kureyon | # 31 | 2011-01-09, 03:31 | Report

Apple doesn't give cpu specs for the iphones and they seem to be getting along just fine.

Probably not. But those in the know, knows that Symbian is pretty efficient on CPU, memory and power usage. The clueless or those who thinks they know would just be looking at the raw CPU speed. One thing that Nokia is consistently guilty of though is putting too little RAM into their devices.

Nokia phones have always had a slower CPU than the competition so nothing new there.

Apple doesn't.

That's in part due to the superior illegal tactics Intel employed in coercing manufacturers not to use AMD stuff, and for which they are now being sued by AMD for.

mattbutsko | # 32 | 2011-01-09, 03:44 | Report

By showing off it's features. I've seen Verizon commercials about the Droid line speaking highly of a "1Ghz Snapdragon". I've seen a Nokia promo for a phone preloaded with Sportstracker that would monitor your heatbeat and GPS location while you work out.

Which commercial sounds like it'd appeal more to an average user who thinks a Snapdragon is a scary race of snapping turtle?

I do agree, but not for the clueless. The people who think they know what they're talking about will go for raw power. The clueless just want the phone with access to some form of apps and looks cool. [Off topic] Hence, the iPhone has been so successful.

---

Last edited by mattbutsko; 2011-01-09 at 03:49.

ysss | # 33 | 2011-01-09, 04:24 | Report

If you directly correlate a device's tech spec to the expected UX you're gonna get out of it, then you might be clueless too.

There's the software layer on top of it,which is determined by the device's developer-marketplace-customers ecosystem, then there's the vendor's support, then there's a 'softer' social aspect on top of this all. It all determines the 'value' you're getting out of the purchase.

Unless, of course, you buy gadgets just to run synthetic benchmarks on them and post the screenshots online.

ysss | # 34 | 2011-01-09, 04:32 | Report

That's not a feature per se. It's a spec that enhances a feature.
people are already familiar and they appreciate Android Os's features and capabilities, so they'd assume a higher tech spec will enhance that further.

Now if Nokia comes out with a brand new phone running a brand new OS, sporting a 2ghz CPU, people will likely want to learn more about the 'true' functions and features of the phone first, before 'applying' the 2Ghz 'modifier' into their perception of said device.

to me, it seems they're getting a far better deal buying an iphone 4 then a n900' all things considered. (ui/UX, apps selection, resale value, etc).

Who's clueless?











It depends.

mattbutsko | # 35 | 2011-01-09, 05:40 | Report

right. what i'm saying is that processor speed is NOT a feature so they shouldnt advertise it. sportstracker is a feature however, so that would be good to advertise.

also you dont need to defend the iPhone against the N900, cause i didnt bash one or praise another. all im saying is simpler tech people want simpler devices. thats why the iPhone is so successful.

let me try to reiterate what i was talking about:
think, if a commercial for a superphone just listed it's 3G bands, processor, ram, connectivities, and that was it, would the average consumer be interested? probably not, cause they wouldnt know what any of that was. would the commercial describing its app store, gaming capabilites, internet speed and screen size help tempt the average consumer, probably.

---

Last edited by mattbutsko; 2011-01-09 at 05:48.

vkv.raju | # 36 | 2011-01-09, 05:45 | Report

I am not sure if you realized it but you answered your own question!

If the specs don't have big numbers (probably because its not needed for that OS), then advertise/market what it does and how it does better than others.

Apple does marketing better (infact, excellent).
Nokia doesn't. So, it has to level their laziness at specs level.

Now, what percent of the people do you think know the capabilities of an OS. I mean (in this case), how many people know that Symbian runs better at even older hardware?

Mentalist Traceur | # 37 | 2011-01-09, 05:51 | Report

I think that's too... subjective, I guess? How good of a deal it is depends entirely on what you want out of a device.

I've played with iPhones, seen their messaging system (the little push message pop-ups), their control-depriving though shiny UI/UX, and, well, I couldn't live with it. Maybe back when the iPhone first came out, when nothing else on the market was vaguely similar.

But I would personally never trade the capabilities of the N900 for all the bug-less-ness of the iPhones (which aren't exactly bugless, we just only hear about our bugs here, and unfortunately our fixes are, well, not exactly quick to reach us down here in the end-user space).

Frak, even without the root-access-with-one-download, the ability to make and reflash kernel images on-board the device, the easy-as-hell SSH, the ability to actually manually monitor and control so much of the device's workings if you know what you're doing, and as of late the packet injection and all the fun that comes with it, know what I feel completely impotent without when messing with any other phone? Status Menu. That thing is a godsend. It's on EVERY screen, just about, unless a program is coded against it specifically, and with the ability to open it in portrait mode hacked on, it's even better. Of course, leave it stock and it sucks. But put in Qwerty's non-disappearing FM Transmitter applet, the Brightness Applet, and a couple of the other stock and custom things, and it's a godsend in so many use cases. I move from a dim environment to a bright one? It takes me like a second to change brightness. If I had an iPhone, I'd have to back out of my application, navigate through a few screens just to get to the settings, and back out. The best thing I've seen Android have is the desktop widget that lets you change brightness settings (still have to back out of the app). I've also never seen nearly as responsive of brightness auto-adjustment in the screen (to be clear, my recent exposure to other gadgets is two different iPhone 4s, an iPhone 3GS, and a Droid - the original one, not the Droid 2/Droid X/Droid whatever).

And I'm sure someone could hack the Android OS well enough to replicate that functionality, but you'd have to flash an entirely new image over the firmware to make it work, I think. iPhone you'd be lucky if you could get it after jailbreaking it.

Even without the insane versatility, even without all the things you can either do, or make it do if you're willing to put forth the effort, there's all these little things that are made possible by the N900's OS and versatility that, well, if they matter to you, if they make your phone experience more enjoyable, you CAN'T get them on anything else. No other phone will let you, let alone without fighting on you.

Nokia's policy in regards to their closed blobs, which they won't open and won't bug-fix faster/better is a major pain in the ***, yes. But we only notice and have the liberty to have problems with them because the rest of the OS is open and transparent enough that things that deep down are hindrances.

And I don't think, if you were someone who'd like the N900 initially, you'd have a problem with not getting resale value out of it. I know I certainly never intend to resell.

So I disagree with the notion that it's objectively a better deal. For the things I want out of my phone/device, the iPhone is the absolute worst thing I could buy. At that point, I'd be happier pulling out my pre-N900 phone - the Samsung Highlight. I don't care for the app selection, and if I want to consume media on it, at least it takes Micro SD cards, and is happy to play files from it.

The iPhone is good at what it does. It does, well, very little, and god forbid you want to make it do something that an existing app doesn't do. Like the Super Bowl here in the US, which people who don't care much about football watch for the commercials, you put up with the shortcomings of the phone because of the app selection if that's what matters for you. But if there's nothing you need out of the commercials that you can get elsewhere, and you simply don't at all like football, it's not going to be worth it - especially not when it costs you upwards of 500$, with which you lock yourself into just watching the superbowl with the occasional commercial to make the experience feel worthwhile for two years.

If that's all you want from a phone, and you don't feel the inhibiting grip of the OS around your actions, you'll be happy, and the iPhone's a better deal for you. But there's plenty of people for whom it's definitely not a better deal. The clueless ones are the ones who don't know what they want, or don't know what device can best fill it.... so, most people.

gerbick | # 38 | 2011-01-09, 06:57 | Report

No, we don't want it to happen. Not at all. In fact, I'd hope that every international and federal trade commission would vote against it.

Optimized denotes "optimal". Lagging to the point where I might miss a phone call because it has to think about rotating; that is not optimal. Glad you can multi-task a whole lot. Woo. But it can't multi-task stuff that I'd like for it to do smoothly... thus, not optimized. Just... running on the hardware with the 256mb of RAM it has.

gerbick | # 39 | 2011-01-09, 07:04 | Report

The whole megahertz conversation is pertinent only due to perceived lag. Get rid of that, these conversations no longer would happen.

ysss | # 40 | 2011-01-09, 07:22 | Report

10 I assume you missed the last line of my post?

Are we still talking in the same context here?
I was answering Mattbutts' post, where he was referencing 'the deal' for the 'clueless'.

I also calculate the cost of a phone as Purchase price - Resale price. Obviously you'd have to tack on operational cost (monthly bills), which I assume would be similar if we start off with unlocked phones without contract.

I think there's plenty enough of iPhone vs XXXXXX threads out there, I don't think we need to rehash any of those here;

My point was that the iPhone is a good fit for the mass. And why should 'we' care about this? Because we need those f'in mass too.

If n900/maemo/MeeGo is a cow, then the masses is a huge green pasteur where it can grow and multiply and thrive. They can fund Nokia/Intel/Our Overlords, and we can tag along for the ride, assuming Nokia doesn't become an assh*t and close the platform.

ps: yes, you can get a status-bar-like app for the iPhone where you can toggle things from anywhere, without going in/out of the settings app.

pps: no, you don't need to always change the brightness manually on iPhones, because they have auto-brightness setting which works rather well.

So at the end of the day, you're paying $4-500 for the n900.

Whereas someone who bought the iPhone at full price $600-ish can probably resell it for $3-400 when they upgrade, bringing their cost down to $2-300.

GOTO 10