- 04-04-2012, 01:39 AM #1
I have to give a small rant inspired by some (though not all) of the Lumia 900 reviews. I am SO SICK of hearing about the latest and greatest Android phone to roll off some OEM's assembly lines. Has it occurred to anyone else that it ought to be an embarassment that Android is such a poorly optimized OS that it needs those kinds of overpowered, battery-draining uberphones to run it at all competitively with more efficient OSes like WP7 and iOS (or webOS for that matter)?
I just don't see in what universe I should need to spend $300 to get a decent experience with Android. I can go out and buy an iPhone 4 or the Lumia 900 for just $99! Yet if I wanted a decent UX, there is no way I could get away with that small of a cash outlay if I went with Android.
My point is this: the Lumia hardware is SUFFICIENT for its purposes and delivered to us at a ridiculously low price point. It delivers a UX that no similarly priced Android can match and does it with more style than 10 other phones put together.
I'm sure someday there will be an actual need for superphones, but for now, I'm going to choose the OSes that are efficient, streamlined, and functional, and not worry about whether my phone has a larger **** than any other phone out there.
- 04-04-2012, 08:52 AM #3
- 04-04-2012, 09:22 AM #4
The only good thing about this hardware arms race is that chip makers have a profitable outlet to sell advanced CPUs/GPUs which allows manufactures to then create slimmer and more powerful devices. Those advantages also extend to tablets which will include Windows 8. However, as HTC learned last year, the arms race can affect profitability when things get out of hand.
- 04-04-2012, 09:55 AM #6
I doubt the HTC One X sells anywhere near as well as the uberphone evangelists believe it will. It's just too much money for a device that is too easily dropped, lost or stolen.
- 04-04-2012, 11:20 AM #8
Your argument would make sense if the iPhone didn't provide a massive spec bump over the Lumia, because it's so heavily optimized. But it does. The iPhone has a beast of a processor and GPU, and the Lumia has, well, specs awfully similar to the HTC HD2. First released in 2009. Specs matter. Maybe not as much as we think, but even the heavily optimized iPhone is leaving the Lumia behind, and it's been out for a while.
- 04-04-2012, 11:22 AM #9
And tell me honestly--would you take the Lumia 900 as is, or the Lumia 900 with the guts of the HTC One X, or, ****, the Galaxy SII? Or even the 4S? You'd take any of the better-specced phones any day of the week.
- 04-04-2012, 11:40 AM #10
Not for more money and not if it didn't change the experience. Specs for the sake of specs are pointless except to allow the OEM to charge more.
I'm someone who kept the iPhone 3G until the 4 came out, not a mid-term upgrader. I need my phone to work well at what it does, not compete with my desktop on specs.
04-04-2012, 11:42 AM #11
- 189 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
It's unfortunate that people get hung up on Specs all the time instead of focusing on the efficient and successful use of those resources. I work in IT Capacity and more often then not people always want more processing power to throw at a crapplication. I give them the same response 'Adding 4 cores to an app with problems is only going to bring you to the crash quicker and doesn't resolve the underlying problems'. Same could truly be said for the smartphone arena. 4 cores to an Android OS and bad apps, gets you to that 'Force Close' faster.
Just my $0.02.
- 04-04-2012, 11:47 AM #12
By the way, has a price been announced yet for the One X? It will be at least $199, possibly (probably) $299, right? That's insane for a *phone*.
The best thing about the Lumia is that it will hopefully put some pressure to lower prices. How did we get to the point where carriers and OEMs convinced us it was a *good idea* to shell out $299 every other year on a bloody phone? (and no, I can't comprehend why anyone would upgrade on the off-contract price...)
- 04-04-2012, 11:56 AM #13
- 04-04-2012, 12:00 PM #14
- 04-04-2012, 12:57 PM #15
To conclude. Spec whores are like real whores to busy jumping from one thing to another to realize the best one for them has passed them by.
- 04-04-2012, 01:17 PM #16
I had my iPhone 3GS for almost 3 years. It's specs are definitely sub par now and iOS5 has a hard time on the old hardware. While I think the Lumia 900 has the hardware to support whatever you can throw at it now...will it be laggy by the time my 2year contract expires? My hope is that I will not experience the same as I did with my iPhone...but at the same time I understand that sometimes better software may need better hardware.
04-04-2012, 01:33 PM #17
- 67 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Can anyone using a 1st Gen wp7 phone chime in? I don't see why the specs matter at all in this environment. Its is very controlled and designed to work excellently with the specs provided. So where's the problem?
I used android for a long time and I will say they no matter what specs you threw at it it eventually turned to a unstable affair. They keep ramping up the specs and the software stays the same. But it still finds ways to feel like you are not giving the OS enough juice.
Even with iOS, they continue to forcefully make the older hardware obsolete on purpose. A jail broken 3g was capable of doing many things that is wasn't "powerful" enough to do. If MS stays on the path of a streamlined OS I think that hardware makes no difference. I can lower up my device in about 20 seconds compared the the 1.5 minutes it takes my friends Galaxy Nexus. Where are the break neck speeds there?
I think MS and the OEMs should do what Apple originally did with the iPhone, keep the specs to themselves. Back then nobody cared. They just loved that everything worked great. Just my 2 cents.
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express
- 04-04-2012, 03:29 PM #19
At what cost? I could spend $1000 on a phone and have a "future proof" phone as is technically feasible today. Would that be worth it? Absolutely not. I simply question whether even $300 is worth it. I suggest that it is not. If I can pay only $99 for a phone now and have it simply last and remain functional for two years, that's about all I can ask for. Phones are not really made to be 3-6 year devices, unlike most laptops and desktops.
So no, I have to completely disagree with you.
- 04-04-2012, 03:35 PM #21
No, you dont have to spend $900. Any device without an Apple on it runs a max of 550 with no contract. $299 is the highest with a contract and most new phones will run you 199 with a contract.
- 04-04-2012, 03:38 PM #22
I dont understand this argument how future proof can a phone be? At the rate of tech 6 Months max, and most tech peeps 2 year plan or not upgrade before. The average Joe or Joesephine waits there two year and buys what suits them best.They dont care about the specs. So who do the specs really matter for? A slight few
- 04-04-2012, 03:40 PM #23
I will give you an example. Not applicable to the 900. If you had bought a WP a year ago, it would not have come with a FFC, right? Now you are a year into your contract and WP now has Skype and Tango. Guess what? You are stuck. Maybe you didnt care about the FFC a year ago. Maybe now you do. Would have been better to have it though, right?
- 04-04-2012, 03:47 PM #24
- 04-04-2012, 03:55 PM #25
You know that WP is going to release Appolo sooner rather than later. You know its going to support high res screens, multicore processors and expandable memory. You know that developers will produce games specifically designed to utilize the two cores and the better resolution. So you know that the 900 may be holding you back from experiencing the best that WP has to offer within 6 months. Its fine if that doesnt matter to you, but the Nokia would not fit the definition of future proof. Im not saying its not a great phone or that you shouldnt buy it. Im also not saying that Nokia could have done much different. Im just saying its always better to have better hardware.