This is a great example of what's wrong with Android marketing.
Most consumers are not interested in checklists, comparisons, "anything you can do I can do better!" Consumers are interested in apps. Services. Angry Birds. iTunes. Status. Style.
Just look at some of these. "Can be used as HDTV remote control." "microSD slot." "Content Stores."
These don't matter to the average person. They may matter to you or me, sure - I certainly envy a handful of Android features - but they do not matter to most people. And that's the biggest flaw in high-end Android phones, and why they don't take away iOS market share in the high end, only replace dumbphones in the low end.
This, by the way, is why the Droid is the only Android phone brand that has been impressed on the average users. They had the standout commercials, and as weirdly overproduced as they were, it worked far better than the average feature checklist, announcer spouting off stats, or comparison chart.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts when it comes to smart phones. Comparisons like this miss the big picture.
People are interested in different things. Some people, like me, appreciate the superior design of Apple products. Those people will not buy Samsung products. Some people are interested in apps. Some people are indeed interested in checklists and base their purchasing decisions on them. Samsung is targeting those people with this checklist as they are trying to differentiate themselves and serve a part of the market that is more interested in feature counts than other aspects of a product.
You're right. It's not about one being better than the other when compared side-by-side, it's about re-enforcing a particular market segment's belief that their purchasing decision or decision to be was the correct one.
Samsung, or any other same-space competitor is making no allusions about converting hordes of Apple customers based on a chart or infograph; they're reconverting existing customers and trolling for virgins.
td;dr: your wife will put out if you talk about the new girl at the office.
And they never, ever highlight any qualitative differences. Such as 'can actually scroll through pictures and contacts smoothly', 'pinch to zoom doesn't haphazardly move you to a different part of the webpage', etc.
Exactly! And you know, the newer Android phones I've used are far smoother than they used to be, but you still don't see that in the ads. I think a big deal about the iPhone ads that just show someone using it is that it creates this image of "responsiveness" - something that is especially attractive to those using dumbphones with resistive touchscreens. Android hasn't made any strides in that; manufacturers are too busy spouting off numbers.
I agree that this is the problem with this specific article. But I don't think Android in the current state lacks anything to the iPhone. There are zillions of great apps in the Market. The evidence that the Samsung Galaxy S series are selling a lot proves that high-end Android phones are going very well.
You don't know whether your hardware vendor will supply updates. Or whether your carrier and vendor will get in some spat over who knows what. And then when you buy the latest greatest you have to be sure you're picking the popular phone that actually gets apps tested against it, etc, etc, etc. And then what particular carrier installs the least crapware, etc. Does it have the right chip that will have acceleration in the future? Does the battery last 2 hours or 20? How many extra batteries should I buy for my particular Android phone?
Does my iPhone have the right external buttons to make the apps I want to use most productive, etc? Should I get a phone with or without a physical keyboard?
Apple's value prop is primarily that their providing a known commodity, you know the apps are going to work, it's almost impossible to choose the 'wrong' iPhone, and Apple doesn't get into silly spats with carriers about updates. You can definitely put together an Android experience that's on par with Apple but you're rolling the dice unless you wait 6 months to buy the hardware. And then there's the issue of going to the multitude of stores to find out which one has the phone for the cheapest.
Software updates and pre-installed crapware, as you mentioned, are now a thing of the past when you consider the works of the community creating customized roms for just about any Android device out there. The device owner can simply apply an update or delete any app themselves after rooting. Yes, rooting is risky and hardware manufacturers should keep their damned devices updated, but the process is simple enough to perform and the benefits are really great.
Yes, I could probably spend 3 to 4 hours of my time fucking around with a phone to get it to work, but why would I want to do that? And more importantly why would I want to pay for that experience? Even if I do get the phone working, at best it's on par with iPhone. IMHO the only thing that Android has going for it is that Scala sucks less than Obj-C.
It's like changing the oil on my car, yes I know how to do it, I even have jack stands, yet I take it to the shop and pay someone else to do it? Why? Because my time is worth more than it costs.
Personally, change the rom/kernel and try different stuff on my phone is a big part of the fun to me. Even the standard roms (like the one for the Galaxy S II) are quite decent now, you just have to change it if you like to try different stuff. I have a Nexus S and even always having the latest version available to my phone I am always changing roms because I like it. My wife have a Galaxy S and she is pretty happy with the last official update provided by Sammy.
Not to nitpick but i thought the quote was "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" ?
That would also tie more with what you are saying here, i think ;-)
So that chart is the same chart as posted in "androidguys" blog. I dont think Samsung would highlight carrier differences as an "advantage". Maybe someone more enlightened than I can tell me if max download speed is a relevant comparison tool. I rarely if ever even approach the maximum 3G limit on my iPhone due to AT&Ts network, and I don't think any phone network has the capacity to truly serve up these max speeds consistently. Maybe Im being cynical here, but I dont know that I would want that much speed since it would just encourage me to hit my bandwidth cap more quickly...
Except for one item. They've heard of iOS5, want it bad and have no idea what this silly named 'gingerbread' thing is.
For my part, some of their plusses are actually detractors.
Removable battery? Every phone I've had was rickety and ended up with a broken battery cover (I wouldn't consider myself hard on electronics) and a bunch of lint and dust inside the phone. 4+ inch screen? Seems big and it's lower resolution, I prefer higher DPI in a smaller screen that can fit in my pocket without making a big flat bulge. And lastly 4G = battery drain. 3G where I live has great performance and I often use the personal wi-fi hotspot and for regular browsing and email and stuff I have only good things to say.
Also, I've never really understood why a removable battery is necessary. By the time my battery died in a phone, it's always been time to upgrade anyway, so I never replaced it. Also, if you need extra power during the day, an extra battery seems like it would be pretty annoying, because you have to power off the phone to replace it. I'd rather have an external battery pack to recharge the battery, so I can keep using the phone.
Also imagine the space you save by not having a user serviceable battery compartment. No latches and contacts in a little plastic housing and walls to separate the battery from the rest of the device. You can make it any shape you want and fill the entire device.
I don't think giving away those benefits are really very worthwhile in any device I own. That includes everything from my toothbrush to my laptop.
How do you do video chat on the SGII though? I'm guessing you need some software like Skype, etc., which means your friend also has to have installed, you need to be friends with them, and so on. On the iPhone, FaceTime is built right into the phone app—just call your friend and press "Video Chat". No need to worry about setting up an account or downloading anything else. The only thing you need to coordinate with your friend is to make sure they have an iPhone.
Skype would probably be the choice plus you can have group video chat.
It is odd that there isn't any ready-to-go Samsung app for it (I have an SGII) or at least I didn't see one yet.
It's not a big surprise though since not all phones which use the Android OS have a front facing camera so it would be up to the individual phone manufacturers to add an app if their phone has a front camera.
Sure it's personal preference but the trend seems to be moving towards larger screens on smartphones in fact doesn't the very definition of a smartphone mean it has a large screen?
If it's a smartphone I would say it's main purpose is to view websites and use apps such as Facetime or equivalent which would be uncomfortable on a small fuzzy screen.
Some day we get the roll-up displays and have scroll like phones with large folding/roll-up screens.
It's about compromise. A smartphone with a one inch screen would be an obviously stupid idea, as would a smartphone with a ten inch screen. Seen that way "bigger is better" or "smaller is better" doesn't even make sense.
My claim is: 3.5 inch screens are a good compromise, allowing for comfortable browsing, reading and writing. The additional screen space would never be worth the additional bulk (also: uncomfortable one hand use) for me.
I think something between 3.5 and 4 would be ideal. Current 3.5 size is small for reading books(typical pdf technical book, page cropped to visible content). Even adding 0.25 inch would be a great help without sacrificing portability.
Another thing to consider is in general the screen bezels of phones is getting thinner too as the screen glass size grows, a 3.5" (88.9mm) iPhone has probably a 1/4" (6.3mm) bezel surrounding the screen.
Someone with an iPhone would be used to the "hand feel" of a 4" (101mm) iPhone if the screen bezel were thinner.
Speaking as someone who has used both extensively, anyone who says they prefer Samsung's Super AMOLED to Apple's Retina has been paid to say that. Seriously, there is no comparison. Retina is brighter and crisper, and in bright sunlight both are bad.
The Samsung Galaxy S2's display "pro" is battery life? Does not reflect real-life use then...
Small thing that happened today: a collegue of mine happens to have an S2, and he had to charge his today at 3PM. I gave him a strange look and asked if he had charged him over-night. "Yea sure". Then I asked him what he had done with his phone today, I wanted to compare his usage with mine, which was imo an average use.
This was my iPhone 4's activity up to that point:
1) In the car: connected to the car-kit with Bluetooth, making 1 call of about 5 minutes
2) In the car: connected with a cable to the car-radio playing music for about 40 minuted. Since the car-radio kit was only intended for old iPods, this causes the display to be constant "on" while playing music, and displaying "charging not supported with this accessory".
3) Calling about 30 minutes in the office
4) Sending about 20 texts
5) Receiving about 50 texts (some servers went down and spammed my phone)
6) Playing music using my earbuds for about an hour.
7) Checked twitter and facebook when I got a notification
8) Played one Planets vs Zombies level.
9) Installing Infinity Blade and 5 other smaller app updates from the appstore over WiFi (Infinity blade alone is 500mb+)
My battery level now, about 3,5h after he had to charge his phone: 65%. Now his answer was:
1) a 5 minute call
2) and sending/receiving about 10 texts in total.
3) 5 minutes of checking the news in the browser during lunch.
4) Searching and installing a small app on the Android market and playing with it for a few minutes.
I almost couldn't believe this, so asked him about a carkit? No. Music in car? No. Music at the office? No. He then made it worse by mentioning he had a "battery improvement" app installed, which he claimed helped a lot, and that he had bluetooth and wifi disabled. Certainly the wifi struck me as odd, but he explained he had a 2gb/month data contract, so he didn't really care, and enabled his wifi manually when he thought it was needed.
We both started the day at 100%. Ok, so he did start his day about 1h earlier than me, but still, it should at least make it through the day with that little useage?
So yea, apparently, the AMOLED really helps to improve the battery life...
A screen is not a phone. Why the sarcasm? I think you need to read more carefully. I said the AMOLED screen has an edge over the Retina in battery life - meaning power draw. I didn't say a thing about the phone as a whole.
My iPhone 4 outlasts almost any Android phone you care to name, regardless of screen technology.
Well, look at what Android reports as main battery consumer (which you can check on Android), you'll see that the vast majority of their claimed battery consumption is credited to the display :)
I'm not sure if what Android reports is correct, but it is a good indication imho...
What a joke. I could probably poke holes in just about every item they listed, but emphasizing the fact that the Galaxy S II has a larger screen while failing to note that the important metric - DPI - is worse is what really kills me. I guess they must feel awful about how superior iPad 2's screen it to the Tab: it's a whole 3 inches bigger!
Wow, is the 4GS on Sprint and Verizon really CDMA 3G? As a previous Sprint customer I was rarely able to crack 1mbps on their 3G network, and my average speeds were around 200 or 300kbps. I have a mere 3G t-mobile HSPA phone now that cracks 4mbps routinely and must average at 2 or 3mbps per second. I don't have battery issues or anything. Its just fast and it works.
3G CDMA is something I had on my windows Treo like 6 years ago. Its incredible how this ancient technology is the standard for millions of new iPhone 4S customers. I feel sorry for the guys signing 2 year contracts on this stuff.
>I feel sorry for the guys signing 2 year contracts on this stuff.
This comes off as a fanboy response or at least ill-informed. Right now 4G devices drain battery life. It is faster but there are compromises to be made.
One could easily argue that Samsung has a lower res screen and ppi, the A5 is vastly superior to the Enyox and the S II has a rear casing made of plastic.
There are benefits to the S II as well such as a larger screen (if that is your preference), better front camera and removable battery.
I don't think that 4G/HSPA+ is a clear benefit to customers considering that real world speeds aren't what is stated by Apple or Samsung and it it is still not widespread.
One thing I do wonder about is how the Galaxy S II's cpu matches up with the A5 after an overclock. That's one of the greatest things I love about Android. You have direct control over how fast you want your device to be provided you have a custom firmware installed.
The Galaxy S II’s processor/GPU combo is the fastest in the mobile industry according to Anandtech with the major difference being the A5 with the SGX-543.
They said that it was the best GPU in smartphones. The processor shouldn't be radically different from any other dual A9 at the same clock speed and I'm guessing that the one in the iPhone 4S is a slower clockspeed. As for the GPU, that again will depend on what speed it is run at. There was speculation that the iPhone 4S would lose one GPU core compared with the iPad 2. It appears to have both from what information is available, but speed hasn't been specified. They may have lowered it for heat or battery reasons.
Even if you allow Apple all the benefits of the doubt here, I'm not sure it mounts up to easily arguing that it's vastly superior, "has a slower CPU, less RAM (guessing, sort-of) and a better GPU" maybe.
Ah yes, the good old feature checklist comparison. Because that tells a customer so much about what it's actually like to use the thing they're buying.
Strange how customer-satisfaction rates (or anything of the like) don't show up in these comparison charts -- too squishy, I guess. And really, who cares whether people actually like using this thing? It's got a Super AMOLED Plus display, dangit!
Apple is all about the specs when it thinks it can win, and when it cant (like the 4G downloads or the classic Altivec bake-offs with Photoshop) it's not beneath cooking up ridiculously misleading nonsense to use for spec-whoring.
Download speeds and camera response speeds aren't really tech specs. It's the difference between the gigahertz of your process vs. how fast you can launch an app. One is a spec, the other is a measurement. One gives the user an idea of what the experience will be.
Even if we accept your argument about what is a spec and what is not, the download numbers seem obviously cooked and don't reflect actual speeds experienced by users but theoretical limits that your are unlikely to ever see for various reasons.
And I've read that people are having trouble replicating the photo speed numbers, so we'll have to see exactly what circumstances lead to these numbers. Apple's benchmarks have never been very fair (not that they're alone in that as far as marketing goes) so I'd rather see independent confirmation before taking anything they say in a keynote as gospel.
I don't disagree with your main point, but camera responsiveness isn't exactly nonsense. For many people, it's possibly one of the most infuriating waits on current smartphones.
By nonsense I meant that they compared HSDPA speed (I believe, though there are conflicting reports online, that the iPhone 4S does not support HSPA+) so they placed an artificial cap on the speed of the other phones and explained it solely with an obscure acronym that no-one would understand.
(And of course historically, the use of Altivec-based Photoshop filters that didn't reflect general processor speed).
You're right, Apple does use specs when they make Apple look good. This is marketing we're talking about, after all. And checklists certainly are helpful when the presence or absence of a particular feature really does matter.
But I just can't see myself as a consumer using a comparison chart like this to decide which one I will actually buy. I don't care if the screen is "Super AMOLED Plus" or "Retina", I care which one looks better.
I think this chart is completely wrong. Of course, it's a marketing thing, but anyway. It doesn't even highlight the sections where the iPhone 4S is better.
Either way, I do believe the Galaxy S II is better than the iPhone 4S, and although I think fanbois don't care about these stuff, things such as microSD slot, 4G, weight and price matter to most people; maybe they don't care about the other technical mumbo jumbo.
Most consumers are not interested in checklists, comparisons, "anything you can do I can do better!" Consumers are interested in apps. Services. Angry Birds. iTunes. Status. Style.
Just look at some of these. "Can be used as HDTV remote control." "microSD slot." "Content Stores."
These don't matter to the average person. They may matter to you or me, sure - I certainly envy a handful of Android features - but they do not matter to most people. And that's the biggest flaw in high-end Android phones, and why they don't take away iOS market share in the high end, only replace dumbphones in the low end.
This, by the way, is why the Droid is the only Android phone brand that has been impressed on the average users. They had the standout commercials, and as weirdly overproduced as they were, it worked far better than the average feature checklist, announcer spouting off stats, or comparison chart.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts when it comes to smart phones. Comparisons like this miss the big picture.