I have been waiting for flash since I had a g1. Adobe took so long that now html5 is on the horizon. As an embedded implementation html5 is more power savvy so on mobile devices its hugely attractive. I haven't even had flash yet but already I want html5, I mean my phones battery life is probably the main point of complaint so naturally I want html5 instead of flash which is a plug in. This article is pretty informative and it appears browsers essentially use one of two codecs to implement html5 video. Steve jobs says there are patent issues that need to be ironed out for a single codec to be adopted them html5 can be used by all.
So is the codec issue really the main hurdle? Because i don't post much but I read a lot and the impression I got from xda was that html is far far off. This article makes me think it could be broadly available within the next year or so....
EDIT: ok I get an error message that new members can't post links so just try to imagine the article referenced throughout my post...just concentrate really super hard I'm sure it'll work.
AndroidPerson said:
I have been waiting for flash since I had a g1. Adobe took so long that now html5 is on the horizon. As an embedded implementation html5 is more power savvy so on mobile devices its hugely attractive. I haven't even had flash yet but already I want html5, I mean my phones battery life is probably the main point of complaint so naturally I want html5 instead of flash which is a plug in. This article is pretty informative and it appears browsers essentially use one of two codecs to implement html5 video. Steve jobs says there are patent issues that need to be ironed out for a single codec to be adopted them html5 can be used by all.
So is the codec issue really the main hurdle? Because i don't post much but I read a lot and the impression I got from xda was that html is far far off. This article makes me think it could be broadly available within the next year or so...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
doesn't the Nexus already support HTML5?
From what I understand no. But I think the new Skyfire browser converts flash content to html5 so it can be played- I may be way way way off
HTML5 is going to be a STANDARD around year 2022 (check it yourself). If you think your phone will still be relevant...
Also, read some performance comparisons. Currently Flash outdoes HTML5 about 20 to 1 in performance, and given the nature of both, if it's likely to change - that would probably be in favor of Flash in the near future.
Flash is very broadly used, and it's not likely to change any time soon.
There is no difference in battery use by a piece of SW that was coded by a browser team vs a piece of SW that was coded by any other team. I fail to see, how do you compare battery usage, not knowing the implementation.
Maybe you should read some more articles.
If Flash is using H264 as well, why is it any less of a problem patent/licencing wise? Just because you use flash video playback on your website, doesn't mean the MPEG-LA licencing fees are gone.
If the browser is capable of playing H264 without a middle man plugin, why is that undesirable? The video tag in HTML is no different than the image tag and there is nothing in the specs saying what type of image formats are allowed either. Anyone remember the patent problems associated with GIF? This is now new ground we are breaking.
People need to forget about the whole Jobs vs Adobe cat fight and recognize that improving the HTML standard is good for everyone! I just can't understand why people all of a sudden are against it. Idiotic mod mentality I guess.
Who said anything about html improvement? Yes, it'll be great (maybe not so great, depends on many things), but currenty it represents a piece of very underdeveloped something, and it's not going to change very soon, if the standard developers are credible enough source. So the discussion doesn't have much ground...
My understanding of the performance differences in terms of battery usage are that by utilizing hardware decoding (H.264) versus software decoding (via browser plug-in), you gain an order of magnitude of performance improvement and a significant reduction in power consumption because the decoding happens with less overhead and less components involved. I could be way off on this, and I'll be damned if I have the links at my fingertips to back this up, but it is the culmination of what I've heard on the performance side of things.
I'd say Apple shot themselves in the face for not supporting Flash (at least in the short term). I could understand it if HTML5 was standardized and shown to be superior for the purposes proposed, but at this point, I think its a little too early to say "FU Adobe". But then again, the Cult of Mac won't question the Jobsian edict, and will blindly follow him off a cliff if so commanded, so I doubt it will impact their sales numbers of iPhone 4G.
Browser plugin is just another piece of SW, and it can utilize any system resources given to it - including hw optimizations. Creating a browser embedding option doesn't make the browser render it hw-assisted, and using external renderer doesn't make it sw. These things are not related in any way, and so is the battery life argument's relevance (none).
http://www.gizmodo.com/5490205/html5-vs-flash-the-video-benchmark-deathmatch
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archive...eat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php
http://www.blackcj.com/blog/2010/04/29/simple-animation-performance-flash-vs-html5/
The point is: there is no right and wrong, but as it is currently with browsers - adding even more fragmentation will do mostly harm. Which is currently being done, for corporate reasons that don't care about end users.
To answer the OP, no the "codec dichotomy" will not be a major hurdle to HTML because all browsers except IE have already implemented the video tag at least, and even IE will be up to speed by the next version. That was the first part of HTML5 that everyone implemented, so I really don't think it was a hurdle for anyone.
Once IE9 comes out there wont be any browsers left that don't support the video tag, and the tag itself will be a public specification. Can anyone argue why that's bad?
Yes, it's very easy. Here's the browser usage distibution:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Let's say, ALL IE8 users migrate to IE9 (not going to happen). Still there are IE6 and IE7 users out there, representing 6 times the count of Safari users (the only ones that actually benefit from HTML5, having no Flash HW acceleration support - on any other platform, Flash is more efficient both in CPU usage and in scripting, as noted in previously linked articles). Those users aren't going to receive any video tags in their browsers, and they're not going to run and change their browsers. And that even before mentioning that the other browsers also have versions, and not everybody's running the latest and the greatest. So, to neglect 17% of the Web users? Not going to happen.
Now, to an even bigger problem. Mozilla doesn't want to implement H.264 codec support with HW acceleration or at all : http://css.dzone.com/articles/mozilla-reignites-html5-video. So what will be the result? Disastrous for over 50% of the better browsers out there, and beneficial only to - yes, right - Microsoft and Apple. Or, in turn, will require even more fragmentation in web site building, and IE6-like effect again: http://www.osnews.com/story/23031/Mozilla_Stick_to_Your_Ideals_Shun_H264/page2/
And, the newer Flash will come out, more efficient by far on Windows and actually everywhere but on Macs (which means, <4% of the browsers will suffer), with much more capabilities supported than HTML5 will support in the following years (it goes way beyond video tags). So, a big part of the Web will embrace the newer and more powerful Flash, and screw those <4%. Those that will want to make their site experience good for all the browsers, will be screwed even more than they are today.
Lack of one appropriate and 100% accepted standard creates havoc and doesn't help making the Web better. Imagine the situation where you would plug in USB device and wouldn't know, what to expect from the computer, since USB wouldn't be a strict standard.
Maybe the standard will position itself in some distant future, maybe not. But on the way there, things will be worse before they will be better. And nobody promised they would be better eventually, because of how things look right now.
Here's an excellent article from a developer, that explains everything much better than I tried to:
http://richardleggett.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/01/the-world-is-moving-to-html5
The ending explains what I've been trying to say:
"I can’t wait till we get through this next transitionary period, with web designers having to spend twice the effort providing Flash fallbacks to video, companies encoding and hosting their videos twice for Firefox, licenses and royalties for h264, this will be another messy, frustrating time for web users and progress may slow, but I can’t see a way around it."
If your argument is that IE6/IE7/IE8 users aren't going to upgrade to IE9 then the hurdle is users willingness to upgrade to newer software rather than a codec problem, isn't it?
Good for Mozilla to take a stand against MPEG-LA, but that still doesn't change the fact that their browser has HTML5 support (including the video tag) already, so clearly they aren't opposed to HTML5 video either. H.264 is the going to be the standard and Mozilla isn't going to win this fight, and I'm sure they recognize that at some point they will have to just suck it up and hook into the video libraries installed on the system through stuff like gstreamer on linux and the Windows and OS X equivalents. They don't need to provide the decoding directly.
So what if Flash 10.1 on Windows is currently more efficient based on armchair benchmarkers measuring CPU usage reported in Task Manager. What happens in year or two from now when they aren't the best and once again Adobe let's the flash plugin stagnate? And what about platforms other than Windows? What if I want to make my own OS with my own web browser and Adobe doesn't feel the need to port Flash to my system? Why on earth would anyone feel like it's a good idea to put a large chunk of the web into the hands of one company with a track record of poor support?
I don't understand why Flash solves the issues raised by Mozilla. It uses H.264 as well, so the patent and licencing issues remain the same and consumers still get stuck using that codec! Why is it that Mozilla is unwilling to use a system video codec library, but a Flash plugin is OK? They are just being difficult.
No, they aren't. Flash is external, Flash is commercial product distributed for free, including commercial licenses that it pays for, while Mozilla is open-source and open-source only. And Mozilla accounts for almost 50% of browsers, the hell they can make a stand, and they are doing just that, and they'll more likely force codec duplicity in any video than bend. Please read the articles before we actually debate anything, understand that Flash now is providing 1000 times more 10 times better than HTML5 will provide in 5 years (that much for "armchair benchmarkers", the whole technology behind Flash is light years ahead of HTML5 development schedule), and see that the world isn't changing to any better place. Adobe isn't there because someone forced it there, it's there because it provided what the Web needed better and more consistent than any other.
Plus, let me guess, who will make the best HTML5 developer tools when it actually will be worth anything?
Hmm... Sounds like Adobe.
Why? Because they have the best grounds for it.
I've said from the beginning that the codec problem isn't THE problem. The hurdle is HTML5 being incomplete, poor-performing, nowhere near evolutionary, much less revolutionary, and not providing anything useful but complication. And with that, unfortunately, it has enough corporate interests behind it to get pushed to further screw the Web for developers and users alike. So we might as well get ready for it. Oh well, the good news about it is that it makes Flash improve.
With that, I humbly surrender this thread, leaving enough links for people to read and think about, and go try to stuff some more apps into my Nexus.
Related
Look at this:
http://gizmodo.com/360514/htc-says-software-fix-is-coming-for-lousy-video-drivers
An official HTC statement about the drivers looks promising. Again, keep your hopes up and guard up!
Not only is this old and posted to death, but
However this fix is not a new video driver to utilize hardware acceleration
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is nothing promising about this, please read carefully next time, it just misleads people who read your post
Damn. . . I thought that was a new and updated statement. Look if you only read a little bit of it then you probably missed out on this.
Some of our top engineers have investigated video performance on our devices and have discovered a fix that they claim will dramatically improve performance for common on-screen tasks like scrolling and the like. Their fix would help most of our recent touch-screen products including the Touch family of devices and TYTN II / Tilt, Mogul / XV6900. The update is in testing and we hope to release it soon. However this fix is not a new video driver to utilize hardware acceleration; it is a software optimization. Video drivers are a much more complicated issue that involves companies and engineers beyond HTC alone. We do not want to lead anyone to believe they should expect these. To explain why we are not releasing video acceleration instead of the optimization
I offer you our official statement... "HTC DOES plan to offer software upgrades that will increase feature functionality, over the air wireless speeds and other enhancements for some of the phones being criticized, but we do not anticipate including any additional support for the video acceleration issues cited in customer complaints. It is important for customers to understand that bringing this functionality to market is not a trivial driver update and requires extensive software development and time. HTC will utilize hardware video acceleration like the ATI Imageon in many upcoming products. Our users have made it clear that they expect our products to offer an improved visual experience, and we have included this feedback into planning and development of future products. To address lingering questions about HTC's current MSM 7xxx devices, it is important to establish that a chipset like an MSM7xxx is a platform with a vast multitude of features that enable a wide range of devices with varied functionality. It is common that devices built on platforms like Qualcomm's will not enable every feature or function. In addition to making sure the required hardware is present, unlocking extended capabilities of chipsets like the MSM 7xxx requires in-depth and time consuming software development, complicated licensing negotiations, potential intellectual property negotiations, added licensing fees, and in the case of devices that are sold through operators, the desire of the operator to include the additional functionality. To make an informed decision about which handset suits them best, consumers should look at the product specification itself instead of using the underlying chipset specifications to define what the product could potentially become."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
~~Tito~~ said:
Damn. . . I thought that was a new and updated statement. Look if you only read a little bit of it then you probably missed out on this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry Tito,
Nothing new to that, just the same old company line that they've been spouting for weeks.
Meeing!! I thought I saw something new. Well Law Suit it is then since they don't want to make a small amount of effort to fix some devices problems that they shouldn't have. I wonder if they use their own devices or do they have drivers made for them and not us?
Is there in existence, an iPhone forum with as much tech knowledge as this forum?
I got a couple of iPhones to play with, a good one and a fixer-upper.
Whenever I have technical questions about the iPhone and search Google for answers, I keep coming upon forums full of questions (the same ones I would have asked) but no answers. Another problem is most forums are Mac-oriented and I only have PCs.
Lol, too many avg. joe's and computer illiterate people use the iphone, hence the forum's full of questions. As an example, one iphone user i know was super excited and happy that his iphone used web apps and described them as the way of the future, I have no idea how they are advantageous esp when many require an active internet connection and when I mentioned the inability to use our field, healthcare's, current WinMo work/productivity apps, he replied "yea, apple needs to fix that!"...lol, they are so cluseless.
Maybe you could try your luck at searching for a developer forum...well a hacker's/unlocking forum?
I haven't found any good technical forums yet, but so far I would have to say the iPhone isn't that much fun.
Lots of eye candy, animations are super smooth, and the browser is first rate, but there's not a whole lot to do on it. Even the programs available via Installer.app are pretty lame. Can't access the filesystem, everything must be copied via iTunes. You can install OpenSSH and get to the file system that way, but you can't directly copy media to it. It all has to go through iTunes.
The whole time I was thinking... 8GB, 480x320 LCD, 620MHz Samsung ARM processor. Damn I wish this thing could run WM6!
Plus, Bubble Breaker is a helluva lot better than any of the lame games I was able to find for it.
I'll give it a few more days, but I think Windows phones are more my thing.
I've come to the same conclusion!
GnatGoSplat said:
I haven't found any good technical forums yet, but so far I would have to say the iPhone isn't that much fun.
Lots of eye candy, animations are super smooth, and the browser is first rate, but there's not a whole lot to do on it. Even the programs available via Installer.app are pretty lame. Can't access the filesystem, everything must be copied via iTunes. You can install OpenSSH and get to the file system that way, but you can't directly copy media to it. It all has to go through iTunes.
The whole time I was thinking... 8GB, 480x320 LCD, 620MHz Samsung ARM processor. Damn I wish this thing could run WM6!
Plus, Bubble Breaker is a helluva lot better than any of the lame games I was able to find for it.
I'll give it a few more days, but I think Windows phones are more my thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've not got an iPhone but like GnatGoSplat, I'd love to have the 'power' and screen size - other stuff like automatic screen rotation and multi-touch would be good as well! I have come to the conclusion that although Apple have done a great job in fueling the revolution in phone UI and function, it's aimed at the non-technical masses or neither have the wit or foresight to realize what could be done if only Apple would let them do it!
I have strayed a little from the point that I originally wanted to make though - 8GB, 480x320 LCD, 620MHz Samsung ARM processor - check the specs for the Meizu M8 Minione and Samsung i900 that are due to be released later this year? Due to similarities to the iPhone, i doubt the M8 will be available in Europe and North America because of copyright infringement, however the i900; well that looks like a whole load of fun that many of us are looking for!
hdd123
hackint0sh.org
modmyiphone.com
Thanks hiimcliff, modmyiphone has over 150,000 members, there ought to be some good knowledge there!
hdd123 said:
I have strayed a little from the point that I originally wanted to make though - 8GB, 480x320 LCD, 620MHz Samsung ARM processor - check the specs for the Meizu M8 Minione and Samsung i900 that are due to be released later this year? Due to similarities to the iPhone, i doubt the M8 will be available in Europe and North America because of copyright infringement, however the i900; well that looks like a whole load of fun that many of us are looking for!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've known about the M8 for over a year, but it seems like it's vaporware and never coming out. The Samsung i900 looks nice, but screen is lower res. Not sure on the CPU specs, but I'm guessing it will be slower. I love that it has GPS and FM radio though.
Ideally, I would still like to see a Windows Mobile emulator because I'd still want to be able to use the iPhone's apps, many of which are far superior to their WinMo equivalents (Safari for one). Surely I'm not the only one who wants to run WM6 on a HVGA, 11.6mm, 620MHz device! I would be the best of both worlds. Surely I can't be the only one who wants this?
First of all, I've got to say that Android is awesome.
Now here's the thing
I enthusiastically bought a phone with, among many other fantastic things:
1. 800x480 resolution
2. 512mb RAM
3. 32mb storage capability (phones supposed to format 32mb)
4. A high end screen ( that I now understand to be 3 years old), for what should be smooth scrolling
5. stable 3G connectivity
6. And I assumed the gallery would be at least as quality as the older firmware versions. In truth its still solid but its fair to expect firmware updates to, at the very least, not make stuff worse...
Meanwhile the froyo update is going to "free up additional RAM" and be able to format said SD cards. Don't get me wrong I don't expect Android to fix the ridiculous antennae placement or make the cameras flash more useful. Design defects are certainly tolerable and sometimes even expected, but only to a point.
I feel like broadly experienced bugs and specification shortcomings should be fixed ASAP.
I love that Android is going to give us additional, awesome features in future updates. But I don't think we should have to wait for bug fixes while Android packages them as new features in a forthcomimg update, as though they are doing us a favor. Android can take as long as they want to give us new features and I'm grateful for them and I won't complain about the wait.
But I must insist that my phone have the basic functions I purchased within at most a couple of months. We are talking about solving problems not adding features. Shouldn't the priority of the updates reflect that?
I don't know if they've released the changelog or not, but let's hope for several minor upgrades to come with it...
What's the question?
j.bruha said:
What's the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-> should we really have to wait for froyo?
All I want is my ram. I'm very upset over that.
AndroidPerson said:
First of all, I've got to say that Android is awesome.
Now here's the thing
I enthusiastically bought a phone with, among many other fantastic things:
1. 800x480 resolution
2. 512mb RAM
3. 32mb storage capability (phones supposed to format 32mb)
4. A high end screen ( that I now understand to be 3 years old), for what should be smooth scrolling
5. stable 3G connectivity
6. And I assumed the gallery would be at least as quality as the older firmware versions. In truth its still solid but its fair to expect firmware updates to, at the very least, not make stuff worse...
Meanwhile the froyo update is going to "free up additional RAM" and be able to format said SD cards. Don't get me wrong I don't expect Android to fix the ridiculous antennae placement or make the cameras flash more useful. Design defects are certainly tolerable and sometimes even expected, but only to a point.
I feel like broadly experienced bugs and specification shortcomings should be fixed ASAP.
I love that Android is going to give us additional, awesome features in future updates. But I don't think we should have to wait for bug fixes while Android packages them as new features in a forthcomimg update, as though they are doing us a favor. Android can take as long as they want to give us new features and I'm grateful for them and I won't complain about the wait.
But I must insist that my phone have the basic functions I purchased within at most a couple of months. We are talking about solving problems not adding features. Shouldn't the priority of the updates reflect that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Other than the mem/kernel thing....are you expecting some kind of handjob update?
don't we have the additional RAM in cyanogen mod?
muncheese said:
Other than the mem/kernel thing....are you expecting some kind of handjob update?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hj's are cool I guess.
But If you were told the nexus one had 256mb ram and like 600x300 resolution and so on, would you have so excitedly purchased the phone? I sure wouldn't have...
I thnk we should have the basic functions the phone is supposed to have. I know its early but only ram and SD card formatting are mentioned in froyo. Shouldn't the phone have the resolution that it says it has, the ram that it says it has, and the other basic functions that it says it has prior to fun, cool, exciting feature additions? And isn't weird that Google hasnt even mentioned any intention to fix the phone so that it meets its own spec sheet? We aren't talking about demanding flash or decent video playback support or a UI overhaul. We are just talking about features and functions we were told we were buying.
Should we really still be waiting for that? I feel like we shouldn't
But the phone does have 512MB of memory and it does have 800x400 resolution. Crack it open and take a look at the parts yourself.
Sure they might not have complete software support for everything at launch and that can be frustration for some, but as far as I am concerned they put more hardware into the phone than they could use at that point for future proofing reasons. I'm happy about that.
Even after they enable all of the memory it still probably won't be used by anyone.
AndroidPerson said:
Hj's are cool I guess.
But If you were told the nexus one had 256mb ram and like 600x300 resolution and so on, would you have so excitedly purchased the phone? I sure wouldn't have...
I thnk we should have the basic functions the phone is supposed to have. I know its early but only ram and SD card formatting are mentioned in froyo. Shouldn't the phone have the resolution that it says it has, the ram that it says it has, and the other basic functions that it says it has prior to fun, cool, exciting feature additions? And isn't weird that Google hasnt even mentioned any intention to fix the phone so that it meets its own spec sheet? We aren't talking about demanding flash or decent video playback support or a UI overhaul. We are just talking about features and functions we were told we were buying.
Should we really still be waiting for that? I feel like we shouldn't
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I received the phone I was ecstatic. That's before realizing half the ram was disabled.
I wasn't really planning on running official roms anyways, so maybe that differs for me. So I've never really been of the mind of "waiting for google to do their thing". I'm a tweaker by nature, from my phones, to my vehicles, to my shoelaces.
As far as the "false resolution" of the oled displays. Lol, you can't expect new tech to be measured by old standards.
PrawnPoBoy said:
Even after they enable all of the memory it still probably won't be used by anyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
It would be nice if android were proper open source, instead of open source when google feels like it. For example, 'Firefox', as soon as development starts on a new version, it is completely open from the start. Though we are dealing with two different companies, with different objectives. Mozilla wants a free and open internet for the sake of a free and open internet, Google wants a free and open internet because it is good for the bottom line. In the end, both benefit me.
liam.lah said:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
It would be nice if android were proper open source, instead of open source when google feels like it. For example, 'Firefox', as soon as development starts on a new version, it is completely open from the start. Though we are dealing with two different companies, with different objectives. Mozilla wants a free and open internet for the sake of a free and open internet, Google wants a free and open internet because it is good for the bottom line. In the end, both benefit me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait.... I was under the impression that when they say 'extra ram' its freeing up RAM from the OS, not physically?
Is someone saying we have the same amount of RAM as in the desire then? :/ (that f'ed up number, like 560 or something)
Because I am quite disappointed with Samsung Galaxy S, I will sell it and buy another phone soon.
I am very fond of HTC Desire HD but is it worth to buy another Android phone or is better to give a try to iOS, Symbian ^3 or maybe Windows Mobile 7.
What are your suggestions?
From personal experience, I doubt the iOS beats android in any way. Symbian is too simple and plain for my taste. However, I don't know much about the latest symbian, but the N8 works on a much slower CPU than the SGS. As for windows mobile 7, since it's new, it might be worth a try but we can never really know till reviews start flooding the net... Personally, I think you're being a bit hasty with throwing away the SGS. With froyo just around the corner, it would really improve the phone overall, and would certainly be comparable with the Desire HD. After having done my own research, I concluded and opted for an android phone by choice, for IMHO it IS currently the best upcoming mobile phone OS. Ultimately, you just have to be patient with new technology, so irrespective of the OS or the manufacturer, there's really no point rushing. You will NEVER find 'The Perfect Phone'.... Just my two cents.
Hold out for Meego if Symbian ends up on top of your list, but that'll be 2011. If you want something with everything laid out for you and a good app store, iOS is a fine option, but it definitely depends on what your problem is with SGS and how much of that is Android/Samsung based. iOS has high satisfaction rates, but most people who get in there have stuck along, knew what they were getting into or don't know any better. Android, some people who aren't technical enough or like tinkering and having options just bought in because it's popular and they hear enough about it, but they didn't know what they were getting into. Still, as far as I know, Android has the second highest customer satisfaction, so if you need a decision for the here and now, go with Android or iOS. If you can wait until WP7, read up after the devices launch, it's not ready to compete with all things either platform can offer, but it does have long-term potential, particularly with gaming/MS integrations, but thus far from what I know I wouldn't buy it in the first 12 months of it's launch even if they start with the best hardware.
My advice is wait until Froyo.. The reason why you are disappointed is probably because it feels sometimes like Samsung aren't doing anything. This is because there aren't many leaks.
You may also be disappointed because many people here at XDA are jumping to incredibly uninformed conclusions. We have morons running around saying that Samsung will never release updates, people saying the lag can't be fixed in RFS (whilst Samsung might not have integrated a few performance patches) and newbies saying "the GPS problem is hardware" without ANY proof whatsobloodyever.
Also, whilst those who defend this phone regularly get called fanboy's, there are certainly a lot of HTC fanboys here too (which seems to be finally getting revealed now that many ex-HTC users are calling some of their ex-products worse).
Froyo might be a completely different ballgame (I wouldn't underestimate Samsung). But either way, a lot of people coming from other platforms are saying their SGS is better than their other phones anyway.
I wouldn't touch WM7 because:
1) Windows Mobile seems to be a dying platform. Unfortunately, Microsoft took too long to release it.
2) So this means they wont get many developers and users on-board.
3) Windows Mobile is closed source, and development isn't easy (You probably require Windows).
Why I wouldn't touch the iPhone:
1) For starters, Steve Jobs stood on stage and lied about the antenna. Rather than fix the problem, he called other mobiles rubbish (despite their antenna problems often being VERY difficult to replicate in real life). I have very little respect for that.
2) Development is difficult, you really need OSX. The OS is closed source too.
3) Many users NEED to jailbreak, because of restrictions in the store.
4) Apple products often have weird design issues, which people seem to ignore, but which exists.
5) Huge app store
6) iTunes.. Enough said..
Symbian
1) Symbian is open source, which is great...
2) But these days, only Nokia sells them. Symbian's marketshare will likely only decrease.
WebOS/Palm
1) Forget about WebOS. In most countries you can't find ANY webOS phones, so audience is VERY limited
Meego/Maemo
1) The Nokia N900 is the only phone that uses it.
2) But it probably runs faster than Android because it's compiled code.
3) But limited exposure. I'd consider it, if the hardware wasn't so sucky...
Android.
1) Apps might run slower, because it's bytecode
2) But, HUGE range of mobiles
3) Huge range of apps (Not as much as iPhone though)
4) Open source OS.
5) Evolving quickly, reliable vendor (Google know what they are doing)
6) The SGS seems to be the only laggy Android phone out there (probably due to a few bugs that need fixing in RFS, which might already be fixed in head/trunk).
I'd say hold off until Froyo. I have the feeling Samsung will surprise us. Remember, the leaks only show SOME integrated code, and even JPK could have been missing a whole lot of patches. A lot of claims made by users isn't true either.
The reason why some things haven't been fixed yet may also be because they are integrating the fixes directly into Froyo.
There is a VERY good reason why Android is quickly growing though. In fact, I'd be surprised if Android isn't #1 by next year. But I'd honestly have no problems buying another Android handset
Hey Guys Kyuubi10 here again.
I had a thought on my head and couldn't help but share to see if people have the same views as me.
I am currently disappointed with phones, tablets and computers...both on a hardware level and on a software level.
While I do see technology getting better each year I have a feeling that we are currently stuck in a cycle which the major companies are unwilling to break.
Let me go deeper into detail. But to make this thought comprehensive to most people I'll try to organise it by topic.
Software:
Most developers nowadays have a huge disregard for code efficiency, and as such the advancement into making code more efficient has slowed almost to a halt. Because our devices are becoming each day more powerful, developers don't care anymore about creating applications which don't consume RAM, nor applications which are bug-free on release.
Instead buggy applications are released, which consume loads of RAM, because a future update will fix bugs, and devices will get better and have more RAM.
Thus new and inexperienced developers are not being taught the value in making an efficient program.
And this annoys me.
This brings me to Java, and Android. While I love android and what it stands for, the fact that it still runs mostly on Java annoys me. Java being hated by most developers, and being seen as a backward step in the development world is one of the major programming languages in today's world.
Google, being a great company should set up an institution made to further programming standards, and through such institution it should begin laying the foundations for a new programming language to be used with Android.and it's focus should be efficiency.
Also, highly disappointed in the progress of Windows 10. Mentioned to be a revolutionary step for Windows....yet it is simply a reworked GUI for Windows 8. It still even has the charms!!! All that was done was to make Windows store apps open within windows rather than fullscreen, and fixed a couple bugs. Oh yeh, and Cortana...which seems more like a spy than a virtual assistant. It actually refuses to work unless you let it monitor your location. Why does it need so much info?
Microsoft Edge feels like a beta testing version. I thought that they would at least incorporate some Internet Explorer functionality to Edge. But it is not even recognized as a browser by certain websites. At this moment in time IE is still better than the "revolutionary" Edge.
You are still better off with Firefox or Chrome.
On the Linux side of things...it still annoys me that there is very little support for Linux. But that has enough complaints on the internet to make its own case, I'll avoid repeating everything all over again.
Instead I'll make a complaint about Android. Why is almost no-one building an android port which works well as a desktop OS?
Why are we still limited between OSX, Windows and Linux (which has little support)?
Android has been around long enough...but very few people are making an effort in creating a fully functional version of android for desktop.
The way I see it is that Android is based on Linux...it should contribute back to the Linux community. Someone should use a well established Linux distro and mix it with Android. If their runtimes are incompatible then a technology such as CoLinux or UML could be used to run both at the same time. While also using KSM to keep RAM consumption to a minimum.
This could be well supported by Google (Now Alphabet), and the community.
Hardware:
While the development of CPUs is going strong, with Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm and MediaTek trying to best each other...Other things aren't doing quite as well. Especially RAM. This mostly being the fault of OEMs, trying to keep costs as low as possible while squeezing every cent from their customers.
This is highly noticeable when you get Tablets which are up to 4x bigger than a phone and have the same amount of RAM as a phone. This kills multitasking abilities in our modern day devices.
We already have 64-bit CPU chips...why isn't it yet common for our devices to have 4GB+ of RAM? Asus showed that it's possible with its Zenfone 2.
How long will it take other OEMs to follow suit? The progress in this area has been too slow over the years.
Again, especially for tablets. Those things should have been reaching 6GB or more within 2014 and 2015. We definitely have the technology to do it.
While for desktop and laptops I'd love to see qualcomm and Nvidia to step up into this market with their ARM based chips.
It would be interesting to see a mix of Dedicated graphics interacting with an ARM CPU...I wonder if that is possible.
But the advantages of ARM chips are undeniable...They have even started to appear into the server market, and yet nothing for personal PCs. This is sad. The battery reduction, heat reduction achieved by such chips would make computers so much more powerful. But advances in this area are also moving foward too slowly even though we already have the technology to do it.
Security
But this annoys me most of all. The lack of focus about security.
While technology increases, it seems that no one is worrying about the security of new devices etc...
I mean, if someone stole my smartwatch all they would have to do is reset it and they could connect it to their smartphone as if I had never owned it.
That breaks my heart.
How hard is it to create a pair of symmetrical encryption keys, or 2 pairs of asymmetrical ones (if you want to be paranoid), in order to make sure that the smartwatch works only with that specific smartphone which has the correct keys.
This would also mean that if the owner wanted to use a second device to connect to their smartwatch it would be fine and safe as long as they have the correct keys. Thus improve functionality and safety with one blow.
With a whole load of smart devices being offered currently and very few of them have any security whatsoever! It annoys me deeply.
Obviously there are other security issues all of which have already been extensively discussed, such as encryption while surfing the web as default, efficiency of current standards etc...
As a solution I believe that the major tech companies in the world should get together and make a consortium with the purpose of advancing technology.
The idea is that once a new technology/protocol/standard is introduced by one of these companies then the others test it extensively, and if it is found to improve current technology they all adopt it. Because the main issue is that while many solutions exist, they are not wide spread because most companies don't use these solutions.
But if the most significant companies in the tech industry lead the way by using the new technologies, then by default the other smaller companies will follow.
But such a consortium needs to exist in order to avoid useless competition.
Competition is good when it is a force to improve current standards, not when it isolates another company's improvements by rejecting their solutions.
I agree with most of your points but I have to disagree in regards to Windows 10. As Microsoft explained it will be continuously improved. I think with Win 10 they finally listen to its customers (more than 90% satisfied). In my opinion 10 is far, faaar better then 8 and I think its developing is going into the right direction.
As this is about more than smartphones... And not about anything in specific... I'm moving this to the off topic section. :good:
Thanks,
Darth
Forum Moderator
Darth said:
As this is about more than smartphones... And not about anything in specific... I'm moving this to the off topic section. :good:
Thanks,
Darth
Forum Moderator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe, I found no thanks button. So I'll reply instead! Thank you! )
markdc said:
I agree with most of your points but I have to disagree in regards to Windows 10. As Microsoft explained it will be continuously improved. I think with Win 10 they finally listen to its customers (more than 90% satisfied). In my opinion 10 is far, faaar better then 8 and I think its developing is going into the right direction.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, you bring a good point. But this comes back to what I said that developers now are not worried about bringing a great product into the market, they bring an unfinished project which will then be updated as time goes on.
In fact what people are happy about Windows 10 is more due to the GUI changes. (No full screen apps, start button is back where it belongs.)
While my complaint comes more from the fact that they took a really long time to build Windows 10, and it still is Windows 8 with a different GUI. Which makes me think, what did they do with the huge time they took developing it?
Personally, I liked Windows 8... Yes it had its flaws, but it was revolutionary. It was magnitudes faster than Windows 7, albeit it had many glitches. But those were ironed out with 8.1.
It was Microsoft's first attempt at merging their mobile OS to their Desktop one. And to me this was a great idea, and improvement.
Windows 10 on the other hand doesn't feel as revolutionary as they claimed, from a technical perspective. Yes from a business perspective, it is something new, but not the software itself.
Can you see my argument?
But you are right, and I agree with you in the fact that it is moving in the right direction. I hope that Microsoft's push to mix a mobile OS and a desktop OS will inspire Google to do the same to its Android OS.
Chrome OS just doesn't truly feel like a proper OS.