- 01-28-2013, 04:50 AM #78
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
- 01-28-2013, 03:24 PM #82
Of course Samsung isn't worse in the core hardware department either, but that area is not the foundation of their success.
01-28-2013, 04:19 PM #83
- 8 Posts
No. I had 6 horrible months with Lumia 800 what a disappointment. Switched to Motorola RAZR Maxx, it's night and day, what a joy to use and I get at least 40 hours from one charge compared to Lumia's 20. And that's not a fair comparison as Lumia had battery saver on permanently, no automatic updating of email or anything else whereas the RAZR has no such restrictions on it.
- 01-28-2013, 04:45 PM #84
Samsung has proven if it wants a market, they will aggressively go for it. Low cost and high cost.
Windows phone is more efficient at touch based objects? Sure I give you that.
- 01-28-2013, 07:11 PM #86
Last edited by a5cent; 01-29-2013 at 04:58 PM. Reason: Spelling
01-29-2013, 06:48 PM #87
- 1,673 Posts
- 01-29-2013, 07:09 PM #89
In all actuality I believe the new Ubuntu Mobile OS has the ability to kill android since its apps can basically run through a web browser using HTML5 and having a almost pure Linux experience.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
- 01-29-2013, 07:09 PM #90
Interesting topic here considering I'm an Android fanboy at heart. I agree with what many have commented on here scanning thru the pages. Android is moving at an alarming rate, you buy a device today and tomorrow it feels outdated due to the constant releasing of new devices. I will admit that Android is finally getting into more of its own and addressing many issues now since moving into Android v.4.x.x (Ice Cream Sandwich & Jelly Bean).
I do fear that from the OEM's standpoint they are only worried about bigger & faster processors and the whole thought process of battery life/management and overall construction of the device is being left behind is many regards. I would like to see better battery times become more priority than faster processors. This is hard because it falls partly on the shoulders of the carriers because if they aren't putting out solid 3g/4g signals its making ANY device on ANY platform suffer in the battery area due to overworking the radios.
I like the approach I see MS taking with the new Win 8 phones and hope to see it develop further, because after all strong competitors make for an overall better product for everyone in the end as they try to out do one another.
01-30-2013, 06:23 PM #95
- 249 Posts
If you stick to one home screen only and a few widgets, even the low end Android handsets perform well. I think that regardless of how well optimized WP7 was compared to the hardware, it would still chug if it had say 5 home screens instead of one, a live wallpaper instead of a static black background, and expandable widgets instead of one size live tiles.
There is more to it than just hardware optimization.
- 01-30-2013, 09:14 PM #96
If you insist, I can introduce you to our software profiling package for Android and WP, but I'm fairly certain measurement equipment isn't biased. ;-)
You quoted my very first post on this topic. I would recommend you also read those that followed. That might help clear some things up.
I think you are trying to say that WP may get things done faster, because the CPU doesn't need to spend as much time animating wallpapers or running widget code as does Android. Therefore, hardware optimization isn't the only reason WP is faster.
Ok, that may be true (although nobody forces Android users to do that. You can keep Android lean and mean too if so desired). However, I can't really speak to that aspect, because our profilers were usually setup to filter out any CPU activity not directly related to the task being measured.
Particularly things like touch tracking accuracy during page scrolling in the internet browser showed huge advantages in favor of WP (edit: although humans could only tell the difference using low-end devices), even when filtering out the few other things the CPU did on the side. That advantage delta all came down to optimization.
That is all I can say and all I am saying.
Last edited by a5cent; 01-31-2013 at 12:24 AM. Reason: See edit
01-31-2013, 07:54 PM #97
- 257 Posts
Despite being a cluttered mess, my gripe with android Is that it forces the user to do everything to make the phone run well, like not using live wallpapers and constantly closing down apps. That's what I like about both iOS and WP7/8 better than android is that task management is done for you. Sure in iOS you can close down apps, but its not really necessary unlike android where if you don't close down your apps it runs very slow and drains your battery life. The main issue android has is consistency, iOS is closed software/hardwar so the OS is optimized to run on ONE and only ONE phone, or a couple if you count past versions. Microsoft is in the middle with closed OS and open hardware(with some good restriction on like which processors you can use) and that's why every windows phone I have used, even low end ones run great. With android, on low end products, like their really low end tablets for around 100$ don't even come with the google play store and run awfully, kind of laughable if you think about it. The one thing I will give to android is you can do more on it than any other OS but because of that, its performance usually sucks.
- 01-31-2013, 10:12 PM #98
And there lies the reason behind apple's huge following. Its simple and it works great without the need to fiddle around. I personally like android better for this. Its great to have a phone that works but for some the point of having a smartphone is having a pocket computer to fiddle around with.
01-31-2013, 10:26 PM #99
- 10 Posts
No one's crystal ball is clear on this at all. Could ANYONE have predicted Apple would be the leader in mobile technologies in 2007, let alone 2012, when Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and Blackberry were the cream of the crop? NO. Did anyone predict or foresee Android being a strong number two behind Apple following their initial success? NO. Did anyone foresee BlackBerry struggling to remain relevant, Sony all but disappear in the mobile phone market, and Nokia depart the mainland and hide across the pond for so many years? NO. The only thing that anyone can predict will happen is things will change. The #1 will not always be #1, the #2 does not automatically move up to #1, and an unlisted company could easily become #1 within a year or two. I have always believed, and it is still true to this day and the coming days, that Android's successes have been based solely on Apple's failures. With more players finally coming to the table, Microsoft and BlackBerry, Ubuntu and Tizen, no one knows who will be #1 in two or three years. It only takes ONE thing to tip the scales and crown a new king. It is fun to predict who that will be and there is certainly no objective way to predict it.
Now, to address the OP's question, I have been an avid Android user before Android was known (pre Donut days), and I remember when everyone said no one would get close to Apple. Well Android has done well for itself, but I do think that Android's fragmentation is a double-edged sword. Yes, it gets more people into the game on Android. No, it does not create loyalty for the OS. I am but one example of many people I know of that are/were simply waiting for something better to come along. I like to look at Android as the rebound people go after after breaking up with someone. They fill a need for a temporary period of time, until something better comes along.
Last edited by Acejax805; 01-31-2013 at 10:40 PM.
02-03-2013, 11:56 AM #100
- 257 Posts
Yes, undoubtedly, the mobile OS market is near impossible to predict where it will go. Symbian used to be the top dog and in the matter of 3 years was usurped by iOS and android, and it will definitely happen again. I wouldn't bet on something open source like sailfish or Ubuntu phone (although I Really like the ui for ubuntuphone) to catch on. Part of the problem where android has a huge disconnect is the hardware/software integration. WebOS kinda proved this...You can have an awesome OS like webOS and it sells poorly because of the hardware, like the pre. Sure, the palm pre ran fine but it felt kinda cheap and plasticky, and would eventually fall apart. By the time palm came out with a decent phone, like the pre 2, it was too late, that and its sprint exclusivity killed it. What is so funny to me about android is it has right now, the same problem that windows had 10 years ago...when you don't put strict enough restrictions on hardware you can bet that OEMs will be like, OK, we meet the minimum requirements...now cheapen it!!! Does it run on a below minimum spec processor, yes! does it run well...NO! so put it out and sell it for less.
But I agree on one point Acejax says, android doesn't have loyalty. iOS users are fiercely loyal because iOS works, and it works well. Take the example of the iphone 5. Sure, if you look at the overall specs its a medium-spec phone for a high end price, but the overall package works very well and that's why people buy apple. It may not have cutting edge specs but it works well and the overall package (save for apple maps) works very well. I would say the same about windows phone, but android I would not. I've used a galaxy s3 and for example, I could not get the nfc to transfer data between other android devices. My friends phone grinded to a halt despite having 2 Gb of ram because a million applications were open at a time. So the hardare is impressive with its raw specs, but the overall package is lacking. Unfortunately many in the tech field don't get this. They are like, OOOOH it has the quad core exynos with a 4.7" AMOLED 720 screen and 2GB ram, but it still can barely run android well especially with Samsung craptastick UI on top of android. The overall package is not beat by WP or iOS.
I think androids other issue is besides the hardware/software integration and by far their biggest problem is OEM skins, and once again...look at windows. When have OEMS ever loaded software that improved the user experience, not just loaded bloatware onto a phone. As of late, Nokia is one of the only ones I can think of. HTC sense used to improve android by giving it features it didn't otherwise have, now its just a pain to get around in android. Samsung's touchwiz is just an annoying skin to differentiate itself from the market with not really adding new features. Personally, right now, If I were to buy an android phone I would only get a nexus device simply because its a stock android experience without all the crapware. I'll end it with a better question: When does a purely hardware company only do software well? I'm looking mostly at sony for the answer to this question?
- By clmbngbkng in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 150Last Post: 11-21-2012, 03:18 PM
- By armedtank in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 11Last Post: 11-25-2011, 02:17 AM
- By CamiKitti in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 13Last Post: 10-21-2011, 07:31 AM
- By DontHate707 in forum AndroidReplies: 2Last Post: 07-12-2011, 08:47 PM
- By Jenifer in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 8Last Post: 01-05-2011, 01:33 PM