Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Put it like this, let Apple put out a retina display featured iPad in a few months and watch the lines wrap around the corner!
Then let Samsung put out an HD Galaxy tab and watch the unsold units wrap around the block.
Enough said.
 
Bitchplease. Apple 'invented' the idea that a tablet should be a rectangle with a screen on one of the flat sides. Wow, friggin' genius.

The ipad has succeeded not because of what it looks like, but because of the software (love it or hate it)

Innovation is many times not related to components. The innovation comes in re-interpreting and changing the way we do things.

Or, using an existing technology earlier than others or even just recognizing that somebody else hasn't figured out what to do with an invention (Xerox mouse based, Take Samsung with its picture frame, but no idea what else to do with it.) etc.etc.

For example the ipod was a late comer to that field, but blew everybody elses product away, because it was the first device to do away with the annoyances in operating the first portable mp3 players in a small portable package. One had to also see that mp3 was the way of the future.

The iphone wasn't the first either, but again Apple took a combination of existing technologies and put it all together again did away with the annoyances of similar existing devices.
They bought fingerworks which shows that they realized its potential for use.

Same for the ipad, except that Apple had a leg up because the ipad is basically a mix between a larger iphone and a smaller macbook Air.

In the process of creativity and development Apple came up with many ideas and had them developed by companies in the various fields.
In many cases when you present an idea to a few people they throw in their expertise to make things even better or add ideas.
But, without that initial idea the rest of the process never starts.

What does it do for people to claim victory or being right about who did what first? Who cares?

We are using the products and buy what works for us. End of story.

And, for those wanting to be engaged in who really came up with the first tablet, that would be GOD when she handed down the 10 commandments.

Plenty of pictures of that one in church paintings. Even with different creative shapes.
First tablet.jpg
 
Last edited:
I helped a friend load Ice Cream Sandwich on his Galaxy S 1 and wow, it is so much snappier and responsive than Gingerbread, ICS is a completely different ball game for Android, can only imagine the effect it will have on the tablets currently on Honeycomb (esp the Tranformer Prime that is launching with Honeycomb at first) as hardware acceleration has gotten better as well as other optimizations they have made to the OS

also this Samsung higher resolution tablet screen rumor is not new at all

Engadget article from MAY
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/13/samsung-and-lg-to-showcase-large-high-pixel-density-lcd-panels/
 
You need to learn what you bought. Kindle Fire is based on Android 2.3.x (Gingerbread)

Tell you the truth I didn't really know and had to check. I rechecked after a few people were saying its gingerbread looking at the same article it was for a different device.

So to the other people you were right.

But after using various Android devices I will believe it once I see for my self.
 
Last edited:
Then that's Google's issue. With all their marketing know-how (considering they ARE an advertising company, essentially), if people don't know what Android is vs. iOS, then that's just plain sad and lazy on their part (Google's marketing division). Similar to when people call their HTC Whatever an "iPhone" because HTC has failed to set themselves apart to the point where they seem like a non-platform and non-brand.

What has to do Google with the Amazon Kindle Fire?
 
Oh joy, yet another "Samsung sucks - they copy from Apple" thread.

Well, the company that has the courage to put a product on the market (either new or a whole new approach to an existing one) is in a whole other league than the company that just rides on the wave.
 
You do understand that the displays in the iPad are made by Samsung right now ? :rolleyes:

Samsung knows displays. That's their game. Why is it so hard for some people to recognize Samsung's part in the electronics industry ? Most Macs and iOS devices wouldn't exist today if it weren't for Samsung.

----------



The goal posts they are a moving now.

I've never seen anyone call their HTC phone an iPhone.

I am well aware of who MAKES the displays. Does Samsumg have the QC and ability to execute a tablet using those hi-res displays CORRECTLY with a UI that isn't jerky and doesn't end up going to market with some kind of interface issues/sluggish feel/bugs? They are great at making panels, but what about everything else contained in a tablet? Also, will this be a device that still meets the magic sub-$500 price point? Battery life? Samsung isn't the best when it comes to putting out products that consumers get and feel like they got their money's worth. Moto is just as bad (Xoom for example).

Also, I have seen several people on these very boards post about how they know someone (friend, family, coworker) who "got a new iPhone" and then pulls out some generic Android phone. I also have 2 girls who work in my office who asked me to help them with their "iPhones" that were in fact Android handsets.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

While Apple didn't invent the idea of higher dpi screens being better, they were the first to market a device with such a high dpi that you can't see the individual pixels. No other manufacturers were anywhere that until the iPhone 4 came out. Taking it to such an excessive level actually was fairly revolutionary.

Wrong. They sure succeeded in making people believe that was the case though. One more point to Apples marketing division.

----------

No, they just re-invented them - on mobile devices. Show me who owns the patent for a backlit LED, scratch-proof glass, 960x640 screen with 326 ppi and IPS.

Samsung obviously never realized the value of using high resolution displays on mobile devices otherwise they could have done it years ago, surely?

That's why this rumor is about Samsung yet again simply copying what Apple have done already.

I have no idea who on earth could hold such a patent. I do know one thing, however, it sure as hell aint Apple.

p.s. technology moves. what is viable to do today, wasn't just 6 months ago. So no, they couldn't have done it years ago. And even if they had, people wouldn't have bought it. It would've been as relevant for the consumer market as a concept car at an auto show.
 
Also, I have seen several people on these very boards post about how they know someone (friend, family, coworker) who "got a new iPhone" and then pulls out some generic Android phone. I also have 2 girls who work in my office who asked me to help them with their "iPhones" that were in fact Android handsets.

And this has to do with making high res panels exactly how?
 
It's strange how people here have clearly never thought about what "inventing" really is.
You can never start by zero and create something completely on your own. It's like a mathematical proof, there are just things you can use as axioms like a(bxc) = bac-cab. You could proof that, but it has been done before, nobody doubts that. But just because you use these axioms it doesn't mean that the guy who has first proven these axioms has proven what you just did.
Inventions are always compositions of other inventions. these other inventions on their own don't mean anything, just the idea to put them all together in a certain way makes it something new. For example a television. The parts of it aren't that new: The cathode ray had already been invented, loudspeakers had already been invented, radio transmission had already been invented. There was just this guy who thought that all these things together could be used to transmit pictures and sound. Strangely nobody here says "Apple is like the guy who invented the television! Copy cats!". The problem I think is that people here think they can completely understand how the iPhone works, I mean, it sounds so easy. A television looks way more complicated with this cathode ray and magnets and phosphor screen and all that.
 
Go ahead and make it a 4k screen. It'll still be a worthless derivative piece of *****.

Let's check back next year and see which one people like more.
 
LOL at some of you guys. It used to be that PC fans felt threatened by Apple (well, they still are I guess) but now we're threatened by Samsung?

The numbers are already out there: people don't want tablets, they want iPads.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Android on a high DPI screen will be nice. I'm not so sure. Samsung and Android devices have always tried to compete on numbers and dates rather than the actual user experience. I think I'm more interested in a non-Samsung made Windows 8 Tablet, or an iPad 3. Maybe Asus or Sony.
 
Well, with the advent of phones with 720p screens. Expect phones with a higher PPI than the iPhone 4/4S.

That means Samsung, Google and Sony Ericsson are copying Apple because they have/will have phones that exceed the iPhone in terms of PPI?

It's called competition, Samsung makes Apple's screens.

And as far as I know, Apple didn't invent pixels and high resolution panels.

Apple, where's my 1080p MacBook Pro?

Not to help fuel the Android vs iOS devices war, contrary to popular belief, Android displays currently do provide higher resolution, but does not equal like or higher PPI, those are different metrics.

You can lie about math, here is a quick calculator that can help you look at all the current popular displays and allow you to see both resolution and PPI, different measurements.

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

The new popular Android qHD display is nice, it's bright, (and all the other positive adjectives you want to throw at it) however, it still sports a smaller PPI display, while on a larger physical display... I know right? :rolleyes:

[EDIT] the newest Google (Samsung) Nexus sports an HD screen capable of only 315 ppi, iPhone4(s) is still 329 (slightly higher, which is why text looks slightly crisper)

btw, I love all those mini tablets my android brothern are running around with... <what? it's a phone? Get outta here!>
 
Last edited:
Well, isn't the issue here that specs alone don't always tell the whole story? The premise is that apple is able to get away with providing lower specs on its products exactly because its software is custom designed to run especially well using the limited resources available. Else, why do we have people claiming the tab is slower than the ipad despite it having twice the ram?

This is exactly why specs don't matter as much as the PC/Android crowd thinks they do.

If you're running the same Operating System (be it Windows or Android), and there is different hardware that runs the same Operating System, then specs DO matter. A little more ram or a better processor generally increases speed because the SAME SOFTWARE is being run.

However, when you compare Macs to PCs or Androids to iOS devices, the SOFTWARE matters as well. Software is generally always quicker when it's made for a specific type of hardware (like Macs or iOS are) vs. a general type of software where the hardware is unknown.

Software can be optimized for particular hardware, which is why iOS always has the advantage when the specs are the same. When Android has greater specs than the iOS devices, it's still an unknown. It's more likely with the greater specs that the Android device can perform better, but it's not necessarily true.

(a) Did the manufacturer of the hardware (say, Samsung) optimize the Ice Cream Sandwich OS to take account of the hardware
(b) Did the maker of the software running on the Samsung Android phone take into account the hardware?

For example, I've got a new faster graphics processor on my Samsung Android phone that has an amazingly fast shading algorithm and can render 3D objects with precise shading at lightning speed. Well, if the software program is not written to ask the graphics processor to do the shading work, and instead is doing it by hand, or the Samsung phone did not optimize 'Ice Cream Sandwich/Honeycomb' functions to go through this processor, then the hardware is not working with the software, and the specs don't matter.
 
BZZZT. Thanks for playing.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/240801/amazon_kindle_fire_first_impressions_solid_but_limited.html

Android 2.3 is Gingerbread. But that's ok, you don't seem to be interested enough in Android to get informed about it. What I'm left to wonder though is why you so vehemently feel the need to bring it down when you obviously aren't interested in getting educated about it ? ;)

Knowing everything about Android is not enough to overcome the lackluster performance with my user experience with these devices so far.

Like I said before, it all looks great on paper, but if you can't get it to work on a device then its no go in the end.

Do you really think the average consumer is really going to even know what Android is, let alone what version? All they want to know is that it should work as expected, and thats what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
That actually is a good thing. Castrated iOS sucks.

because Castrated Android is MUCH better :rolleyes:, no that wasn't a jab, I like it better... although my samsung and motorla phones ship with some allshare type dlna soft, it doesnt work with anything but standard divx files. After battling with the touchwiz on my samsung I finally usurped it for CM7, Normally I would jailbreak my iOS to get away from apple, with Android I jailbreak to get as close to a full AOSP Google experience... :rolleyes:
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Mac2012 said:
Wow a whopping 50 pixels he he... now THAT'S a deal breaker! I'd rather give up 50 pixels and use IOS (UNIX) than some crap google OS he he...

There's more than a 50 pixel difference. There are 512 more pixels horizontally and 64 more vertical pixels. Overall 32,768 more pixels on the theoretical Samsung device compared to the theoretical apple device.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.