IPhone's resolution: 480x320
Droid's resolution: 480x854
Droid's resolution is more than 2.5x higher. It's not marginal. It makes huge difference. Keep up with the progress
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.
Official Google Phone Coming in January 2010, Testing Now
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IPhone's resolution: 480x320
Droid's resolution: 480x854
Droid's resolution is more than 2.5x higher. It's not marginal. It makes huge difference. Keep up with the progress
So wrong...
"because the PPC roadmap did not allow Apple to do some of the things they wanted to do" ??? At the time Apple was being crashed in notebook space because AMD and Intel made a radical turn towards low power chips and Apple could not compete with HP, DELL etc. by using power hungry PPC chips (which BTW were updated once in a decade - too slow)
"If competition were a primary motivation wouldn't they use Atom or other Intel chips to match the low end competitors." ??? Not a single phone on the planet uses Intel chip. Atom is being improved in terms of power consumption but it still has ways to go.
Do not fool yourself. Read the article about iPhone syndrome (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html?tag=dis)
"because the PPC roadmap did not allow Apple to do some of the things they wanted to do" ??? At the time Apple was being crashed in notebook space because AMD and Intel made a radical turn towards low power chips and Apple could not compete with HP, DELL etc. by using power hungry PPC chips (which BTW were updated once in a decade - too slow)
"If competition were a primary motivation wouldn't they use Atom or other Intel chips to match the low end competitors." ??? Not a single phone on the planet uses Intel chip. Atom is being improved in terms of power consumption but it still has ways to go.
Do not fool yourself. Read the article about iPhone syndrome (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html?tag=dis)
Wow, this is going to help Google make friends... Treat adopters of your OS as beta testers, then go direct to consumers. And what makes them think they can make the jump from advertising company to handset maker? Motorola has barely made the jump from handset maker to, well, handset maker.
Google's got the money to lose, but this seems like a foolish way to lose it.
Google's got the money to lose, but this seems like a foolish way to lose it.
Exclusive: first Google Phone / Nexus One photos, Android 2.1 on-board
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/14/exclusive-first-google-phone-nexus-one-photos-android-2-1-on/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/14/exclusive-first-google-phone-nexus-one-photos-android-2-1-on/
It is true nonetheless - Apple would still be selling G4 MBPs today, had they remained with IBM and the PPC. As it was, the G5 iMacs were melting internally, while the G5 Mac Pros required liquid cooling systems.
Competition notwithstanding, IBM's roadmap for scaling down the POWER6, in a timely manner, was far from promising.
No doubt, switching to Intel provided the benefits of running Windows natively, and leveling the megahertz pissing matches with PCs, once and for all.
However, lugging around liquid cooled laptops would certainly seem to have been contradictory to Apple's vision and future.
Google is operating on assumptions of anything that increases mindshare and/or increases their ad circulation is a good idea. This will eventually stop being true, and their stock will eventually be realistically priced.
No.
I didn't claim, at any point, that GargeBand was free. To me, it's worth the price of iLife on its own, and is one of my favourite apps. So I know it's not free, thanks. I think you misunderstood the post.
I was responsing to VPrime's assertion that:
I was merely asking VPrime to provide a link to even one of the "better free apps" their post indicated the existence of (I am sceptical, though genuinely interested to know what they are thinking of). It does not therefore follow that I assumed that GarageBand is free.
As one of my favourite apps, if there truly were any apps that were both free and better, it would be a no-brainer to download and install them, to have in addition to my existing apps, as well as being a surprise given that I would have expected to have read about or heard of such apps.
The problem is there is no compelling reason to switch from MS Office since it is the standard. Word works just fine, as does Excel, Powerpoint et. al. Unless there is a really good reason to switch, and free is often not enough especially since many people have legitimate access to free or very low cost versions of MS Office. That is the problem any competitor faces.
And while I use NeoOffice on a number of machines, and recommend it to friends with kids in school or college as a viable and free MS Office alternative, my work machine has Office for the Mac.
While I hope not; I would not bet on it - look at Nokia. In addition, it could be a T-Mobile device and the unlocked rumors are wrong.
Boys and Toys; as they get older the only change is the toys get more expensive.
au contraire...
So wrong...
"At the time Apple was being crashed in notebook space..."
Mmmm.... the facts tell a different story:
As can be seen below, Apple was doing quite well in the "notebook space" before, during and after the Intel switch. Eyeballing the chart it appears that Apple had about 20% YOY growth in Laptop sales in FY2005 (the last full year of PPC).
The chart shows a rather normal pattern, where FQ2 (Jan-Mar) dips from FQ1 (Oct-Dec).
FQ2 2006 appears to be down more than normal-- likely due to the fact it was right in the middle of the transition and all models had not been switched to Intel.
However, FQ2 2006 is still up YOY. The only dip YOY was FQ2 2009.
Note: the chart shows fiscal quarters and the annotations show calendar dates.
I found the information and the chart at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–Intel_transition
BTW, I used what others have called junk (Pages, iWeb, MobileMe) to add annotations and publish the image.
*
It's true for a very weird definition of truth. It's actually bending the truth to make it seem like your argument is correct.
The fact is, if it weren't about competition at all, Apple could've kept on shipping G4 Powerbooks and iBooks. It could still be shipping G5 PowerMacs. Of course, in 2009, who in their right mind would buy such machines ?
The simple fact is that the PPC chips IBM was giving them and planning to give them wouldn't allow Apple to compete in the market. This was all about competing on a level playing field with other OEMs (HP, Dell, Toshiba, Sony...) by shipping systems with similar performance levels.
Of course, this destroys the argument that Apple never competes with anyone... but you know, you guys sure have found nice ways to spin this one into a non-compete switch...
AIR, no one said that "Apple never competes with anyone..."
Some have suggested that Apple was forced or driven to switch to Intel because of competition.
I really don't want to get into a semantics pissing contest, but, away we go:
competition |ˌkämpəˈti sh ən|
noun
the activity or condition of competing : there is fierce competition between banks | at this conservatory
As I read it, "competition" refers to a state or activity that currently exists-- not one that may or may not exist at some future time.
When Apple announced the switch to Intel they were doing quite well vis a vis the competition.
If you take SJ at his word the reason for the switch was for future opportunity-- the Intel roadmap would allow them to do things they couldn't with the PPC roadmap.
I guess one could "spin" that a future opportunity with Intel would allow Apple to offer more competitive devices at more competitive prices and gain market share.
But, that hasn't happened to any great measure and I do not believe that it was the driving force behind the switch.
*
Actually, I agree with you on ads in the iPhone apps - as opposed to bloating the bundled default-software for messaging, contact-lists, etc - being good. Then you choose the ads when downloading the app, not when purchasing the phone.
Look, I never presented false accusations against Google, it's just that my imagination runs wild when I hear the term "Google phone", which in my opinion I made perfectly clear. Where would we be without imagination?
The Droid has no ads anywhere. I'm assuming a Google phone wouldn't be any different, otherwise no one would want it.
It would be a watershed for Google. Paying for ads to try to sell this phone instead of receiving money for ads. And given that HTC makes the handset, how much of the revenue would go Google? And for what? Android is Open Source, so it must be for Google Apps & Services.
But all in all it looks like a HTC phone, with Google apps, not a Google phone. And it has the same broken memory setup as other Android phones.
I fail to see your point? I like the iPhone OS, but I wouldn't consider Android a failure. I actually love the Droid but couldn't justify the monthly bill on Verizon - same reason for AT&T and the iPhone monthly bill. T-Mobile provides the best deal for my iPhone, so it works out for me.
AMEN!
You'd think a corporation as HUGE and POWERFUL as Google would have done a little research on the history of platforms and been able to see all the mistakes they are repeating!
Oh well lol. Competition is good.
Yes, yes they did. In this very thread. Hence why this discussion is taking place.
Go back and read the thread and see posts by LagunaSol and *LTD*.
What's broken about it? I've got more apps on my Droid than I do my iPT, and still have 200MB left. It stores the data from the apps on the memory card.