in going within 30 minutes.

Again, it goes SO much deeper than the phone itself, which imo, is still overall best in hardware/software marriage.

There is a big reason why a lot of those guys at Engadget still use iPhones on a daily basis...even though they have Nexus Ones and Incredible...

At the end of the day, I want the best overall product, and honestly, after using a N1 for a while. I, like many others, realized the iPhone is just a better phone (for now).

That's because the Iphone was the first " omg omg it's so cool to have an Iphone Paris Hilton has one yay!" The Iphone has been a status symbol for a lot of people. Instead of seeing the device for what it is, people see the device as representing themselves. There has been no other phone yet that is so "cool" to own. If you throw out the cool factor and Apple is amazing factor....Look at the specs, look at the OS. It's getting stale.

The marriage between software and hardware can be easily found in the EVO because HTC is making their UI specifically for it.

Correct me if im wrong, but you can't use Ichat with msn right? Whats the deal with that. You can use it with aim but not msn. Why? Does Steve Jobs have to take everything personal with other companies and make his customers pay the price. Adobe pissed him off, no flash. Microsoft pissed him off, no bing, no msn msg.

 

[bbplayer5]

And you are a liar. I doubt you even had the Nexus One. Multitasking on android is the same as the iphone. Background apps lay dormant, they arent running unless you have them pulling data - IE GPS, AIM, etc.

In other words, you are a liar iPhone fanboi.

I'll stick with the iPhone.

The size is fine by me. I've finished playing with a Nexus One and found the android OS lacking. Sure it has full multitasking, so much so my battery was used up by lunch hour. The iPhone has 150k of applications, android 20% of that. Of the applications I did find, many of them lacked the same level of depth and polish that the iPhone apps usually have.

The non-gmail app is crap, the calendar was not the best, android's exchange support is lacking to say the least.

Overall I liked the android os but it failed to live up to the same level as the Iphone.

 

[Alchematron]

My biggest beef with the iPhone is the screen size

Which is why I bought a iPad

My primary concern is how to run the iPad at 4G speed

EVO is currently in the lead

The truth will be told this Summer

May the best phone win!

4.3 inch screen vs iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOV7PH3J0j0

Dramatic wouldn't you say?

 

[gloss]

My biggest beef with the iPhone is the screen size

Which is why I bought a iPad

My primary concern is how to run the iPad at 4G speed

EVO is currently in the lead

The truth will be told this Summer

May the best phone win!

4.3 inch screen vs iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOV7PH3J0j0

Dramatic wouldn't you say?

Yes, the HD2's screen looks gorgeous but the iPhone's browsing experience looks far and away more polished. And I believe the iPhone's brightness was turned down, to boot.

 

[nycbhh]

Yes, the HD2's screen looks gorgeous but the iPhone's browsing experience looks far and away more polished.

I just watched the video. Can you be specific about why you think the iPhone's browsing experience in that video looks "far and away" more polished? Because I'm just not seeing it.

 

[AbSoluTc]

My biggest beef with the iPhone is the screen size

Which is why I bought a iPad

My primary concern is how to run the iPad at 4G speed

EVO is currently in the lead

The truth will be told this Summer

May the best phone win!

4.3 inch screen vs iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOV7PH3J0j0

Dramatic wouldn't you say?

Unimpressed. A "little" checkerboard? How about A LOT of checkerboard. I also noticed a couple of times where he stated the HD2 loaded faster, however he already visited the site and had it in cache. I also noticed that the 3GS was much snappier than the HD2. MUCH snappier.

Lastly, the average consumer won't know this - but Opera handles browsing different than Safari. Opera handles the images on their own server and the text is directly sent to the phone. Unlike Safari.

Again, not impressed. Screen size was decent but I don't want to lug around a huge phone.

 

[AbSoluTc]

I just watched the video. Can you be specific about why you think the iPhone's browsing experience in that video looks "far and away" more polished? Because I'm just not seeing it.

You didn't see the HD2 "stuttering"? Let alone the checkerboard pattern always showing up?

 

[gloss]

I just watched the video. Can you be specific about why you think the iPhone's browsing experience in that video looks "far and away" more polished? Because I'm just not seeing it.

Scrolling, zooming, and double-tapping all function more smoothly on the iPhone, and the overall responsiveness of the touch-screen seems higher (how many times did he mis-tap or mistakenly click a wrong link on the HD2?). I'm not denying that the HD2 is a killer piece of hardware or that it loads sites a touch faster, but the software just isn't there quite there yet. Perhaps it's better running Android.

As far as I can see, no one has yet matched the responsiveness and refinement of Mobile Safari. The speed is there in some of these competitors, but the intangibles are not.

Just watch as he's zooming around NewEgg. The HD2 seems clunky and jagged by comparison. And it's hilarious that he keeps giving the HD2 props for being 'faster' in various minor functions, such as screen rotation, when it's either identical or is 'faster' because there is no transition animation - it just snaps into the new orientation instantly. That's a software issue, friend, and it makes the OS look rather unpolished.

 

[nycbhh]

Okay, thanks for your specifics. I re-watched the video a few times and now see what you are saying, but the differences seem very minuscule to me (the checkerboard for instance shows up a few times but only for a small fraction of a second, and certainly not "always" as AbsoluTc claims) and, quite honestly, I doubt most people outside of techie types will even notice it. But if that stuff makes enough of a difference to you to forgo a much larger viewing experience, fair enough.

 

[gloss]

Okay, thanks for your specifics. I re-watched the video a few times and now see what you are saying, but the differences seem very minuscule to me (the checkerboard for instance shows up a few times but only for a small fraction of a second, and certainly not "always" as AbsoluTc claims) and, quite honestly, I doubt most people outside of techie types will even notice it. But if that stuff makes enough of a difference to you to forgo a much larger viewing experience, fair enough.

I think the screen and the extra real estate are phenomenal. It's just that I, personally, place a lot of value on a seamless and polished user experience, sometimes at the expense of other things. I know a lot of other people, especially those techie enough to be looking at phones like the HD2, aren't so bothered. The HD2 is a really cool phone - the steroidal hardware goes a long way to smother the shortcomings of the OS. I personally, however, would prefer a slightly more refined experience even if I have to deal with a smaller screen.

More of a taste issue than anything. There are people that prefer the raw speed and customizability of Linux to the more buttoned-down, refined atmosphere of Mac OS or the hugely capable but extremely uneven Windows experience. It all depends on the user.

 

[nycbhh]

Understandable. It'll be interesting to see how the browser in the Sense UI overlay of Android on EVO does in comparison. I realize the hardware is supposed to be almost identical to the HD2, but maybe the Sense/Android software (as opposed to Sense/Winmo) will take care of the issues you have. And rumor has it EVO may actually be shipping with Froyo or 2.5 instead of 2.1, so I guess we'll have to see what it ends up with and how that software performs.

 

[corriewf]

I think the screen and the extra real estate are phenomenal. It's just that I, personally, place a lot of value on a seamless and polished user experience, sometimes at the expense of other things. I know a lot of other people, especially those techie enough to be looking at phones like the HD2, aren't so bothered. The HD2 is a really cool phone - the steroidal hardware goes a long way to smother the shortcomings of the OS. I personally, however, would prefer a slightly more refined experience even if I have to deal with a smaller screen.

More of a taste issue than anything. There are people that prefer the raw speed and customizability of Linux to the more buttoned-down, refined atmosphere of Mac OS or the hugely capable but extremely uneven Windows experience. It all depends on the user.

I personally didn't see the differences between the two, but I have a kid screaming and constantly distracting me.

That screen was VERY nice. The viewing experience was amazing. I could see and read the text much easier from the websites. With that said, that was windows mobile, not android. Opera is a piece of crap. Sorry, just my opinion. I think HTC did a nice job and met their contractual obligation to Microsoft to produce a windows mobile phone. Thank god that is behind them.

 

[corriewf]

Understandable. It'll be interesting to see how the browser in the Sense UI overlay of Android on EVO does in comparison. I realize the hardware is supposed to be almost identical to the HD2, but maybe the Sense/Android software (as opposed to Sense/Winmo) will take care of the issues you have. And rumor has it EVO may actually be shipping with Froyo or 2.5 instead of 2.1, so I guess we'll have to see what it ends up with and how that software performs.

Wow! I bet Froyo is going to be awesome! Wonder if the evo will come in different colors?

 

[rtabdo]

I think a lot of people who get the EVO aren't going to be as happy about it once they use it for a few weeks especially if they have the chance to use an new iPhone (for many reasons other than the display).

I honestly use Apple products, because at this point in time, they are overall the best. I don't look at Apple like I look at a sports team and cheer for them, even if they suck.

Until HTC/Android can really make something that I feel is more compelling and not so "cob-jobed" (in terms of OS) I really firmly believe the iPhone still wins.

If HTC/Android was really the better choice, I'd go for it. But using and testing multiple phones including N1, HD2 (windows), and other Android/HTC phones... RIGHT NOW, imo, the most complete smartphone is the iPhone.

If the new iPhone turns out to have a 960x640 display the PPI (pixels per inch) will rival actual print that you see in magazines. We are talking 320 PPI here (for the record, the Incredible is at 250 ppi)

At the end of the day, I'm not going to judge a phone based entirely on screen size. I think that is a terrible approach to judge phones by. I don't think most would pick a 24" CRT over a 20" LCD Monitor. The same reason why I would pick a 13" Macbook Pro over a 17" Windows PC laptop.

 

[NorrisKillsKids]

So much ignorance....so much misinformation....it hurts.

Do people not understand why such a high resolution + same size screen is so good? Anyway I'll just copy and paste from Gruber's website, the benefit is enormous:

Ever since I hinted last month that this summer’s next-gen iPhones would sport double-resolution 960 × 640 displays,1 there’s been a strain of incredulous feedback regarding this suggestion — emails from readers who don’t understand why Apple would do this. The gist of the feedback, more or less, is that the existing iPhone already has a nice high-resolution display, so why would Apple bother adding a more expensive display when the existing one is already so good?

Existing iPhone and iPod Touch displays offer 480 × 320 resolution, which, given a roughly 3.5-inch diagonal screen size, works out to about 162 pixels per inch. (The various iPhone and iPod Touch models have ever-so-slightly different physical sizes, so if you want to be truly pedantic, the pixels-per-inch on the various units released to date have ranged from around 160 to 163. The difference is insignificant.)

I put this table together in June 2007 showing the pixel-per-inch resolution of Apple’s then-current lineup of Mac displays; the highest was the high-res 17-inch MacBook Pro, at 133 ppi. (The optional high-res glossy and matte displays on the brand-new 15-inch MacBook Pros now match this.) Most others came in around 100-110. The iPad’s 1024 × 768 display has a resolution of 132 ppi — finer than most Macs, but noticeably cruder than existing iPhones and iPod Touches.

There are Android phones with 800 × 480 AMOLED displays. They measure around 3.7-inches diagonally, which works out to about 250 ppi. Small text is noticeably crisper on the Nexus One than on my iPhone 3GS. This Android advantage is mitigated, alas, by two factors. First, that Android only ships with the Droid family of typefaces — low-quality typefaces designed to look best on lower-resolution displays. The effect is sort of like when you print a screen-optimized font like Chicago. Second, it can be argued that because each pixel on these AMOLED displays is not capable of reproducing every color, they’re not really 800 × 480. These displays have 33 percent fewer sub-pixels than a display of the same size where every pixel contains three (red, green, blue) sub-pixels.

So 162 pixels-per-inch is indeed a very fine resolution when compared to most other electronic devices. But even today’s iPhone displays are crude when compared to print. Compare type on your iPhone or iPod Touch against the type in a glossy magazine. You can see pixels and anti-aliasing smudginess on an iPhone. You can’t see “dots” in the letterforms of a printed magazine.

The next-gen iPhone is shooting for that caliber of resolution — not merely to exceed the resolution of competing devices, but to rival the optical quality of print. A 3.5-inch diagonal display with 960 × 640 pixels works out to around 325-330 ppi. (Maybe even higher, if it’s more like a 3.4-inch diagonal.) That’s fewer “dots” per inch than on, say, a 600 dpi printer, but when combined with anti-aliasing, I believe the on-screen typography on the next-gen iPhones will be indistinguishable, or nearly so, from high-quality print. There will be four pixels packed into the space now occupied by a single pixel.

I'm sure most of you will ignore it or read it and still claim like the the very prospect of what's described isn't absolutely awesome, then let me say in advance, you're a lost cause.

 

[AbSoluTc]

So much ignorance....so much misinformation....it hurts.

Do people not understand why such a high resolution + same size screen is so good? Anyway I'll just copy and paste from Gruber's website, the benefit is enormous:

Ever since I hinted last month that this summer’s next-gen iPhones would sport double-resolution 960 × 640 displays,1 there’s been a strain of incredulous feedback regarding this suggestion — emails from readers who don’t understand why Apple would do this. The gist of the feedback, more or less, is that the existing iPhone already has a nice high-resolution display, so why would Apple bother adding a more expensive display when the existing one is already so good?

Existing iPhone and iPod Touch displays offer 480 × 320 resolution, which, given a roughly 3.5-inch diagonal screen size, works out to about 162 pixels per inch. (The various iPhone and iPod Touch models have ever-so-slightly different physical sizes, so if you want to be truly pedantic, the pixels-per-inch on the various units released to date have ranged from around 160 to 163. The difference is insignificant.)

I put this table together in June 2007 showing the pixel-per-inch resolution of Apple’s then-current lineup of Mac displays; the highest was the high-res 17-inch MacBook Pro, at 133 ppi. (The optional high-res glossy and matte displays on the brand-new 15-inch MacBook Pros now match this.) Most others came in around 100-110. The iPad’s 1024 × 768 display has a resolution of 132 ppi — finer than most Macs, but noticeably cruder than existing iPhones and iPod Touches.

There are Android phones with 800 × 480 AMOLED displays. They measure around 3.7-inches diagonally, which works out to about 250 ppi. Small text is noticeably crisper on the Nexus One than on my iPhone 3GS. This Android advantage is mitigated, alas, by two factors. First, that Android only ships with the Droid family of typefaces — low-quality typefaces designed to look best on lower-resolution displays. The effect is sort of like when you print a screen-optimized font like Chicago. Second, it can be argued that because each pixel on these AMOLED displays is not capable of reproducing every color, they’re not really 800 × 480. These displays have 33 percent fewer sub-pixels than a display of the same size where every pixel contains three (red, green, blue) sub-pixels.

So 162 pixels-per-inch is indeed a very fine resolution when compared to most other electronic devices. But even today’s iPhone displays are crude when compared to print. Compare type on your iPhone or iPod Touch against the type in a glossy magazine. You can see pixels and anti-aliasing smudginess on an iPhone. You can’t see “dots” in the letterforms of a printed magazine.

The next-gen iPhone is shooting for that caliber of resolution — not merely to exceed the resolution of competing devices, but to rival the optical quality of print. A 3.5-inch diagonal display with 960 × 640 pixels works out to around 325-330 ppi. (Maybe even higher, if it’s more like a 3.4-inch diagonal.) That’s fewer “dots” per inch than on, say, a 600 dpi printer, but when combined with anti-aliasing, I believe the on-screen typography on the next-gen iPhones will be indistinguishable, or nearly so, from high-quality print. There will be four pixels packed into the space now occupied by a single pixel.

I'm sure most of you will ignore it or read it and still claim like the the very prospect of what's described isn't absolutely awesome, then let me say in advance, you're a lost cause.

Good read. It's about time too and I really hope Apple does follow through. While the screen on the 3G/3GS is nice, it leave a lot to be desired these days with other screens far surpassing them.

This is my main gripe. If the 4G has the same old screen - no upgrade. Period.

 

[corriewf]

So much ignorance....so much misinformation....it hurts.

Do people not understand why such a high resolution + same size screen is so good? Anyway I'll just copy and paste from Gruber's website, the benefit is enormous:

Ever since I hinted last month that this summer’s next-gen iPhones would sport double-resolution 960 × 640 displays,1 there’s been a strain of incredulous feedback regarding this suggestion — emails from readers who don’t understand why Apple would do this. The gist of the feedback, more or less, is that the existing iPhone already has a nice high-resolution display, so why would Apple bother adding a more expensive display when the existing one is already so good?

Existing iPhone and iPod Touch displays offer 480 × 320 resolution, which, given a roughly 3.5-inch diagonal screen size, works out to about 162 pixels per inch. (The various iPhone and iPod Touch models have ever-so-slightly different physical sizes, so if you want to be truly pedantic, the pixels-per-inch on the various units released to date have ranged from around 160 to 163. The difference is insignificant.)

I put this table together in June 2007 showing the pixel-per-inch resolution of Apple’s then-current lineup of Mac displays; the highest was the high-res 17-inch MacBook Pro, at 133 ppi. (The optional high-res glossy and matte displays on the brand-new 15-inch MacBook Pros now match this.) Most others came in around 100-110. The iPad’s 1024 × 768 display has a resolution of 132 ppi — finer than most Macs, but noticeably cruder than existing iPhones and iPod Touches.

There are Android phones with 800 × 480 AMOLED displays. They measure around 3.7-inches diagonally, which works out to about 250 ppi. Small text is noticeably crisper on the Nexus One than on my iPhone 3GS. This Android advantage is mitigated, alas, by two factors. First, that Android only ships with the Droid family of typefaces — low-quality typefaces designed to look best on lower-resolution displays. The effect is sort of like when you print a screen-optimized font like Chicago. Second, it can be argued that because each pixel on these AMOLED displays is not capable of reproducing every color, they’re not really 800 × 480. These displays have 33 percent fewer sub-pixels than a display of the same size where every pixel contains three (red, green, blue) sub-pixels.

So 162 pixels-per-inch is indeed a very fine resolution when compared to most other electronic devices. But even today’s iPhone displays are crude when compared to print. Compare type on your iPhone or iPod Touch against the type in a glossy magazine. You can see pixels and anti-aliasing smudginess on an iPhone. You can’t see “dots” in the letterforms of a printed magazine.

The next-gen iPhone is shooting for that caliber of resolution — not merely to exceed the resolution of competing devices, but to rival the optical quality of print. A 3.5-inch diagonal display with 960 × 640 pixels works out to around 325-330 ppi. (Maybe even higher, if it’s more like a 3.4-inch diagonal.) That’s fewer “dots” per inch than on, say, a 600 dpi printer, but when combined with anti-aliasing, I believe the on-screen typography on the next-gen iPhones will be indistinguishable, or nearly so, from high-quality print. There will be four pixels packed into the space now occupied by a single pixel.

I'm sure most of you will ignore it or read it and still claim like the the very prospect of what's described isn't absolutely awesome, then let me say in advance, you're a lost cause.

That is awesome, thanks! I did not understand how that worked exactly, but had a general idea. I have always wondered why the text was a little blurry on the Iphone. I still would prefer a 4 inch screen though. It's just better for my eyes. I would take 4 inches of 250 ppi versus 325 at 3.5. It's not that I dont think magazine quality print is amazing, I do, I just need something a little bigger to read on. It seems to me that 4 inches is becoming more the standard as well.

 

[MikeyTree]

I'll be very tempted to get the EVO instead of an iPhone this summer, but my reasons have nothing to do with screen size.

Mostly, I want the 4g hotspot capability, to use with an iPad or my MBP. I currently have a Clear WiMax USB stick as my primary home internet, and it's blazingly fast.

If the EVO's 4g is satisfactory, it could end up saving me a lot of money. My current service is costing me $30 a month, and will be going up to $50/month soon. If, as some rumors say, I'll be able to use the 4g hotspot on an EVO for only $20/month more than the standard $70 plan, that's $30 less per month to spend on 4g than if I get an iPhone and continue with Clear.

I'll definitely wait until I see some hands-on reviews before making my decision though. My USB stick kills my MBP's battery time, and the stick also heats up a lot when I use it heavily.

 

[corriewf]

I'll be very tempted to get the EVO instead of an iPhone this summer, but my reasons have nothing to do with screen size.

Mostly, I want the 4g hotspot capability, to use with an iPad or my MBP. I currently have a Clear WiMax USB stick as my primary home internet, and it's blazingly fast.

If the EVO's 4g is satisfactory, it could end up saving me a lot of money. My current service is costing me $30 a month, and will be going up to $50/month soon. If, as some rumors say, I'll be able to use the 4g hotspot on an EVO for only $20/month more than the standard $70 plan, that's $30 less per month to spend on 4g than if I get an iPhone and continue with Clear.

I'll definitely wait until I see some hands-on reviews before making my decision though. My USB stick kills my MBP's battery time, and the stick also heats up a lot when I use it heavily.

So the rumor is that 4G will cost 20 bucks extra on top of 3G? If that is the case, I will stick with the Iphone.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

And you are a liar. I doubt you even had the Nexus One. Multitasking on android is the same as the iphone. Background apps lay dormant, they arent running unless you have them pulling data - IE GPS, AIM, etc.

In other words, you are a liar iPhone fanboi.

You need to calm down, seriously. maflynn did have an Nexus One. When I switched from my 3GS to my N1 (which I have now), I read about his impressions on both phones in the N1 switchers thread.

For what it's worth, I can't wait to get the new iPhone and switch away from this N1 (provided the new iPhone has a higher-res screen). I hate it.

 

[Alchematron]

Mostly, I want the 4g hotspot capability, to use with an iPad or my MBP. I currently have a Clear WiMax USB stick as my primary home internet, and it's blazingly fast.

Yeahhhh babyyyyy

By the way Sprint is a reseller of the Clear network

 

[nycbhh]

So the rumor is that 4G will cost 20 bucks extra on top of 3G? If that is the case, I will stick with the Iphone.

The rumor is that Sprint won't charge any extra for 4G, but will charge around $20 for the hotspot tethering service. This is all rumor though.

Some people are considering using their EVO as their main internet connection at home and cancelling their broadband internet service saving themselves some bucks. I'll consider that if the 4G service turns out to be reliable and as fast as Sprint is claiming. I'm currently spending $50 for my broadband, so if the rumors turn out to be true, it would save me $30 a month.

 

[Alchematron]

The rumor is that Sprint won't charge any extra for 4G, but will charge around $20 for the hotspot tethering service. This is all rumor though.

Some people are considering using their EVO as their main internet connection at home and cancelling their broadband internet service saving themselves some bucks. I'll consider that if the 4G service turns out to be reliable and as fast as Sprint is claiming. I'm currently spending $50 for my broadband, so if the rumors turn out to be true, it would save me $30 a month.

Hopefully it will be my one and only connection.

Proof will be in the pudding this Summer

 

[nycbhh]

And that's not even counting the money I would be saving being on Sprint's voice/data plan vs. AT&T.

 

[MikeyTree]

By the way Sprint is a reseller of the Clear network

I know. That's why I have confidence about Sprint's 4g service in my area.

The rumor is that Sprint won't charge any extra for 4G, but will charge around $20 for the hotspot tethering service. This is all rumor though.

Some people are considering using their EVO as their main internet connection at home and cancelling their broadband internet service saving themselves some bucks. I'll consider that if the 4G service turns out to be reliable and as fast as Sprint is claiming. I'm currently spending $50 for my broadband, so if the rumors turn out to be true, it would save me $30 a month.

That's my plan, if the Evo's 4g reception is up to the task. The Sprint/Clear network in my area is great, though not quite as great as their advertising claims. I'm mostly concerned that the Evo's reception will be inferior to my 4g usb modem, that it'll drastically shorten the battery life, and that it'll make the phone too hot.

IMO the iPhone OS is much more polished and functional than Android, and it has a definite app advantage, but a $30+ cost savings per month is worth the tradeoff IMO. Especially since it'll also give me a 4g-speed hotspot to use with an iPad.

I just hope that there's an Android app equivalent to OmniFocus.