As of current development or better preferred term, Evolution, the current trend in the Android Phone genre is increasing the processor cores, size and resolution of the display etc. etc. But the real question is where they will stop.
First, there were the Single core phones like Samsung Galaxy S, iPhone 4
Now There are Dual Core like Samsung Galaxy S ||, LG 2X, HTC Sensation,
Now, it seems that even dual cores are not enough, that's why companies are launching Quad-Core phones like HTC's One X, LG 4X HD etc.
Now, the first question is,'' Do We Really Need Quad-Core Phones''
Nvidia started this buzz in the middle of the previous year with their Tegra 3, soon we heard Samsung joining this group with their announcement of their Exynos 5450.Having more cores means a faster phone, which everybody wants, is not a bad thing. Personally, i don't think that Quad-Core is the answer for mobiles, right now.
Having a latest hardware is of no use until the Software or Opreating System (OS) can utilize it properly, but following the latest trend, the hardware department seems to be developing at a much faster rate than the software's. We have seen this similar scenario in other aspects of technology too, for e.g. There was a time when PC games were really demanding and investing in a dual GPU sounds smart, but today you can easily get away with a two year old graphics card without having to compromise too much. There's a lot of buzz that ICS is gonna be agame changer, but you can see, that it is not very different from Honeycomb, just better optimized. ICS is better optimised, for sure, but whether it will be able to utilize more than two cores properly, is yet to be seen. Even though Honeycomb was “fully” hardware accelerated, Tegra 2 ( yeah, i'm talking to you, XOOM ) just couldn’t translate all that power it had in to the real world, which translated into sluggish performance.
While Tegra 3 fixes some of these issues, putting it in a phone just does not make sense. To start off with, it’s still using the 40nm fabrication, which doesn’t exactly sip power. You’ll need a really chunky battery for this, which could explain why all Tegra 3 phones have large screens, so the phones have to be made bigger to accommodate the larger battery, while keeping it slim.
But don't forget main part, Battery Life. More processing power automatically translates into more power hungry devices, which impacts battery life quite badly. Tegra 3 uses a 5th Companion core to save power, Even if the new quad-core SoCs have the ability to put their cores in idle mode, it’s still consuming a small amount of power all the time, even if you aren’t using them. Android users struggle with battery life, as it is to get a full day’s worth of heavy usage on single-core phones, so don’t get me started on quad-cores.
Another issue we shouldn’t ignore is apps. About 90 percent of the apps, you’ll ever use on a smartphone work absolutely fine on a 1GHz single-core CPU. It’s just a handful of games (mostly from Nvidia) or specialized apps that actually take advantage of two cores. Realistically, you will very seldom be using these apps when you’re travelling, since these drain the battery like crazy, so your only option is to not use it, which defeats the whole purpose of having a multi-core phone.
P.S. It is my first post, suggestions are always welcome.....
They will stop - when the consumer stops foaming at the mouth to buy the newest, most cores/biggest screen piece of technology to brag to their iPhone owning friends about.
I agree with everything you're saying, however it's all about marketing.
Why would anyone buy a new phone if it comes out with the same specs as the phone they currently own? They won't. They'll hang on to their current phone until they break it, brick it, or lose it.
But if you can show them a new phone with better hardware and specs, they're going to feel like theirs is outdated or inferior.
And since the buying frenzy is driven by the unending need to have something better than everyone else, they will continue to facilitate the satisfaction of that need so that they, in turn, can line their pockets with our hard earned money.
Personally, the only reason I'm going to buy the next phone (Galaxy S3 perhaps?) is so that I can hand my SGS2 down to my wife, who currently has my original MT4G (which btw is still an awesome phone that runs everything like a champ). The only justifiable reason she would need the SGS2 IMO is because the hardware buttons on the MT4G will eventually wear out.
Once she has my SGS2, and I have my new phone, I doubt I will be interested in buying another phone for quite some time unless they introduce some completely new technology that I feel is worth the money (Like project glass, which really isn't a phone per se)
Just my two cents.
I agree completely. It's not about whats realistic or necessary. It's about making money. As long as they're making money, they keep churning out what's making them money. And people will continue to buy the bigger and the better specs because they're looked at with envy by those with last year's model.
I wonder the same when i see new cellphones every day on the news... do they sell all this stuff?
Very, very, very, very, very true!!!
I am also from the crowd who wants always the new phones. But whats the point.
They are keep convincing us like the car manifactures more HP better the car and less the fuel. Quadcore is like you have car with 700 HP but no road to drive?!?!
Optimization is the keyword.......
It would be nice if our hardware held value and prowess for more than 6 months. Although the technology advances are nice. The good thing about it, is that we can sell our devices to fund the replacement. It's a trade off I suppose.
Sent from my Galaxy Note (SGH-i717) using XDA Premium.
I don't know. I don't know ,whether their is a need for tablets, either. It seems like that the big companys found something that everyone wants to have, so they are just want to make money i guess.
Related
It is truly amazing what we put up with as consumers of electronic devices. The fact that a certain technology is readily available and has been for years does not necessarily mean that we are allowed to put our hands on it. Instead there is a huge secluded group of executives that meet off the books periodically to decide how long they will string out the public with this specific device or set of hardware spec, and which years in the future they will finally decide to release what they already have in hand and are using themselves as "prototypes".
I have an uncle who works for an integrator who makes all the internals that go inside these cell phones, and laptops, and other electronic devices, and he has showed me again and again the kind of technology that is available, and could be in the hands of the public for pennies on the dollar, but from a sales/profit standpoint it would not make sense to release this stuff. We are talking about phones that exist now, but we will not see until 5 years from now, that can already be as powerful as your 3.0ghz core2duo desktop computer. The same goes with laptops. Just as an example, in 2001, I had a Dell Latitude c840 Laptop, with 2GB RAM and a 2.4ghz processor. Come on, that was 7 years ago! Yet that is still the norm for average/decent computer these days that sells for $1,000.
The intentional slowing down of technology release to the public, and the huge gap between what is easily possible and what is readily available is just getting bigger and bigger. Think about it...allowing a cell phone board to handle 512mb instead of 256mb...come on, that is an overnight programming/hardware fix job...not 2-3 years. We have been trained by these corporations to expect it to take a year or two to come up with new hardware, when in fact it takes weeks, and max 2-3 months to invent this stuff. Companies like Intel and AMD have been providing other companies like SiliconImages with 8-16 core computers for the past 8 years...why are we, the general public, so low on the totem pole to these executives? We have it well within our power to shut down the system in less than a week by refusing to buy this cheap, dumbed down hardware.
Frankly I am sick of it, yet there is nothing I can do as a consumer to change it. We are scum and nothing in the eyes of the giant electronics corps, and right now we are eating up their tables scraps like it is the best invention we have ever seen. Come on - The TouchPro 2 from HTC could have been in my hand 5 years ago, yet we still right now are "waiting" for it, and will pay $500, $600, or $700 for one, a device that costs them $50-$100 to manufacture. They hold on to hardware as long as they possibly can to make as much money as they can. Yes, that is a good business strategy, but in the meantime we are left with crap hardware that just gets repackaged into a new plastic shell and given a different name, and we are supposed to drool over it...? Please. This just blows me away, the fact that we put up with this treatment is beyond me; and, it has gone on for so long that it is par for the course now, nobody can change it. We will continue to get low quality electronics when 10x more advanced devices are sitting on CEO's desks just gathering dust.
Well said. That is why I ain't investing on any phone unless it has about 1GHz of processor power.
Of course it's about cost issues. There are multiteraflops computers in this world, but why can't we get our hands on them? Because they cost too much, duh.
Think about it. Do you want to pay $500,000 for a phone? Just because it contains chips that will economically viable in about five years?
Soaa- said:
Of course it's about cost issues. There are multiteraflops computers in this world, but why can't we get our hands on them? Because they cost too much, duh.
Think about it. Do you want to pay $500,000 for a phone? Just because it contains chips that will economically viable in about five years?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that is exactly my point, it really does not cost that much. You have been conditioned to think that it costs hundreds of tousands of dollars for this stuff.
This was exactly my point. Consumers have been trained to believe that this stuff really costs SO much money when in fact it does not. So we just put it out of our mind as unaffordable, and settle for a much more mediocre device.
For example, a 60" Plasma Flast Screen TV made by Pioneer (the best HDTV maker on the market) costs then about $200-$300 to make...they charge over $1,500 to $2,000 now. Do you also remember when that same 60" Plasma costs over $10,000 to make back in 2000 or 2001? Well they were not using any different or better parts back then, in fact probably worse parts than the new ones, however the price came from the "idea" of what HDTV was, and not from the actual cost/prices.
Huge advancements in technology are being withheld from us under the guise that it costs a lot of money, when in fact it costs Intel no more money to manufacture and 80core chip than it does for then to manufacture a single core chip. Perhaps a few dollars more, but we're talking about 5% or 10% of the price they charge as their costs here. Why do you think electronic companies never go out of business? I mean the names like LG, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonioc, Sony, Motorola, etc....these have been around forever, and always will be because they are pulling the wool over our eyes.
I get sick evertime I read a press release from one of the big electronic giants about a "new" technology being introduced into the market, and although the price is sky high, some peiople will buy it. All I can sit there and think about it "Wow, how many decades did they wait to show this to us, only to tell us it was new and charge us out the butt for something they have had in their possesion for years?"
GRR! I will stop venting now.
"1GHz of processor power."
Ghz is pointless it's easy to make a 1Ghz cpu but to get to perform
better then what you got is the task
clock is only the pace how much is don at each tick is what matters
like a 500Mhz arm based cpu don't performe as a 500Mhz x86 based cpu
and a p4 2.4Ghz dont performe as a core duo 2.4Ghz
Could intel make a 16 core chip right now? Yes! they could! it would use over 400 watts, have to be clocked pretty low, and cost 2,000 because of very low yields (what % have all cores functional) and low demand. The desktop PC CPU market is not holding out on us. Why are the chips still clocked around 3ghz or lower? because the new chips have a focus on efficiency. They make the chips do more work at lower mhz to reduce power usage and allow them to keep advancing. An E6600 for example is supposed to be equivilent to a P4 at 6.6ghz, though they have gotten a bit bad with those ratings and they don't really offer a good comparison any more. I will put it this way though, if you benchmark a 2.4ghz P4 against a 2.4ghz core 2 based chip, the P4 chip will get curb stomped.
LCD panels for HDTVs etc.. weren't being held back, they were just being gouged to high heaven. Hence all of the recent price fixing suits coming up.
Phones, we really are being held back. I really don't know why. Probably atleast partly to do with batteries not being good enough, but even with our current batteries we should have much better phones. I live in the US, we get shafted on phones above and beyond the normal shafting. A lot of the good phones dont support our carriers and the ones that do often dont support our 3G bands.
its the same situation with cars! churning out the same repackaged stuff and charging the earth for it..
Am I the only one totally disappointed in the handsets that are coming out with Windows Phone 7.5? Who are they trying to sell the 3.x screens to? Munchkins? The screen size on the "new" HTC Titan is good but the rest of the specs on the screen are not. Look at the specs on the HTC Amaze and the Samsung Galaxy S II - THIS is what Windows Phone should be shipping on! Not this leftover crap from last years rejects. Hard to compete if you don't even try!
Well, screensize is a matter of personal preference. Millions of iphoners can attest to that.
I, personally, won't pass judgement on the Titan's screen until I see it in person.
Based on what you've posted, I'd recommend either waiting for Nokia devices or take a look at Samsung Focus S when it hits.
Although, I do agree that OEMS have been less than forthcoming with their cutting edge devices thus far. The Venue Pro could have been such an animal had it not had a myriad of issues early on.
Okbye.
yes because every single android device has monster specs and doesn't try to market to different audiences increasing share and permeability...
seriously this iteration is Microsoft and OEMs using different market points to create presence and alternatives
Dual core is next year, so either wait or not buy it...it's that simple
I think the screen sizes between 3.5 and 4.0 are awesome :-D just the way I want the screens to be;-) still hoped for some dual core, but wp is designed especially for one type of processor, so It's probably therefore it is still singlecore
sent with love from me to you
domineus said:
yes because every single android device has monster specs and doesn't try to market to different audiences increasing share and permeability...
seriously this iteration is Microsoft and OEMs using different market points to create presence and alternatives
Dual core is next year, so either wait or not buy it...it's that simple
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is Microsoft thinks that WP7 sales were slack because the handsets were too expensive. The reality is the handsets were a year (or more) out of date before they hit the shelves. They were pushing 3G phones with a series 1 CPU and no FFC in stores next to high end 4G phones with all the accessories. Now all we have are these puny low res screens on underpowered phones! Shameful!
What is this ridiculous obsession with 'power' and screen size?
I personally don't give a flying proverbial about anything with a screen size over 3.5", because it's just TOO BIG. It can't be used with one hand and frankly it's not necessary, I have a tablet for media and it does a MUCH better job.
And this ridiculous obsession with dual-core this and thousand-gigabyte that. When WP7 runs just as quickly on a 1GHz single core processor as Android runs on a 1.6GHz dual core, it just plain IS NOT NECESSARY. It's a PHONE for christs sakes. Hell Windows 7 can run on less power than that perfectly well.
And if you need 64 gigabytes of media on your phone, then you need to get yourself an actual media player. I don't know of anybody who actually NEEDS more than 8Gb of space on their phone - until WP7 I only ever had a 2Gb MicroSD.
Sorry, yes, it's my opinion, but frankly this specifications rubbish is getting out of hand. People don't buy Android because they know what it does - most people don't have a clue what Android is, they just know it's generally good and there's a stupid number of apps. They buy it because they're told to buy it by the salesman.
With the pace at which WP7 is catching up, with the right marketing it'll start to bring out significant followers. The key thing is getting devices out there and NOT letting operators/independents STOP stocking them. That needs people to want them - and a healthy budget for subsidy. Give a salesman more commission for a WP7 device than a theoretically 20-times better Android, and I can practically guarantee 90% of people that day will walk out with the WP7. And if WP7 doesn't need anywhere near the hardware expense, then there can be more budget for that if the OEMs play their cards right.
andrewkeith5 said:
Cut for size
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just wanted to come to this thread and say: Amen, brotha.
You couldn't have explained it better.
Xodium said:
I just wanted to come to this thread and say: Amen, brotha.
You couldn't have explained it better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! You can probably tell that little rant has been brewing up for quite some time reading some of the posts on here!
mlococo said:
Am I the only one totally disappointed in the handsets that are coming out with Windows Phone 7.5? Who are they trying to sell the 3.x screens to? Munchkins? The screen size on the "new" HTC Titan is good but the rest of the specs on the screen are not. Look at the specs on the HTC Amaze and the Samsung Galaxy S II - THIS is what Windows Phone should be shipping on! Not this leftover crap from last years rejects. Hard to compete if you don't even try!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Guess what's going to happen when iPhone 5 hits? Long lines and a sellout.
Guess what's going to happen when the second generation of WP7 phones hit? Short lines and overstock.
mlococo said:
Am I the only one totally disappointed in the handsets that are coming out with Windows Phone 7.5? Who are they trying to sell the 3.x screens to? Munchkins? The screen size on the "new" HTC Titan is good but the rest of the specs on the screen are not. Look at the specs on the HTC Amaze and the Samsung Galaxy S II - THIS is what Windows Phone should be shipping on! Not this leftover crap from last years rejects. Hard to compete if you don't even try!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sort of agree, but only a little. For WP7 to be successful, they need to push out some hardware that blows people away. Not necessarily in specs, but in design. The new Focus S or whatever it will be called is pretty impressive, but they need to stop developing behind the curve and start innovating on some hardware. Maybe that's MS's plan with Nokia and the newly signed HTC and Samsung contracts. I know that WP7 will outperform a dual-core Android with nothing more than a few generation past snapdragon, but why not throw in a dual-core anyway? My Focus is buttery smooth 99% of the time, but a dual-core and some extra RAM will speed up app loading immensely.
andrewkeith5 said:
What is this ridiculous obsession with 'power' and screen size?
I personally don't give a flying proverbial about anything with a screen size over 3.5", because it's just TOO BIG. It can't be used with one hand and frankly it's not necessary, I have a tablet for media and it does a MUCH better job.
And this ridiculous obsession with dual-core this and thousand-gigabyte that. When WP7 runs just as quickly on a 1GHz single core processor as Android runs on a 1.6GHz dual core, it just plain IS NOT NECESSARY. It's a PHONE for christs sakes. Hell Windows 7 can run on less power than that perfectly well.
And if you need 64 gigabytes of media on your phone, then you need to get yourself an actual media player. I don't know of anybody who actually NEEDS more than 8Gb of space on their phone - until WP7 I only ever had a 2Gb MicroSD.
Sorry, yes, it's my opinion, but frankly this specifications rubbish is getting out of hand. People don't buy Android because they know what it does - most people don't have a clue what Android is, they just know it's generally good and there's a stupid number of apps. They buy it because they're told to buy it by the salesman.
With the pace at which WP7 is catching up, with the right marketing it'll start to bring out significant followers. The key thing is getting devices out there and NOT letting operators/independents STOP stocking them. That needs people to want them - and a healthy budget for subsidy. Give a salesman more commission for a WP7 device than a theoretically 20-times better Android, and I can practically guarantee 90% of people that day will walk out with the WP7. And if WP7 doesn't need anywhere near the hardware expense, then there can be more budget for that if the OEMs play their cards right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey buddy, please correct your words...we didn't say that WP7 running on single core is slow,please get us right...the reason why we want dual-core is more future proof...
future proof,read it again...microsoft has disappointed me twice since I just love WP7 like you,1st is the HTC HD2 and it can't run a real or proper WP7 due to microsoft don't want to support it.Then,i went for Mozart just for wp7,and now Microsoft says that only one major update per year, therefore, I don't think mozart is up for the next update no new feature,secondary camera, gyroscope for better augmented reality, kinect integration&etc....
So, get us right,before you write man...everyone knows that WP7 is fast on single core,but no future proof...not everyone is rich a$$ and able to buy new mobile phone every year. We want something can last for at least 2 years.
Specs > Design. If Nokia ships phones with Titan/Focus S specs they will not be able to attract the amount of conversions they need.
What Microsoft needs is conversions, not turnover.
Conversion: Android/iOS/WebOS/BB users switching to WP7.
Turn-Over: Us upgrading because we want more up-to-date handsets.
Android got where it is because it was able to convert a ton of Windows Mobile/BB/WebOS and even some iOS people to Android, not through turn-over.
Cute phones don't make those people come to WP7, when the internals are a year or more behind the competition. It's not just about power. Newer SoCs allow for LTE and faster HSPA+ data connections (this is why T-Mobile is using a Qualcomm instead of Exynos in their Galaxy S II). It allows for high-def Video Chatting. NFC. WiFi Direct. Bluetooth 3.0, etc.
Keep in mind, a lot of those features were on phones a year ago.
Microsoft's hardware specs have really held OEMs back. Part of the reason why Advertising for WP7 is so bad is cause the carriers and OEMs are really struggling to find a story to tell. The handsets, even if the design is nice, simply won't have that with the way Microsoft keeps the OEMs on that leash...
And with users come more and better dev support.
I've spend the better part of 3-4 days going through the app market and there's hardly any non-game apps worth installing (outside of some obvious ones, of course). Hardly any of them have been updated to Mango, and there are apps that I paid for which haven't been updated in ~6 months...
Yes, WP7 has to catch up. Software isn't the only way they need to catch up. They need to catch up with device specs as well.
The 4G phones coming to AT&T are 14.4 Mbps HSPA+ devices. The Galaxy S II on AT&T is a 21 Mbps device. T-Mobile's Galaxy S II is a 42 Mbps device, I doubt the Radar 4G will be above 14.4 unless they use an SoC we don't anticipate. The Price of the phones didn't have anything to do with the slow uptake of WP7 on release. The state of the OS had everything to do with that. It's one thing to be told something. It's another thing for people to see what it really performed like when they went in the store (and by performed, I'm not talking about raw speed).
Even now that Mango is out. So little apps are taking advantage of its new features that they need to really push for developers to get on the ball to updating their apps and supporting them. To a consumer trying devices out in a carrier store (only choice for a lot of them, since most of their friends don't have WP7 devices), a lot of Mango's changes seem purely cosmetic because of that. Microsoft haven't even updated most of their own apps on the marketplace for Mango...
N8ter said:
Specs > Design. If Nokia ships phones with Titan/Focus S specs they will not be able to attract the amount of conversions they need.
What Microsoft needs is conversions, not turnover.
Conversion: Android/iOS/WebOS/BB users switching to WP7.
Turn-Over: Us upgrading because we want more up-to-date handsets.
Android got where it is because it was able to convert a ton of Windows Mobile/BB/WebOS and even some iOS people to Android, not through turn-over.
Cute phones don't make those people come to WP7, when the internals are a year or more behind the competition. It's not just about power. Newer SoCs allow for LTE and faster HSPA+ data connections (this is why T-Mobile is using a Qualcomm instead of Exynos in their Galaxy S II). It allows for high-def Video Chatting. NFC. WiFi Direct. Bluetooth 3.0, etc.
Keep in mind, a lot of those features were on phones a year ago.
Microsoft's hardware specs have really held OEMs back. Part of the reason why Advertising for WP7 is so bad is cause the carriers and OEMs are really struggling to find a story to tell. The handsets, even if the design is nice, simply won't have that with the way Microsoft keeps the OEMs on that leash...
And with users come more and better dev support.
I've spend the better part of 3-4 days going through the app market and there's hardly any non-game apps worth installing (outside of some obvious ones, of course). Hardly any of them have been updated to Mango, and there are apps that I paid for which haven't been updated in ~6 months...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true. My sentiments exactly.
Part of it is good: They've added a lot of integrated functionality that reduces the need to install 3rd party apps. Shazam is useless on WP7 for me, for example (just one example).
Part of it is Bad: There are a lot of good apps on other platforms that seem like they don't care, and apps that were released early on, like Twitter/Birdsong that seem to have fallen out of support. Maybe the dev of Birdsong made enough cash and don't feel the need to update the app anymore?
Board Express Pro hasn't updated their app in forever as well, and that's a $3 app.
IMO, if you don't plan on supporting your app in the marketplace, it shouldn't cost anything. I have tended to ignore paid apps (don't even consider them, and don't even look at them) now unless they're a reputable app from a reputable developer. I'll buy BeejiveIM if it comes to WP7, I'll buy TapaTalk if it comes to WP7. If I had to do it again, I wouldn't buy Birdsong or Board Express Pro.
My days paying for apps are numbered. It's the developers' fault, too.
I think a lot of Microsoft's initial goal was Conversion of non-smartphone users. I don't have anything to prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of Android's marketshare comes from mid/low range devices.
N8tr,
Weren't you the one upset in an older thread that "all the apps are mango" and you couldn't use them because mango wasn't officially released yet... And now your upset that not enough apps are mango...
Sent from my SGH-i917 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
mlococo said:
The problem is Microsoft thinks that WP7 sales were slack because the handsets were too expensive. The reality is the handsets were a year (or more) out of date before they hit the shelves. They were pushing 3G phones with a series 1 CPU and no FFC in stores next to high end 4G phones with all the accessories. Now all we have are these puny low res screens on underpowered phones! Shameful!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh yes and the incredible spec'd devices that were on windows mobile were blockbusters in the market
Microsoft again will lose money if this is all about a specs war, and specs weren't the reason why android was (and is) successful. It's a part, but not the complete package.
Android is diverse enough to reach several different price points to be pawned and given away for pennies. In America, that's important. The only one that feels the need to compare the specs is a bunch of idiots like you and me to see who has the bigger e credit
And I bet anyone on xda devs has done that once
But guess what? We're a growing population, but we are still a blip in comparison to the mass consumer. Go on, ask anyone if spec's matter. To many the answer is possibly, but when a person is selling a phone, they don't say
Hi this phone has a 1.5 gig dual core qhd screen.
They dumb it down to make it sound nice. If you speak techie 24x7 selling a phone, not many sales occur. Again, its about the casual customer.
That said, looking at the price points for android devices that are priced and have similar hardware to windows phone, windows phone does provide a far greater out of box experience. That matters, and it is a large reason why many ditched windows mobile and palm in favor for the iphone flavor in 2007.
Windows Phone has to be popular, and that is a key deterrent in both apple and android's success. This year is the year of getting Windows on equal footing with Android and apple in competitive pricing. Next year is popularity, and ironically, a lot of users will be looking to renew their contracts in America...that matters too
In other words
wait or use a different phone if you're after specs...It's what I used to tell my customers all the time
munkeyphyst said:
N8tr,
Weren't you the one upset in an older thread that "all the apps are mango" and you couldn't use them because mango wasn't officially released yet... And now your upset that not enough apps are mango...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know about N8ter, but I complained before the official release, when Microsoft was pushing Mango updates into the marketplace, and their policy was that any app updated to Mango caused the NoDo version to be locked (no more updates allowed). We didn't know how long it would be until the official release, and we didn't know how many NoDo apps would be dead-ended in the interim.
But now Mango is officially out, and Microsoft has admitted that their policy was a bad idea and reversed it. So now everyone wins. People with Mango can get Mango apps, and people with NoDo can continue to receive updates (at least until their numbers are so few that it no longer makes sense).
andrewkeith5 said:
What is this ridiculous obsession with 'power' and screen size?
I personally don't give a flying proverbial about anything with a screen size over 3.5", because it's just TOO BIG. It can't be used with one hand and frankly it's not necessary, I have a tablet for media and it does a MUCH better job.
And this ridiculous obsession with dual-core this and thousand-gigabyte that. When WP7 runs just as quickly on a 1GHz single core processor as Android runs on a 1.6GHz dual core, it just plain IS NOT NECESSARY. It's a PHONE for christs sakes. Hell Windows 7 can run on less power than that perfectly well.
And if you need 64 gigabytes of media on your phone, then you need to get yourself an actual media player. I don't know of anybody who actually NEEDS more than 8Gb of space on their phone - until WP7 I only ever had a 2Gb MicroSD.
Sorry, yes, it's my opinion, but frankly this specifications rubbish is getting out of hand. People don't buy Android because they know what it does - most people don't have a clue what Android is, they just know it's generally good and there's a stupid number of apps. They buy it because they're told to buy it by the salesman.
With the pace at which WP7 is catching up, with the right marketing it'll start to bring out significant followers. The key thing is getting devices out there and NOT letting operators/independents STOP stocking them. That needs people to want them - and a healthy budget for subsidy. Give a salesman more commission for a WP7 device than a theoretically 20-times better Android, and I can practically guarantee 90% of people that day will walk out with the WP7. And if WP7 doesn't need anywhere near the hardware expense, then there can be more budget for that if the OEMs play their cards right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't agree more, I think 16GB is plenty for almost all needs
MartyLK said:
I agree. Guess what's going to happen when iPhone 5 hits? Long lines and a sellout.
Guess what's going to happen when the second generation of WP7 phones hit? Short lines and overstock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because of the fact that all the iNaives out there don't know better. people need to stop holding Microsoft to a higher standard than google and apple. the iOS5 betas so far have been unstable on the iPhone4 when compared to mango, also apple may not even release the iPhone 5 but more of a rehash of the iPhone 4,I've seen ur trolling on pocketnow over the mango update and u are just plain wrong, ur just mad because mango doesn't include ur precious Google- integration.
N8ter said:
The 4G phones coming to AT&T are 14.4 Mbps HSPA+ devices. The Galaxy S II on AT&T is a 21 Mbps device. T-Mobile's Galaxy S II is a 42 Mbps device, I doubt the Radar 4G will be above 14.4 unless they use an SoC we don't anticipate. The Price of the phones didn't have anything to do with the slow uptake of WP7 on release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and this matters how? at&t,tmobile and vz all have data caps, what good is 42mbps when u can't even use them without being slowed or overcharged?
andrewkeith5 said:
What is this ridiculous obsession with 'power' and screen size?
I personally don't give a flying proverbial about anything with a screen size over 3.5", because it's just TOO BIG. It can't be used with one hand and frankly it's not necessary, I have a tablet for media and it does a MUCH better job.
And this ridiculous obsession with dual-core this and thousand-gigabyte that. When WP7 runs just as quickly on a 1GHz single core processor as Android runs on a 1.6GHz dual core, it just plain IS NOT NECESSARY. It's a PHONE for christs sakes. Hell Windows 7 can run on less power than that perfectly well.
And if you need 64 gigabytes of media on your phone, then you need to get yourself an actual media player. I don't know of anybody who actually NEEDS more than 8Gb of space on their phone - until WP7 I only ever had a 2Gb MicroSD.
Sorry, yes, it's my opinion, but frankly this specifications rubbish is getting out of hand. People don't buy Android because they know what it does - most people don't have a clue what Android is, they just know it's generally good and there's a stupid number of apps. They buy it because they're told to buy it by the salesman.
With the pace at which WP7 is catching up, with the right marketing it'll start to bring out significant followers. The key thing is getting devices out there and NOT letting operators/independents STOP stocking them. That needs people to want them - and a healthy budget for subsidy. Give a salesman more commission for a WP7 device than a theoretically 20-times better Android, and I can practically guarantee 90% of people that day will walk out with the WP7. And if WP7 doesn't need anywhere near the hardware expense, then there can be more budget for that if the OEMs play their cards right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who are you to decide what screen size is good for me?
"IS NOT NECESSARY" - who gave you the right to decide what is necessary? Don't be a smartass
I can't believe the ATI(Adreno in spirit) and Nvidia(Tegra 1,2,3) battle is now in the mobile era, although the cpu core race is even more daunting...
It was not that long ago when 1 core dominated the market, but now we have Dualcores & Quadcores...My issue with this change is that I don't feel either are exactly required; for instance, WP7 & iOS are faster than Android, but are able to run on older hardware. And lets not forget the iPhones normally run at surprisingly low speeds, however they can get a lot done still.
I mean Samsung's SIII has a Quadcpu, but I doubt that's even necessary, what's wrong with staying in the dualcore/single range and focusing on improving the UI and general performance!?
I know I'm gonna get a lot of backlash for thinking this way, but developers will be lazy with programming if they know the HW will run whatever crap they throw at it. It's just hard to understand the logic behind increasing the core count/speed without actually fixing the problems that plagued the software(android in this case) , if you just take the time to fix the quirks then the device will run smoother. Though, it just seems companies are just interested in marketing gimmicks that most end users won't actually notice, plus most dual cores(S3, exynos,T2, etc) are competent with intensive apps.
The race for now is to produce phones with the most potential. Quad cores, when correctly optimized anyway, have much higher processing capacity and much lower power consumption when doing trivial tasks. The goal is to create interfaces that don't stutter or lag no matter how much you have going on and do so efficiently. There's also the backing of chipsets like the Tegra for high-end mobile entertainment. The end game is superphones, and the game is well afoot.
As to the necessity of it, just depends. I think most business users will be fine on dual core offerings with plenty of ram and a well-implemented overall system. For those who like to max their phones out the possibilities of the high-end development coming out is pretty great. Think about something like the Note with enough processing ability to act as a full input tablet for graphic designers, or that allows programmers to run and edit complex code on the go instead of having to drag a full-size tablet around with them. Think about doctors or researchers being able to monitor multiple sets of real-time data directly from their phones. There's certainly a market for all this, and I don't think it's an arms race just for the sake of showing off.
My $.02; hope that was all coherent.
MissionImprobable said:
The race for now is to produce phones with the most potential.
There's certainly a market for all this, and I don't think it's an arms race just for the sake of showing off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your points are all valid, but I still fear that the Software remains on a level much lower than the hardware; there are tons of Android configurations out there that prevent High Quality HW from performing optimally, due to this, the "potential" of certain devices may never be recognized.
I understand that more cores promotes a sense of efficiency and less power draws, but this tends to lead programmers to optimizing less often. Sense 3.0 was extremely sluggish, same with 4.0, but do you notice the trend? Both Sense 3/4 were made for fast SoCs, to my surprise the result was still horrid. And for your point about the mini tablet(Note), I personally feel you would see those types of Apps on iOS devices instead. For the sake of it, I don't want you to think I am an Apple fan boy(just playing devil's advocate).
Maybe those were the kind of things you only saw on Apple previously, but clearly Samsung and others are serious about competing with them.
I am on a bent for the new Google phones that are going to be being produced. Now, I am not the largest fan of quad core yet but I see great potential in dual cores. Like for running Ubuntu Android, an Ubuntu desktop from your phone to a monitor!
These new phones are looking to have 28nm cortex A15 dual core chips, that would be one hot cookie!
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
First, for the dispassionate stuff:
Ace42 said:
but developers will be lazy with programming if they know the HW will run whatever crap they throw at it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Developers should be able to be "lazy" with programming: you don't see anyone going back into assembly in order to optimize their programs. Programmer cycles are a lot more valuable than machine cycles, and here more power is a good, not a bad thing.
Ace42 said:
I mean Samsung's SIII has a Quadcpu, but I doubt that's even necessary, what's wrong with staying in the dualcore/single range and focusing on improving the UI and general performance!? ...It's just hard to understand the logic behind increasing the core count/speed without actually fixing the problems that plagued the software(android in this case)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "logic" required is elementary economics. A competitive market causes innovation: each firm has to distinguish itself, and match the features of the others in order to stand a chance. Now, some features are more important in consumers' eyes than others, and in particular, core count/speed are very comprehensible, very easy numbers, and viable to innovate. They have to go up asap in order to compete. And so they have.
This does not mean, of course, that your "problems" must remain. In fact, looking at the S3 demos so far, I haven't yet noticed any lag at all, so perhaps they really did "fix" your problems, as you desired.
Now, for the bashing part.
Ace42 said:
My issue with this change is that I don't feel either are exactly required; for instance, WP7 & iOS are faster than Android, but are able to run on older hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This comes at a cost of so much less customizability. I find WP7 to be particularly guilty of this: only supports 480x800 resolution, no start screen background or landscape? My Launcher 7 is already more powerful than that and, thanks to not attempting any serious 3D stuff, shows no lag at all.
Ace42 said:
And lets not forget the iPhones normally run at surprisingly low speeds, however they can get a lot done still.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone, however, makes us pay with user speed as well. Scrolling is slow, in order to maintain the illusion of smoothness, and the simplistic launcher without widgets forces you to switch around and manage everything yourself, getting data only by clicking on the appropriate app. As I hinted at the beginning, people cycles are so much more valuable than computer cycles, and sacrificing the former for the latter is nothing less than a travesty.
Currently mobile phones are more powerful than my laptops and i think this will not change. In the next few years we will have quad-core processors in watches
goompas said:
Currently mobile phones are more powerful than my laptops and i think this will not change. In the next few years we will have quad-core processors in watches
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
completely agree
Google sells ads, not software, they don't really give a crap about optimizing it to the max. They leave this dirty job to OEMs, and OEMs want to sell hardware, so they only optimize it for the tiny bit that is strictly necessary in order to sell. They'd rather make better hardware than better software, and no need to blame them: they just do what they know better. Microsoft and Apple instead sell either software or a complete package of both software and hardware, so guess why they care more about it...just my 2 cents. Btw, not that one approach is better than the other, choice is good, you pick what you want.
Sent from my Lumia 800 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
vnvman said:
Google sells ads, not software, they don't really give a crap about optimizing it to the max. They leave this dirty job to OEMs... Microsoft and Apple instead sell either software or a complete package of both software and hardware, so guess why they care more about it...just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This analysis doesn't make sense (at least, not as gross as it is right now). A company optimizes software when there's some form of competitive pressure, not because they "sell software". Just look at internet explorer: that didn't get seriously worked on for years, until alternative browsers started to become rightfully popular (that is, while microsoft is surely a software company, they still managed not to "give a crap").
Maybe you mean to say that companies only bother to improve something so that it's "good enough" to face off against the competition - and that's pretty much true. For example, after grabbing the market share, apple has only been innovating just hard enough not to be too far behind its competition.
Maybe you also mean to say that companies innovate better, the closer their incentives are aligned with the innovation. This is also true, but highly misleading. For one thing, the factor most affecting one's incentives is not "the thing they are selling", but (you guessed it from above) competition. Selling software or hardware when you have a monopoly, for instance, gives you little or no incentive to innovate (whereas your criteria would've suggested the opposite).
Mind you, I think you are hitting on something; it just requires a much more thorough analysis of the incentives than just "are they selling software or ads?"
And the incentive situation is itself weird. On one hand, android ad profit is (supposedly) pretty low for google, but on the other hand, they are able to delegate the whole manufacturing and execution to other firms. Fewer rewards, but also lower costs. They do have the majority of the phone market right now (getting dangerously close to monopoly there), but this is a fragile equilibrium, with tablets a whole 'nother story. And, since they are dying to get more stock phones out (with those giant "Google" permanant search bars), one can indeed argue that they've started to care not only about selling ads, but the whole damn thing. It's gotten to the point where they need to improve stock itself (and probably the phones too, hence the motorola acquisition + multiple Nexii partnership) in order to improve their ads. And so you see that the incentives may not be nearly as maligned as you'd originally supposed.
I think that we can only benefit from this race
thebobp said:
First, for the dispassionate stuff:
Developers should be able to be "lazy" with programming: you don't see anyone going back into assembly in order to optimize their programs. Programmer cycles are a lot more valuable than machine cycles, and here more power is a good, not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Being "lazy" is the reason why so many Android apps run poorly across the board; fine, I understand more power allows you to offload more work to the cpu, but that doesn't mean that's the correct method. If I were to make an app for a Dual environment I would specifically make sure each core is sharing the burden. When Dual core phones & Ginger were(and still are) united, the result was simply stunning—Ginger was definitely not optimized for dualcores. And it showed, my Sensation was so laggy under 2.3.x, it was so disheartening to see my single core devices could challenge the dual beast with ease.
thebobp said:
Now, some features are more important in consumers' eyes than others, and in particular, core count/speed are very comprehensible, very easy numbers, and viable to innovate.
This does not mean, of course, that your "problems" must remain. In fact, looking at the S3 demos so far, I haven't yet noticed any lag at all, so perhaps they really did "fix" your problems, as you desired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The average consumer doesn't know or can't even comprehend the raw power that certain SoCs are capable of, so I doubt they care if X phone has 2GHz and the other has 1Ghz. Apple normally doesn't boast about the CPU count in commercials, they boast about their OS & siri, that's how they win over millions each year. Everyone and their grandmothers know how flawless iOS is. Now I know I'm bashing Android severely, though I am a long time Android user and these are some of my views.
thebobp said:
This comes at a cost of so much less customizability. I find WP7 to be particularly guilty of this: only supports 480x800 resolution, no start screen background or landscape? My Launcher 7 is already more powerful than that and, thanks to not attempting any serious 3D stuff, shows no lag at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, WP7 offers the bare minimum when it comes to customization, which is an unfortunate sacrifice for speed. And Microsoft has set HW limitations to prevent fragmentation, which if I may, is devastating the Android market. We have Exynos over there, Snapdragon under there, and Tegra round yonder, and a large variety of screen types.
thebobp said:
The iPhone, however, makes us pay with user speed as well. Scrolling is slow, in order to maintain the illusion of smoothness, and the simplistic launcher without widgets forces you to switch around and manage everything yourself, getting data only by clicking on the appropriate app. As I hinted at the beginning, people cycles are so much more valuable than computer cycles, and sacrificing the former for the latter is nothing less than a travesty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Scrolling is slow? Are you using the 1st iPhone or something? Last time I tried my friend's 4S is was quite speedy, iOS has always been the fastest mobile OS available. If memory serves, iOS has also been GPU accelerated since the old days, a feature relatively new to Android and maybe WP7. I pretty sure you can visit every Android forum on XDA & at least 10 users will report that they have lag in X, Y, Z app. However if you did a poll with random iOS users I doubt if you would even find a black sheep.
Hello,
(excuse me for errors in my language)
Do you think we have reach the limits of performance and usability with the latest hardware available on the market for our smartphone ?
We can put it this way: Do you think it is still useful to buy smartphone with more powerful hardware than S4 or this type of phone ?
They are definitly smooth, and for their use, I think pay for more is useless.
But maybe their use will change, they will somehow replace our desktop pc in the way we can connect them to screen and mouse everywhere we go (I know that ubuntu touch already does this).
Thanks
I'm sure we haven't reached out limits. Android owns the phone market right now and I'm sure it will go a long way. As for the price the price will always be crap. I think the highest phone for a no contract I have seen was a iPhone 5 for 700. I'm sure the prices will keep going up.
Sent from my LG-LG730 using xda app-developers app
The industry will always strive to develop faster, smaller and more efficient hardware. And software developers will always find new ways to make use of that hardware.
Smartphones are becoming more and more multi-purpose platforms. With USB OTG, this direction is clearly defined. The increasing screen size is also a product of that. You can already use many phones as a more grown-up multimedia device, connected to your AV equipment and external controllers. This opens up a whole different arena, both in regards to software possibilities, and harware requirements accordngly.
There really is no real limit as to how far this train will go - especially considering the ammount of money people are willing to pay for their phones. And with the chinese marked and developement coming rushing up like a mountain on wheels from behind - both development time and price level is likely to drop a little, rather than increase.
Moore's law. A model that predicts the experiential increase of computing power. As for cellphones, I think it is about demand and supply. The processors in the latest phones have reached a limit threshold on what a consumer would use it for. Before when processors was lacking, consumers wanted better ones resulting in manufacturer competition on who has the fastest phone. First the 1GHz race then the quad core race and now we have 2GHz quad cores. There is now not as much demand for faster CPUs in phones atleast so manufacturers and focusing on other areas to compete for who has the best phone such as better battery, better screen, fast 4G, lighter, etc.
with the launch of Nexus 5 i saw many people switch over to it..
Reasons may be many,the one which seems most evident is its configuration!
which makes me think that when Google launches a "nexus" product with such hardware does it mean that quad cores or octa cores or the massive 2 gigs of memory are really required??
do we actually need that kind of hardware for daily purposes?
Or is it just a market hype or an induced inflation that is being generated by the multinational corps?
one releases a quad... and then the other is ready to pack 8 cores...
i don't posses much of technical knowledge but do we really need all those krait cores and those exynos!
60 years back we sent people on moon with a computer that had 64kb of memory..
now don't get me wrong I am not against the technology its just that all this advanced tech is being put to the same use,which is quite capable of being handled by far less powerful machines.
When it comes to octo cores I really don't feel it's necessary for everyday use. The software is always trying use the least amount of cores possible to maximize battery life anyway. The RAM on the other hand I think is an absolute must. I remember when buying this phone thinking that 1gb of RAM (or whatever the actual usable RAM is, 787mb) was going to be great, oh how I was wrong. Just look at the multi tasking ability (or inability) on this device and that should answer the question of whether we need more RAM.
Sent from my Evita
i agree with you that RAM is a must but my point is even with all those high end specs, what you actually use the phone for has not changed over the years....
there is nothing "exceptional" people are doing with 3 gigs or RAM and 8 cores.
and everyone here must be well acquainted to the good old Nokia days and their Symbian or BB OS (or those java OS's that ran on most mobiles) at that point of time when 'Processor' and what 'GPU' and what 'Pixel density' your phone was actually never a matter of discussion or a way in which those products were advertised.
Now i don't advocate Nokia for keeping their loyal customers ignorant of the specs but it was only when "ANDROID" emerged that 'specs' started becoming a matter of concern.
because Android being a universal OS that could be ported to any device,created kinda a platform for all the companies to battle out each other with increasing specs!
now when a developer phone is launched with such hardware config it silently somehow creates a standard for all the later devices to be more advanced or atleast in par. its like a snowball effect!
and PS M not being like a child who craves for not getting those expensive toys :laugh: but as a consumer who is deluded into believing that all of these specs do matter and can somehow bring a drastic change in the way we utilize these devices.
and secondly these corporations are just giving us the technology and i feel that even they are skeptical about how to put it to use!
I agree with timmaaa, more RAM would be great to have, as the constant reloading of browser tabs (and other apps) every time you try to multi-task on this device is annoying, to say the least. Yes, the aggressive memory management is a part of the issue. But the fundamental lack of RAM is at least partially to blame.
The number of cores on the other hand, seems like one of those near-useless specs that manufacturers just flaunt for marketing purposes to those that don't really have the knowledge to even know what it means ("Look at this awesome 43 MP camera phone!"). Many folks assume more cores is better, but this is actually seldom the case.
However, a fundamentally faster/newer CPU is always going to be a welcome upgrade (similar to the RAM). A faster, smoother, and more responsive device is always going to be desirable. And as fast as smartphones and other computers have become, it always seems the software developers just add more and more bloat to the OS and apps. I know Google is talking about "one Android version" for all devices, including low end ones. But I really don't believe the hype. Consumers are always going to hunger for more features and more eye candy, and the desire for faster and faster CPUs is not going to end anytime soon.
Do we "need" this type of computing power? Heavens no. But we will "want" it nonetheless!
redpoint73 said:
I agree with timmaaa, more RAM would be great to have, as the constant reloading of browser tabs (and other apps) every time you try to multi-task on this device is annoying, to say the least. Yes, the aggressive memory management is a part of the issue. But the fundamental lack of RAM is at least partially to blame.
The number of cores on the other hand, seems like one of those near-useless specs that manufacturers just flaunt for marketing purposes to those that don't really have the knowledge to even know what it means ("Look at this awesome 43 MP camera phone!"). Many folks assume more cores is better, but this is actually seldom the case.
However, a fundamentally faster/newer CPU is always going to be a welcome upgrade (similar to the RAM). A faster, smoother, and more responsive device is always going to be desirable. And as fast as smartphones and other computers have become, it always seems the software developers just add more and more bloat to the OS and apps. I know Google is talking about "one Android version" for all devices, including low end ones. But I really don't believe the hype. Consumers are always going to hunger for more features and more eye candy, and the desire for faster and faster CPUs is not going to end anytime soon.
Do we "need" this type of computing power? Heavens no. But we will "want" it nonetheless!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i totally agree about the one android version hype i dont think it will materialize ever.
for all the manufacturers who are just pilling up cores and claiming that their phones are 'the best' please develop something that I can take to my 70 year old granny and really blow her mind :laugh: who knows nothing about the hardware.
I know its a poor joke but think about it there is really nothing that the most high end device does which probably can be considered to be state of the art or a miracle to those people who especially no nothing about the chip inside!
i had this thought when i saw an old fellow asking for a dual core long back and his need were just texting,calls and alarms,hell he dint even have internet on his device but still the market forces persuaded him that he needs a dual core.
but then i thought even a person who has a fair technical know how about it purchases a dual core,even he doesn't use it for firing missiles(again a poor joke) but you get the point technology if its not utilized to its potential,is useless.
and forget its use,the sad part is its creating this hype of high end devices!
little off topic apple introduces 64 bit correct me if m wrong all the apps are 32 bits how will they make use of the 64 bit architecture.
its like having an Ultra HD when you don't even have a service provider that offers HD transmission!
and this is not pertaining to any device or a software upgrade issue as it may likely sound!