As opposed to just buying whatever Apple poops out, despite specs, features, whatever - because it has an Apple logo on it.
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.
Motorola 'Droid X' to Challenge iPhone 4's Retina Display? [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As opposed to just buying whatever Apple poops out, despite specs, features, whatever - because it has an Apple logo on it.
Actually..
iPhone - Kobe
Droid - Lebron
Lebron is an infinitely better player than Kobe is now. Put lebron with Kobes supporting cast and they'd never lose. Put kobe with Lebrons and you'd see whiney, bitchy Kobe in full effect.
Not based on the endless AT&T drop calls I get and the daily failed to send emails even with FULL signal.
Thats really strange, I live in pittsburgh and I have no problems, however the population may not be as dense as where you are at, but I have had less problems with ATT than with VZW...
Sprint was actually better than both in my area.... oh well....
Soon we'll be getting one of these with every new super high rez phone to take advantage of the ever increasing resolution
Good try motorola, but your phones are garbage.
Then crappy os on top of a crappy phone = a big turd.
Thus that's what i feel about android os.
I haven't had a chance to play with one myself. Please, enlighten us on what is so crappy about Android, since you are apparently very knowledgeable about it.
Does no one ever bother investigating anything anymore??
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/15/exclusive-motorola-droid-x-preview/
"Screen: Apparently the Droid X has a 4.3-inch, FWVGA 854 x 480-resolution screen, though we couldn't confirm that on the device itself. Regardless, it was super crisp and the capacitive screen was mighty responsive to taps and multitouch gestures. Our one concern is the mirrored trim around the screen -- it makes the whole face of the phone extra glossy."
I told you that they are measuring the other way, but no one wants to listen
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/15/exclusive-motorola-droid-x-preview/
"Screen: Apparently the Droid X has a 4.3-inch, FWVGA 854 x 480-resolution screen, though we couldn't confirm that on the device itself. Regardless, it was super crisp and the capacitive screen was mighty responsive to taps and multitouch gestures. Our one concern is the mirrored trim around the screen -- it makes the whole face of the phone extra glossy."
I told you that they are measuring the other way, but no one wants to listen
720p is generally considered to be 720 by 1280, although there may be some other formats that fudge that. If they call it 720p and it's a lower resolution, they are going to get called on it in a big way.
If it's 720 by 480 or something, then most people would consider calling that 720p lying. I guess we'll find out either way next week. You do realize that you're just speculating, right? And that you may end up being wrong when they make the announcement.
To play devil's advocate...
I'd say this isn't just some instances, that in fact it's most instances. While there are examples of rough parity between Mac hardware (27" iMacs, Mac Pros) and PC hardware, the difference in cost essentially grows greater as the weeks go by, since Apple continues to charge the same price for hardware introduced several months before, whereas PC companies have typically long since updated the model line since then.
Then you have systems like the Macbook, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, etc., which, while nicely designed, are generally far more expensive than equivalently-spec'd PC counterparts. You end up essentially paying anywhere from a few hundred to seven hundred more for the right to use OS X and possibly a sturdier (to various degrees) chassis.
That can be fairly easily explained. You use what you've become comfortable with. People on here like to complain that Windows is some horribly unstable, ridiculous piece of software, but in terms of instability, that hasn't really been true since the 9x kernel era. Sure, you can still crash Windows... just like you can crash OS X, Linux, Unix, etc. The biggest complaint is the issue with virus', and a just one at that. However, free antivirus programs essentially take care of that, and do the job well.
Thus, it goes back to being what someone is comfortable with. Or maybe they'll want to do some work from home, and thus need software compatibility (there's obviously the fact that there's much cross-platform interoperability and compatibility, but most people aren't knowledgeable enough to know that, and so would prefer their home system to be "as similar" to Windows as possible). Remember several months ago when the vast majority of Mac owners also were running a Windows system in the household? While a lot of those were bootcamp, it still shows that even Mac users feel the need to keep Windows around for various reasons. How many people feel the need to keep OS X around?
Kinda touched upon it above, but why fix what isn't broken? If someone is comfortable and content with using whatever OS they have, they shouldn't *have* to change.
If anything, I think the above line is really only applicable (with regards to the idea of being "sheep") when it involves someone who refuses to give up their existing platform, even when a newer one will do everything they do better and is clearly superior. Possibly also when they continue to defend a product to any length, without a legitimate argument to stand upon (besides "it's simply better").
So the above line about change, could arguably apply to PC fanboys, to Mac fanboys, to console fanboys, etc. etc.
Eh, most people are knowledgeable enough to know they have a "choice", but the technological illiteracy often comes in with respect to knowing what the differences between those choices are.
A good example would be the "Megahertz Myth" era, when Intel was trying to get customers to believe that a faster processor was always the superior option, while AMD was pushing that there's more to a processor than solely speed.
Ultimately that myth began to die out once the Athlon 64s began to trounce the Pentium 4s at much lower speeds, and ultimately was put to rest when Intel themselves came out with a lower-speed but vastly-superior processor line (to a lesser extent the Core line, but primarily the Core 2 series).
But yeah, Apple and OS X is ubiquitous enough these days that I think people know it can be a legitimate option to Windows, or at the very least they know it exists and are willing to give it a shot.
So ultimately, I don't really see PC users as being "sheep", largely because most don't really care about Microsoft or what it does with Windows. If something better (to them) comes long, and they can change to it, they probably will...
Well, technically....all TVs receive wireless video. But I doubt a real TV transmitter will fit in a phone.
Not common. I'd rather just run a line from a computer than interface with a phone.
All marketing is always lying. Pretty ****** that they've legalized it. Probably means what some have claimed, 720p output available, some other rez for the built-in display.
That's what I'm trying to figure, too. My $90+ TV bill is starting to annoy. I might be ready to drop down in quality to Hulu and other such things. Even, *gasp* an
TV at every TV, perhaps.
You know I am starting to find that argument to be rather stupid and pointless because it boils down to the point that developers deal with insanely more PC and Mac configuration just fine.
It might be better to compare it to just PC here since you have a lot of PC choices, very different OS and yet the same program will work just fine on XP, Vista, Windows 7, and I could easily throw in windows 2000 in the mix plus all the different windows servers out there. Those computers have different CPU, different amounts of ram, different Graphic card and different resolutions and yet they work just fine.
The video chat is more or less to be used at home anyway, I just cant ponder using it "on the go" the way it is advertised is someone away from their family on business or what not calling his wife and child and watching her play and not missing a beat...Yes they could use a cpu, but the camera on the phone is better....... I am not sticking up for it, because I dont intend to use it.... but its not a feature that is making me buy one. I like the new design and the white phone... multi-tasking and the A4 chip.... also the camera will be a vast imporvement and take crisp pictures with the high res screen....
People tend to get excited for just about anything Apple does, whether good or bad, and typically just self-justify it to themselves that it must be a great thing.
I'm convinced Apple could announce the development of Skynet, or some initiative that would begin World War III, and people would eat it all up.
For some retarded reason, "720p" usually refers to the VERTICAL resolution. Since the Droid is a phone, its vertical resolution is the highest, as opposed to laptops and desktops and TV screens, where the vertical resolution is the smallest due to the horizontal aspect ratio. Traditionally, the horizontal resolution is the one that comes first in a normal coordinate system such as (x, y) where x is the horizontal and y is the vertical component.
Apple has a product that works, plain and simple. Why does it matter to you what other people do with their money, if you are annoyed by the fanboyism then just stop coming to a forum devoted to apple products.
Apple invented hi-res screens?
I love it when laymen think product development is as easy as seeing a picture, drawing something similar and then have it manufactured the following week. If Motorola is going to bump screen res to 1280x720 soon, it's something that's been in the works for a long time, not something they came up with in 10 days following the iPhone announcement (the display resolution was not part of the Gizmodo leak).
All these cellphone manufacturers shop components from the same suppliers. When new, better components appear in products it happens all over the market simultaneously. Hi-res phone displays were in the air. First the Droid had 854x480 on a 3.7" display. Then came the iPhone 4 with 960x640. Then comes a Droid with 1280x720 4.3". It's not the result of Motorola or Apple "inventing" these displays, it's about suppliers coming to them and saying "look what we've made, want it?".
Kobe's game is more refined. He's all about work and dedication to show his best on the court. He produces results. It just works. - iPhone
Lebron is all flash. Nice stats, great hype, but in the end, keeps failing. - Droid
Lebron and his supporting cast had the best record in the league the past two years. What do they have to show for it. (Besides the dancing during pre-games, during the game, and on the sidelines).
Yep, and as a developer you (well, I have in my career) end up testing on loads of different configurations, not just related to the screen. As a developer, testing on fewer configurations is a good thing. That's my point. Stupid and pointless? Maybe QA people would enjoy the permutations of system configurations in testing. Even so, I doubt they'd consider my point stupid and pointless.