[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]This phone didn't support javascript.This didn't support javascript.What you describe as 'flawed' is exactly why it's EXACTLY correct. Just like the TOUCH SCREEN is a 'COMPONENT' of the smartphone, and 'NOT THE SMARTPHONE IN ITSELF'. You need to think about that for a few minutes, and realise why you just proved my point. The fact is, a touch screen device is not all that is needed to create a smartphone in the genre Apple created first with the iPhone.Why did you even write this irrelevant drivel? Did he invent sports cars? Did he invent electric cars? Did he invent petrol cars? Guess what, as has been said before, Apple never claimed to have invented the smartphone. They claimed to have revolutionised it. If you want to argue that no-one has revolutionised cars (clearly ridiculous) that's the only way you could have any relevance. Some revolutionised cars so much (eg combustion engine) that they redefined what car would come to mean going forward. That is a very different meaning of 'car' to when the first one was invented, and necessarily needs a giant leap in technology. Exactly what Apple claims to have done.[/citation]
I think that Apple's business model is relevant to the decision between an iPhone and an Android. With Android, you often want to look into all of the top models and compare/contrast them to decide which one you want (well, unless you don't particularly care and just grab one of any of them). With Apple, you just get the latest model (unless you want a lower end phone).
Androids have plenty of differentiation and often times, more than Apple's iPhones do. For example, the Androids have much more widely varying cameras and screens than the iPhones do. You can choose a phone based on it's processors, screen size, screen type, 2D or 3D screen, camera, camera flash, memory capacity, storage capacity, input method (keyboard or not), UI differences, 3G or 4G, and much more. Choosing an iPhone, you have a fraction of these feature differences to choose from, many of which took much longer for the iPhones to get than the Androids (such as 4G and the iPhones 4G doesn't even work in many countries where an Android's 4G connection would work pretty much regardless of the country so long as there is 4G coverage in the area).
You have a point in that Vladislaus seems to be over-exaggerating, However, you are too. The Androids have plenty of differences between them. There are a lot more different Android models than there are iPhone models and many of them are fairly similar, but they all have distinguishing features, although some more than others.
I owlud'nt call the iPhones a better product. For the most part, they have all been inferior. The newer 4S is better than many of the Androids, so this isn't as true as it used to be, but Apple really wins because so many people would blindly choose an Apple device because Apple is considered trendy and has a coolness factor for non-geeks that Android tends to not have because it isn't Apple.
Yes, Apple revolutionized the smart phone market by creating a smart phone that didn't suck like the competitors of the time did. If not for Apple creating the iPhone, the market probably wouldn't be the same as it is today. However, Google also revolutionized the market by introducing much more choice into what you get and bringing cheaper smart phones into the market. Although I can't say I would even recommend my Samsung Transform at this time, it still does it's job. It works as a phone, texting, web browsing/email, media player, calculator, GPS, and much more through the Android Market.
It even has stuff like Gameboy Advance/DS emulators (all free, I only use free apps) and other cool things such as running Ubuntu (albeit it is not the high performance phone i'd use for that. I suggest you get something with at least 2 cores if you want to do something like that). I've even used it as a flash light (with a flash light app that manipulates the camera's flash) when necessary. Honestly, it does it's jobs and it does them fairly well (although with Adobe having abandoned Flash development, the Youtube app has taken a clear downward spiral in stability as of late, but I can't blame that on Google nor Samsung). Sure, the iPhones can do most of this too, but not all of it.
Granted, I would like a much faster phone and I would find ways to use it's performance to great effect, but until such a time where I can get a new phone comes (I refuse to buy anything before I can get my hands on something with at least two Cortex A15 cores or better, maybe that Intel Medfield if it had two cores), it will be enough for basic and even above-average work.
So long as I stay off of stuff like Angry Birds and the Flash light app for long periods of time, my battery lasts between one and three days (obviously depending on usage) and I really can't complain except for the occasional freeze (that's what happens when you have less than 256MB of RAM and a crap CPU/GPU like mine, even somewhat better Androids don't have these problems nearly as bad, if at all so long as they have at least a single core Cortex A9 CPU @1GHz and 512MB of RAM or better).
Overall, the Android phones seem to have more to offer than the iPhones. For example, many of the Androids have varying screens for different primary uses and some have stuff like 3D and far more Androids have 4G capabilities than iPhones.
Google is raking in more than enough on Android for it to be profitable. So long as it's profitable, it's not a problem at all. Androids aren't innovating and adding to the market? Okay, who had 4G first, Android or iPhone? Who had 3D screens first? Who had dual core CPUs first? Who had similarly good graphics first? Who had larger screens than even 4" first? Who had high quality cameras first? Who had SD card storage first? Who had some of the most popular mobile games, such as Angry Birds, first? It seems that Android brings a lot to the market.
I don't see how you could ignore all of this and more that Android had first. Also, iPhones are not dominating Android in the market either. Any one Android probably won't beat the most recent iPhone models because there are so many Androids and a limited number of customers, especially customers looking for a new phone. Android customers also tend to not go for the latest and greatest Android phones, unlike how Apple's newest iPhone always seems to have at or near record breaking sales as it quickly replaces the previous model.
There are so many Androids from so many different OEMs that no single Android can reach the market share of the iPhones because the iPhones have far fewer versions and only one per generation. Androids have one or even several per OEM from a multitude of OEMs all per generation and each generation isn't very well defined with how different each model line's refresh timing is.
In order for a single Android to beat out the iPhone market share, it would need to be extremely far ahead of both all of the other Androids and be extremely far ahead of the iPhones too. It would also need some heavy marketing to get it's name out there. By extremely far ahead, I don't even mean just in hardware. It would also need to have the latest version of Android that is out at the time along with hardware that beats out the A5X chip in both CPU and GPU horsepower significantly.
Something like a 22nm quad core Coretex A15 CPU should suffice with a very powerful GPU, maybe something like the A5X's graphics, but with more of the same cores. It would also need a lot of memory and for it to have a fairly high bandwidth memory interface (can't just keep improving CPU/GPU speed and keep memory bandwidth the same; it would become more of a bottleneck than it already is on these mobile devices).
It would also need to have games/apps that uses it's performance and have a battery that won't keel over (hence the 22nm die shrink, to minimize with the power usage one would expect from something like this).
/aoisora9x.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24#/d2rpdbp
Facebook
Twitter