Samsung Galaxy Nexus review: it's the world's fastest smartphone, but is speed enough?

Recommended
Samsung Galaxy Nexus review: it's the world's fastest smartphone, but is speed enough?
Rating
Overall:

Android 4 has much to recommend it, but Samsung’s hardware, for once, isn’t all that it could have been

Features:
5
Value:
3
Performance:
5
Browse this Review:   Next

The first Ice Cream Sandwich smartphone is here, courtesy of Samsung and Google. We find out if it makes tasty eating.

At this moment in time, Samsung has it made. Not only has it defeated Apple’s attempts to ban its devices from sale in Europe and Australia (for now), but with the Galaxy S II it has the market’s best smartphone, and it also has the exclusive contract to develop smartphones for Google.

Its second such Google phone is the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which introduces to the world the latest version of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich.

Android 4, as it shall henceforth be known, borrows features and styling from the tablet-orientated Honeycomb (Android 3) version of the OS, adding new features and a slicker look. We’ll look at it in detail further down this review, but first let’s take a look at the hardware.

 

The star is the subtly concave AMOLED screen, which measures 4.65in across the diagonal, with an HD resolution of 1,280 x 720.

 

That’s the highest resolution we’ve seen on any smartphone, and the Nexus manages to squeeze it into a chassis weighing only 135g. It’s thin too, although not quite as skinny as Samsung would have you believe: at its thinnest point it measures 8.9mm from front to back, but that swells to 11.7mm at its thickest point.

Under the hood, a dual-core 1.2GHz processor backed with 1GB of RAM powers the Nexus to some impressive benchmark results.

The SunSpider test completed in 2,005ms – faster than any other smartphone we’ve yet seen. Our new web page load test, in which we time how long the phone loads 28 web pages in sequence, saw the Nexus return a time of 11 seconds, this time a little behind the iPhone 4S’s 9.2 seconds.

In Quadrant, the Nexus scored 1,785 points – quite a way behind the Samsung Galaxy S II’s result of 3,460, but on a par with other Android phones of a similar specification.

Sweet, sweet Ice Cream

Coupled with the new operating system, though, the Nexus feels like a different beast entirely, because the principal benefit Android 4 brings is immediacy.

Clicking links, swiping screens, and navigating your way around the new interface is as sharp an experience as it is on Windows Phone and iOS devices.

Every link, animation and action happens the moment you touch the screen. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the camera app, where snaps can be fired off as fast as you can tap the shutter button. Ice Cream Sandwich makes this the most tactile Android handset yet.

But what other changes does Android 4 bring? The most noticeable is the look. If you’re familiar with Honeycomb, you’ll recognise the neon blue-on-black colour scheme and modernist font.

 

 

It’s cleaner and classier than the previous version, and is perfectly suited to the higher-resolution displays beginning to appear on modern smartphones.

In keeping with the tablet-style approach, Android 4 phones will now also sport an onscreen button bar, replacing the discrete physical or capacitive buttons we’ve become accustomed to. This runs along the bottom of the screen and plays host to three controls: back, home and multitasking.

The first two are self-explanatory; the third pops up a vertically scrolling thumbnail list of recent apps, allowing you to quickly switch between apps or kill them by dragging them off screen.

We’re in two minds about this. On the one hand it’s very elegant, and gives Google the flexibility to change the function of the buttons in future. On the other hand, the button bar is, for the most part, a permanent presence: whether you’re browsing the web, using apps or playing a game it’s always there, occupying valuable screen space.

With the button bar in place, the 4.65in screen on the Galaxy Nexus offers just over 4.3in of usable space (see screenshot above), something worth bearing in mind when comparing specifications with older models based on Android 2.3.

The exception to this is Android's video player app, which slides the bar out of the way during playback. Let's hope other apps, particularly games, soon follow suit.

 

 

Another implication of the button bar is that Android no longer has a dedicated context menu button. On Honeycomb tablets, this issue is resolved by adding an extra, onscreen button next to the three standard ones for applications that have features accessed via the menu button; on Android 4, a similar button appears in the shape of three dots, again to the right of the three main buttons.

The trouble is that there’s another way of providing commonly used controls within Android 4 apps – via the new translucent Action Bar, which can sit either at the top or bottom of the screen. Google’s intention is clearly to provide developers a more elegant way of presenting menus, but the result is a muddlesome mess, with menus and buttons that appear in all sorts of unexpected locations.

We’re also uncertain how the onscreen buttons will jive with the physical buttons of existing phones (such as the Samsung Galaxy S II), when they eventually get their updates. Hopefully, there will be the option to turn it off.

Finally it's worth mentioning that, at the time of writing, there’s no Flash Player for Ice Cream Sandwich. Adobe has promised an update at some time in December.

Other updates

There are plenty of other, more positive changes, though, from tweaks to the app icons to a slight overhaul of the Android desktop. The Google search widget now resides permanently at the top of the desktop, and persists across all of your multiple desktops (on the Nexus, you get five).

Meanwhile, five persistent shortcuts live along the bottom of the screen, all of which can be replaced with custom shortcuts, aside from the central app drawer launch icon.

The use and creation of folders on the desktop is also slicker than before. To create a new collection of shortcuts and apps, all you do is drag one on top of another on the desktop; this is identical to the way iOS folders work, but without the automatic naming, so we wouldn’t be surprised if Apple takes umbrage.

Other changes include a new, sideways-scrolling app drawer, which comes with an extra widget preview section, so you can see what widgets look like before dropping them on your desktop.

The notifications area now has a natty transparency effect and a shortcut to the phone’s main settings menu. Notifications themselves are more information rich, displaying contact photos alongside text, and you can also dismiss individual notifications.

The contacts app has been given a dramatic makeover, now integrating your Google+ contacts along with those from your Gmail and other social media accounts, as have all the core apps. The Gmail, Email, Calendar, Gallery, YouTube and camera apps all look neater and cleaner, and are easier to use.

Finally, there’s a major change under the hood to the way Android addresses storage. Previously, the amount of storage allocated to app installation has always been fixed, with the amount varying from handset to handset; the result was that on handsets with small app partitions you could run out of space after installing only a handful of apps. Android 4 treats all storage on the phone as one, unsegregated pool, just as in iOS and Windows Phone, so you shouldn’t unexpectedly run out of space.

Hardware letdowns

We’re big fans of Android 4, but despite initial appearances, the hardware it’s running on isn’t a perfect match. The Nexus’s screen is our first concern. It’s crisp, with an incredible pixel density of 319ppi, colours are vivid and contrast fantastic (this is AMOLED, after all). It's a great screen.

However, compared with the Samsung Galaxy S II (300cd/m2) and iPhone 4S (581cd/m2), its maximum brightness of only 197cd/m2 is disappointing. And we’ve covered the impact the button bar has on that seemingly big screen.

The plasticky silver-grey design doesn’t really do it for us either. The phone fits nicely in your hand, but it looks and feels too cheap for the sort of money being asked.

SIM-free, the Nexus is around $770 to buy outright. At the time of writing, a contract Nexus will set you back between $45 and $129 per month, depending on the pricing plan and phone provider you go for (for more info on Australian telco pricing, click here and here). 

Delve into the specifications and you’ll also discover there’s no memory expansion – 16GB is all you’re getting.

Battery life is on a par with the Galaxy S II, with 50% remaining after our 24-hour test. And the camera is excellent: image quality isn’t quite up with the Galaxy S II’s 8-megapixel stills, but the camera is more responsive. With the Nexus you’re able to snap successive, full-resolution shots as fast as you can physically hit the onscreen shutter button.

 

 

Despite these highs, and the love we’re feeling for Ice Cream Sandwich, as a package the Samsung Galaxy Nexus leaves us cold. The screen is high res, but quality isn’t as high as the Samsung Galaxy S II, battery life hasn’t moved on, and the price is extremely high. If you’re desperate to get your hands on Google’s latest OS, this is your only choice. For now, though, our favourite smartphone remains the Samsung Galaxy S II.

This article originally appeared at pcpro.co.uk

Source: Copyright © PC Pro, Dennis Publishing

Browse this Review:   Next
See more about:  samsung  |  galaxy  |  nexus
 
 

Readers of this article also read...

The iPhone 5s has made me fall in love all over again 

The iPhone 5s has made me fall in love all over again

 
In Pictures: Corsair's brand new Obsidian 750D PC case 

In Pictures: Corsair's brand new Obsidian 750D PC case

 
Showdown: Apple iPhone 5S vs Samsung Galaxy S4 

Showdown: Apple iPhone 5S vs Samsung Galaxy S4

 
The 64-bit CPU in the iPhone 5s is meaningless marketing bluster 

The 64-bit CPU in the iPhone 5s is meaningless marketing bluster

 
Hands on gallery: Samsung Galaxy Gear 

Hands on gallery: Samsung Galaxy Gear

 
Comments: 56
photohounds
13 December 2011
If Apple were to take umbrage at the drag-over folder creation, Google will be as 'justified' to protest Apple's 'slavish copying' of the 'roller-blind' notification bar from Android OS 2.0+.

More legal BS or can we just move on?

With Apple's "we have the rectangular glass idea first (a demonstrable lie)' attitude, it wouldn't surprise me to see a knee JERK reaction. Fan boys note ... THOSE 'square glass rectangle' FACTS are covered by an NDA-equivalant ban. This means those aspects are IN the flimsy 'complaint' but NOT acessible for press publication. We are beginning to see how incredibly puerile this legal house of cards is.

All these facts will of course out when the case is thrown out, and it seems to be unravelling little by little.

Roll on the Galaxy S3 - in March?

A concave screen = fewer reflections??
Conex = MORE reflections so good one.
5MP camera? - Plenty, except for bragging in the pub.

:-) :-) :-)


Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Samsung Galaxy Nexus review: it's the world's fastest smartphone, but is speed enough??
The first Ice Cream Sandwich smartphone is here, courtesy of Samsung and Google. We find out if it makes tasty eating.

What do you think? Join the discussion.
rubaiyat
13 December 2011
When you use quote marks photo, that indicates you are actually quoting word for word from Apple.

So shall we put that down to "(a demonstrable lie)" ?
amcmo
13 December 2011
Photo, Apple didn't copy from Google if I recall correctly, Google copied from the app for Jailbroken iPhones.

Apple hired the guy.

The headline says 'fastest smartphone' however at last one of the tests shows it slower in some aspects than the iPhone 4s.

The statement that the Galaxy 2S is the worlds best smartphone, fact to back up please, as enough reviews out there come down only just on one side of the Samsung/iPhone divide or the other. Opinion seems rather split on that one.

If it's personal opinion, say so, rather than make a statement of supposed fact without support.

The AMOLED used on this phone uses a system that does not exploit the full capability of AMOLED (reserved for Samsung's own phones?)

Edited by amcmo: 13/12/2011 03:57:11 PM
ory_zm
13 December 2011
Geez I can't believe you guys are still going at it...
Ngukurr
13 December 2011
I'm really pleased to see yet another quality Samsung Phone - leaving Apple behind more and more. By the time Apple brings out Phone 5 no-one will have any money left, having either bought the 4S or a better Samsung!
Rallygreg
13 December 2011
I can't wait to see what Android 4 might be like on my GS2 :-)

As far as speed tests go, all these new phones are pretty snappy. I've been impressed by the 4GS which I've only had a little time to play with and it stacks up very favourably against the GS2.

When it comes down to it the big difference between the iPhone and Android phones (I'll exclude the other OS's) is the tweakability of Android and the more open nature.

If I was buying a smart phone for my wife or mother the iPhone would be it because they are simple to use and it is difficult to screw them up. Of course you are tied to the Apple tree and iTunes.

One of the things rarely mentioned in a lot of these phones reviews is how good the phone is at actually making phone calls, which to me is the fundamental purpose of a phone. We need more info on signal sensitivity, speaker/microphone quality and other things like if you need to hold the phone in a certain way for the antenna to work.
photohounds
13 December 2011
ory_zm wrote:
Geez I can't believe you guys are still going at it...

Yep any tiny negative must be duly reported - - heh, heh ...

I'll head into the future with some phone or other - and it looks like an ice cream sandwich delivers the right taste experience for many.

BTW, I know plenty on non-techies who LOVE their Galaxy phones, plenty of mommies in the mix.

Just because you CAN muck around more with Android to add/customise, does not mean you HAVE to - it is plain nice even before you 'improve' it:)
photohounds
13 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
When you use quote marks photo, that indicates you are actually quoting word for word from Apple.

So shall we put that down to "(a demonstrable lie)" ?


1: It may to you.
2: The wheels ARE falling off the BS campaign they have waged ...

Give it a little more time until the billy cart runs out of hills :-({|=
anthonyqld
14 December 2011
As I heard on the weekend from a delusional Apple fan

Apple invented - the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet, printer, home computer, laptops, PDAs, mouse, icons, touchscreens, on-screen keyboards, video chat, web browser, online music/software/book purchase, media players for TVs, e-readers (Even though Apple don't have one), voice recognition, picture messaging on phones.

They listed about another other things that I can't remember. What's the bet when Apple release their smart TV next year, it'll suddenly be "Samsung, Sony & Co copied us"?
amcmo
14 December 2011
Anyone who is being realistic will not claim that Apple invented any of that tech. Where they succeeded was in making it just work seamlessly for the end consumer. OK, they came up with some tech to enhance and methods of use, however the overwhelming advance was in useability.

Of course, with iTunes, they made media available LEGALLY in the easiest way possible at the time.

Ory_zym, Photo made a factual error in his statement, which I corrected. The thrust of my post was against the usual sweeping headline, followed by sad lack of fact on the part of the magazine. Statements of personal opinion unsupported by fact. At least in this opinion piece (no not a 'review') there was some redemption with observations. Per Rally, not any real comment on how good it is for it's primary purpose, making calls, texting etc.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
anthonyqld wrote:
As I heard on the weekend from a delusional Apple fan

Apple invented - the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet, printer, home computer, laptops, PDAs, mouse, icons, touchscreens, on-screen keyboards, video chat, web browser, online music/software/book purchase, media players for TVs, e-readers (Even though Apple don't have one), voice recognition, picture messaging on phones.

They listed about another other things that I can't remember. What's the bet when Apple release their smart TV next year, it'll suddenly be "Samsung, Sony & Co copied us"?


Any bets THAT is what you heard, not what your "delusional" mate said.

rubaiyat
14 December 2011
I think you could substitute "black" or "Jew" for any of the allegations made about Apple and they would sound just as rational.

I've been using Macs for almost 26 years and I always did it because of their obvious innovation, thought and good design.

Those very features seem to induce a bile filled hate from those resentful of anyone sticking their head above the crowd and daring to be either different or better ('better' being a pejorative term in their mind).

It all reminds me of a wonderful short science fiction story of the history of mankind. Basically the inventor of fire scares the bejesus out of the tribe who violently switching from fear to rage, grab him and throw him on his invention. They then find that he tastes quite good, so adopt fire. The inventor of the wheel is tied to it and pushed over a cliff, for daring to propose an alternative to hauling things on your back. etc etc.

I was just reading of Giordano Bruno the Dominican monk who was burnt at the stake for saying "In the Universe, no center and no circumference exist, but the center is everywhere…"* ie the Earth was not the centre of the universe, predating Copernicus and Galileo. And no he was not the first to say that, but I am sure there were plenty of idiots who would add to his 'sins' that he claimed he did. Probably the same ones who burnt him at the stake. It neatly shifted their case from the ludicrous rejection of the belatedly obvious to the capital crime of claiming something you never said.

Sadly it is not fiction, nor is it ancient history. The dull, resentful masses will always be with us. The current witch burning is centred around global warming. There is nothing that people hate more than being asked to think, and they will do anything to get that monkey off their backs.

* That photo is how you use quotes:

1. You find out what they actually said.

2. You don't make it up based on what happens to be uncontrollably festering in your head.
anthonyqld
14 December 2011
Actually iTunes was not the easiest way possible at the time.

I owned an MP3 player before the iPod came out and was legally purchasing music before iTunes. And there was no need for any of that horrible syncing.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
I hadn't read the actual article this all refers to as I usually find them depressingly bad journalism, but given the references in the comments here, I thought maybe I should.

I was not too surprised to see the usual twists put on what paltry facts it contained to arrive at the desired conclusions.

The stage is set with the bald statement: "Samsung Galaxy Nexus review: it's the world's fastest smartphone, but is speed enough?" *

Then the only reference to substantiate that is:

"The SunSpider test completed in 2,005ms† – faster than any other smartphone we’ve yet seen. Our new web page load test, in which we time how long the phone loads 28 web pages in sequence, saw the Nexus return a time of 11 seconds, this time a little behind the iPhone 4S’s 9.2 seconds."

So it actually takes 25% longer than an iPhone in this test but is "faster than any other smartphone we’ve yet seen" and "it's the world's fastest smartphone" ?

Is this based on the average PC Pro reader not having the attention span to connect contradictory information in two successive sentences?

:roll:

* I went back to source. PCPro does not in fact say this, nor even suggest it. So it seems the read what you want to read, but not what's there is all PCAuthority's doing.

† btw I chased this down as there is no real comparison in the original article:

http://davidbcalhoun.com/2011/ios5-sunspider-iphone-4s-vs-iphone-4-vs-iphone-3gs

The iPhone result is 2270ms, 5% slower than the Samsung Nexus. Given that this is for an esoteric test for JavaScript, the obvious question is who gives a stuff about JavaScript, when what they will most notice is the browsing speed? …and how does this make it "faster" than an iPhone?


Edited by rubaiyat: 14/12/2011 01:57:09 PM
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
anthonyqld wrote:
Actually iTunes was not the easiest way possible at the time.

I owned an MP3 player before the iPod came out and was legally purchasing music before iTunes. And there was no need for any of that horrible syncing.


So walk us though your "easier way".
ory_zm
14 December 2011
Comparing the rejection of Apple's claim to be the most innovative company in the world to the burning of people that said the Earth isn't the centre of the universe is ridiculous. And in any way, maybe you are a bit out of touch, but currently it is the main-stream that supports Apple and buys iPhones blind to any other option out there, so to use your analogy, I believe it is the Android fan boys that are being burned on the stake at this point in history.

PC Magazine journalistic qualities leaves much to be desired, but that is why there are proper (global) tech sites. I come in here only for the local (Australian) tech news.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
Show me "Apple's claim to be the most innovative company in the world".

You have to learn to differentiate the confused clamour inside your own head with reality, or you will just be another face in the crowd with the pitchforks and firebrands.

Similarly where are Android fan boys being burned on the stake? Here, and elsewhere, they are just being asked to put down their silver crosses and sharpened stakes and think for once instead of entering an endless and mindless vilification of Apple.
ory_zm
14 December 2011
Apple trying to prevent Samsung (and others) from selling devices because they think they invented the tech in them is what I meant in claiming to be the most innovative company in the world.
But just for the sake of argument, let's look at the following search results:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=innovative+site%3Awww.apple.com&oq=innovative+site%3Awww.apple.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2879l2879l0l3139l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0
Hmmm.... yes, you are right, they are not claiming nothing such as what I said (without quotes by the way!).

You could take what you said about me and point it at yourself and it would make just about the same amount of sense.

And you have to agree that right now Apple's products are what is considered main-stream and Android is the underdog? And I am not talking about tech forums - that is not what "main-stream" means.
If we do not agree on that I do not really see any basis for discussion.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
I'm trying hard not to talk down to you, but it is hard. You seem to have trouble following any line of reasoning other than gut feeling and resentment.

Suddenly it is now what you are claiming, not Apple, unless by some strange twist you are Apple?

Can you clean up your link, it is just a Google search to anything but anything that Apple seems to have posted.

PS Do you speak English natively, so I can make adjustments for what you are saying (or seem to be saying)?

Edited by rubaiyat: 14/12/2011 02:48:06 PM
amcmo
14 December 2011
Android cannot remotely be considered the underdog.

Check their marketshare. They are very much to top dog.

The only questions to be resolved are whether they got their riding on the backs of others. I'm thinking here of the suit agaisnt Google for stealing Java code and the internal emails that pretty much say they intended to do just that.

Enough android fanboys accusing anyone who defends Apple as being mindless Apple fanboys. Look in the mirror guys...
photohounds
14 December 2011
The "burning" is the fan-boy reaction to the correct precept that there IS more than ONE way to do a thing. Apple has probably invented next-to-nothing and has ONE way of making things work. There are other was to do things.

MS might be inelegant in MANY ways - but they (after Tandy of all companies) helped bring all manner of computing equipment to the masses. NOT Apple. Reason? For DECADES Apple stuff was grossly overpriced. Only recently have we seen bit of value from Apple.

Fan-boys carry on as if it were ever this. It bloody well WASN'T.


And why is there a little value now?
Hints:
#1 For Apple: Android,
#2 for MS 'office' and Windog: plenty of good, free alternatives ...)
#3 for both: linux


Thank the stars this duopoly cartel don't make cars!
No-one would have a )*(&^*( car ...
ory_zm
14 December 2011
Sorry guys, I have had an iPhone for 2.5 years, and am most definitely not a fan boy for any camp. Right now I believe the SGSII is a better phone than the iP4S, but only due to screen size.

English is in fact my native language, although not my mother's tongue (I grew up in an English speaking country, my parents did not). Being married to an Australian and seeing all my ausie friends' level of English, I can honestly say that my English is better than most. However I do not see the relevance to this discussion, and re-reading my posts I do not see any bad or un-understandable English. Maybe point me to the parts that you found hard to understand so I can simplify them for you? (sorry couldn't resist)

The google link simply shows how Apple do in fact claim that all their products are super innovative, not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but you were disputing that.

Regarding Google riding on the backs of others, they most certainly have, but I will counter that with "so have most tech companies" (including Apple) - that is the nature of tech. So in my opinion it is more of a question of whether Google have done so more than is acceptable... and that is a great question which I do not claim to know the answer to.
All I know is that I'm very happy with my Android just as I was very happy with an iPhone when I had one.
What I am extremely happy about is the offer of choice, an offer which Apple are trying to limit, and that is the one thing I (as a customer) am opposed to.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
I'm sure I could get multiple references from Apple that they certainly don't consider me to be a "mindless Apple fanboy".

For all else that I've ever said about them, I'll give them the credit for having never tossed me off their websites. As of late they have even given up sending me emails chastising me for breaking their terms and conditions. So much for the Evil Empire!

photohound: Talking through your arse again?

Apple has invented countless technologies and has the patents to prove it.

Further they have always offered innumerable ways of doing things. That was always my attraction to the Mac.

They do give an Apple preferred method complete with express lanes, brass band and floral verge, which you choose to use it if that is to your liking, or not if it isn't.

After spending a wasted 1 1/2 hours with a JB HiFi specialist trying to get his alternatives to ATV2 to work, his comment was he could never buy Apple products because they were "Too restrictive". My repost, considering what we had just gone through, was "NOT working seems pretty darn restrictive to me!"

rubaiyat
14 December 2011
I tried wading through "not claiming nothing such as what I said" but decided it was what it said, whatever that was.

I genuinely asked because I do make allowances for those speaking in a second tongue, as I appreciate those giving me the same courtesy.

You are shifting your story yet again. Now it is Apple claiming to be "super innovative". Their words or yours (I quoted yours)?

Your link shows nothing it just points to your Google search. Show how on top of all this amazing technology you are by posting the actual link you are talking about.

Apple doesn't have to say it, I will say it for them, they are super innovative. So are IBM and many companies I could name. Is this something that really fills you with resentment?

btw I don't have an iPhone and won't until Apple satisfies what I want. If it ever does. I also don't have a Samsung because they haven't either, although they make it much harder to determine because they won't just let me try it.
photohounds
14 December 2011
Interesting example Ruby ... sometimes that orifice (of mine) makes more sense than the more usual orifice (of others). Obviously an alternative has to work. If the sales boy were well trained he would have made it work.

Apple and in particular their fan army DO try to take credit for a LOT that Apple did NOT invent - ipod, computers and their OSs, legal online music, smartphones, screen technology, voice control (of whatever).

On the latter subject, I had a new religious convert tell me just hours ago that his 4S had voice control and that the others needed to have that feature. Imagine his surprise when my 'ancient' Galaxy S did just as well.

I guess he was just exercising his Apple-talk-orifice ...

Marketing at the religious level preys on the ignorant and Apple are one of the current masters of the goebbels advert.

ory_zm
14 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
You are shifting your story yet again. Now it is Apple claiming to be "super innovative". Their words or yours (I quoted yours)?

"super" - mine (I knew you'd get hang on that but posted anyways, what do you know)
"innovative" - theirs

Quote:
Your link shows nothing it just points to your Google search. Show how on top of all this amazing technology you are by posting the actual link you are talking about.

I'm baffled how a simple google search specific to Apple's website with keyword "innovative" that shows how many times they use that word in their web site is being turned around to question whether I am "on top" of "all this amazing technology".

You can cover your ears and say "lalala" as much as you want, but they do claim to be innovative allot. (can't believe I even need to prove something like that, just shows how "on top" of marketing, press releases and Steve Jobs new product presentations you are)

Quote:
Apple doesn't have to say it, I will say it for them, they are super innovative. So are IBM and many companies I could name. Is this something that really fills you with resentment?

I am starting to feel as if you don't even read my post before hurrying to answer with disdain. Lets re-read my previous sentence:
ory_zm wrote:
The google link simply shows how Apple do in fact claim that all their products are super innovative, not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but you were disputing that.


Quote:
btw I don't have an iPhone and won't until Apple satisfies what I want. If it ever does. I also don't have a Samsung because they haven't either, although they make it much harder to determine because they won't just let me try it.

So what exactly are you using? A Nokia E73?
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
How odd.

Apple did invent the iPod, it is their product. How did you miss that photo?

They did deliver the first plug and work personal computer, the Apple, which gave them a substantial lead over all their competitors for many years. Miss that one as well?

How are the Mac OS, NEXT, OSX and iOS not Apple's?

Apple never claimed to invent legal online music, but they put together the iTunes Store which pulled everything together to the satisfaction of the publishers, artists and the consumers. Everyone else was left chasing them, as they have time and time again.

They never claimed to invent the smartphone, just the iPhone, which again was a huge jump on the competitors.

Screen technology? No clue what you are talking about. What claims are you objecting to and why?

Voice Control? I remember using it on my Mac back in the 90's. What claims has Apple made? When did you use it prior? *

I tried voice control on a sample Galaxy IIS in the phone store and neither I nor the sales staff could get it to understand much, let alone do anything. Apple only claims to have introduced Siri, it does what it does and does it quite well apparently.

As for the sales boy, he couldn't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I uncovered all the flaws. They were as blissfully ignorant as you appear to be. Except you keep insisting it works, based on…?

* I've tracked it down to Apple's PlainTalk which included MacInTalk (speech synthesis) and voice control in 1990.

Edited by rubaiyat: 14/12/2011 04:30:35 PM
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
ory_zm wrote:
"super" - mine (I knew you'd get hang on that but posted anyways, what do you know)
"innovative" - theirs


So if it isn't the exaggeration that you object to, because that is all yours, what is it you are objecting to?

Quote:
I'm baffled how a simple google search specific to Apple's website with keyword "innovative" that shows how many times they use that word in their web site is being turned around to question whether I am "on top" of "all this amazing technology".

You can cover your ears and say "lalala" as much as you want, but they do claim to be innovative allot. (can't believe I even need to prove something like that, just shows how "on top" of marketing, press releases and Steve Jobs new product presentations you are)


Because you can't even check your own bad link. Do you need any help getting it right?

ory_zm wrote:
The google link simply shows how Apple do in fact claim that all their products are super innovative, not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but you were disputing that.


I didn't dispute that Apple says they are innovative, you just claimed that I disputed that. What I keep asking for is where Apple claims what you claim (which seems to change with each post) they claim and we still haven't got that. Seeing as you are just a tiny, tiddly bit prone to adding in your own words and pretending they are Apple's, I really would like to see this damning evidence.

Quote:
So what exactly are you using? A Nokia E73?


A Nokia 2220. $25 from my ISP.

Edited by rubaiyat: 14/12/2011 04:17:39 PM
photohounds
14 December 2011
ipod = something 'legally' stolen - a digital music player design. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html - so Bollocks! Except for the name - big deal. And check the drawings of HIS WORK that preceded iPUD by DECADES.

All those OSs had their roots in UNIX of FreeBSD - which is *GOOD WORK done by SOMEONE ELSE*

Voice control on OS/2 ... and they were not even the first - system navigation and voice dictation.

SIRI was bought from someone else. Someone who COULD make it work.

Speaking normally to my phone, it understands 95%+ of what I say. So does VLINGO for that matter.
I set it to "Australian English". What was the phone YOU tried set to? Do you know? The default is something else from memory.

Nothing I've seen demonstrated or tried myself works all that well when it is noisy - yet.
It seems to be mostly a matter of how much processing power you can carry around with you - or you use a remote server INSTEAD of the phone ITSELF.

I've shown you the glass rectangle slab phones the PRECEDED the iphone by at least a YEAR ad infinitum and ad nauseum ... fact that is easy (for some) to ignore.

ory_zm
14 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
So if it isn't the exaggeration that you object to, because that is all yours, what is it you are objecting to?

Who said I was objecting to anything? to go back to the beginning of this discussion all I was saying was that your analogy between the current discussion and people being burned at the stake is ridiculous.
I was responding to you questioning whether Apple claims to be very (most, super and any other such adjective) innovative - they do.

Let's have a look at the letter their CEO wrote to the company when he took the helm:
Tim Cook e-mails Apple employees
And I'll highlight the relevant phrase here, else you will accuse me again of bad english and being technically incompetent:
"I am looking forward to the amazing opportunity of serving as CEO of the most innovative company in the world."

Quote:
Because you can't even check your own bad link. Do you need any help getting it right?

This was the first time you mention the link was bad, I didn't know there was a problem with it. Obviously when I pasted it into the text box, the web site decided to only link part of the address. Did you try to copy the (complete) link into your address bar? there is nothing wrong with it. Surely someone as tech savvy as you are familiar with the issue where a link doesn't always get marked fully?!
Anyway here it is for you, as easy as possible, so you can't make more mistakes and let fly accusations:
Google search: Apple.com innovative

Quote:
I didn't dispute that Apple says they are innovative, you just claimed that I disputed that. What I keep asking for is where Apple claims what you claim (which seems to change with each post) they claim and we still haven't got that. Seeing as you are just a tiny, tiddly bit prone to adding in your own words and pretending they are Apple's, I really would like to see this damning evidence.


I believe I've addressed this above in the google link as well as Tim Cook's qoute.
And I'm pretty sure I haven't changed any claims. All I said was that the use of the word "super" was mine. Sue me.

Quote:
A Nokia 2220. $25 from my ISP.

Good for you, mate.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
photohounds wrote:
ipod = something 'legally' stolen - a digital music player design. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html - so Bollocks! Except for the name - big deal. And check the drawings of HIS WORK that preceded iPUD by DECADES.


The company that held the patents, which had never been materialised into a product, let them lapse. Has he claimed the iPod as his? No!

Quote:
All those OSs had their roots in UNIX of FreeBSD - which is *GOOD WORK done by SOMEONE ELSE*


Don't be ignorant. The Mac OS never had it's origins in UNIX. The later NEXT, AUX, OSX and iOS do. So what? NEXT was revolutionary in its own right and OSX and iOS have only built on that. NEXT itself long predated Linux which seems to have "stolen" (your term) a good chunk of NEXT's object oriented structure.

Quote:
Voice control on OS/2 ... and they were not even the first - system navigation and voice dictation.


VoiceType dates from 1993 and was a separate product from OS2, it didn't beome part of OS/2 until Warp 4 in 1996. How on earth do work out that this predates PlainTalk? Oh, I forgot you seem to have major problems with anything to do with chronological order.

Quote:
SIRI was bought from someone else. Someone who COULD make it work.


You mean it was LEGALLY STOLEN! From people who had developed it for iOS!

Quick get on your Pirates of Penzance Mr Plod helmet and truncheon and bring these dastardly "Criminals" to justice!

Quote:
Speaking normally to my phone, it understands 95%+ of what I say. So does VLINGO for that matter.


That is indeed a remarkable achievement and more than I can do trying to make sense of what you are saying! :)

Quote:
I set it to "Australian English". What was the phone YOU tried set to? Do you know? The default is something else from memory.


Whilst my accent is moderated by extensive travel, the shop assistant's wasn't and we set it to Australian. It wasn't even getting single words spoken clearly and separately. In fact the guesses were ludicrous.

Quote:
I've shown you the glass rectangle slab phones the PRECEDED the iphone by at least a YEAR ad infinitum and ad nauseum ... fact that is easy (for some) to ignore.


Right as if that was all the iPhone was, and why the iPhone was savaged by the enormous competition (and for so long)!

I remember you saying how the iPhone would be dead by Christmas! Can you remind us which Christmas that was and the endless succession of models that were gunner do that?
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
Post 1: "Apple's claim to be the most innovative company in the world"

became in

Post 2: "Apple trying to prevent Samsung (and others) from selling devices because they think they invented the tech in them is what I meant in claiming to be the most innovative company in the world."

became in

Post 3: "The google link simply shows how Apple do in fact claim that all their products are super innovative"

became in

Post 4: ""super" - mine… "innovative" - theirs"

I asked you to clean up your link, at the beginning, because I am not your psychic girlfriend and know what it is you meant to say, but hadn't got around to saying "what I (really) meant" was…

So finally at last we have a real quote:

Post 5: "I am looking forward to the amazing opportunity of serving as CEO of the most innovative company in the world."

A single example of the new CEO talking up the company to the troops in his acceptance speech.

Remarkably similar to my son's Principal at the annual Speech Night last week.

Beats: "Geez you lot haven't done a stroke of work in decades and been stealing everything but, except for some incredibly smart bastards in PCAuthority's forums who've sussed us out, nobody's cottoned on. Don't worry, when we find them (except we are so incompetent) we'll have them eliminated!"

DISCLAIMER: (Unlike some here) I freely confess to making up this proof of how Apple is EVIL!
ory_zm
14 December 2011
I should have known that when shown proof you will just find a way to waver it off.

Good luck with all those ideas of yours. You know what? maybe you are right. Apple never claimed to be innovative (how about you show proof of that instead?), so why are we even discussing this....

EDIT: your response to the (corrected) google link was missing maybe? I'll give you a few more minutes to come up with bullshit arguments why that is not a valid proof too.

Edited by ory_zm: 14/12/2011 06:42:24 PM
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
What exactly have you shown proof of?

I chased down your corrected Google links. You are back to Apple is guilty of claiming that it is innovative. How is that either bad or wrong?

My son's principal hasn't emailed his speech but whilst he didn't claim it be the best school in the world he pretty well claimed it without stating any geographic boundaries. Is my son going to an evil school?

Don't stop here, chase down every instance of a company praising itself, and a CEO heaping it on for the benefit of his/her staff.

The only difference is that Apple has well and truly earned the right to claim that it is innovative. Most organisations make the claim without the justification.

Apple has been declared to be amazingly innovative by many other organisations, leaders and media, which you will easily discover if you don't confine your search just to Apple's website.



ory_zm
14 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
What exactly have you shown proof of?

I chased down your corrected Google links. You are back to Apple is guilty of claiming that it is innovative. How is that either bad or wrong?

And here is my answer:
rubaiyat wrote:
Show me "Apple's claim to be the most innovative company in the world".

You have asked, I showed you. I haven't said it is bad nor good, that is all in your head (show me a quote saying otherwise).

You can accept my argument or not (I wonder what would make you agree that Apple claims that), but I am not sure what the rest of the discussion here is about.
rubaiyat
14 December 2011
You didn't make this the big deal that you did because you thought it was neither good nor bad.

You showed me Tim Cook, the new CEO, saying Apple is the most innovative company in the world, just as President Obama frequently says the same thing about America.

What would be remarkable would be either of them NOT saying it. That would show lack of appreciation or respect for their vaunted positions.

It is an American thing. If you don't show overbearing confidence and devotion you are actually showing doubt and suspicious hostility.

Obama ran perilously into trouble for not praising America as vociferously as everyone else.

So Apple claims some of its products, out of the thousands that it has created, are "innovative" products!

So what are you trying to prove?

ory_zm
15 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
You didn't make this the big deal that you did because you thought it was neither good nor bad.

Aha, but see, you are wrong. I wasn't making a big deal out of it, I was just answering you and you turned it into a huge debate. Like I said before show me where I've said it is bad (or good).

Personally, I do not think Apple are innovative or not in such a strict sense like you. For example:
iPhone 2g/3g - innovative. 3gs - not. 4 - innovative. 4s - not.

That doesn't mean I think they should or shouldn't say they are innovative, they are a company that sells products and as such need to market them. There is nothing wrong with that.

The only thing I don't like with Apple is how sometimes they fully exaggerate a product to be the be-all-and-end-all. So what though? I might not buy that product if I disagree, but so what?

So maybe you shouldn't assume so much about other people.

Quote:
You showed me Tim Cook, the new CEO, saying Apple is the most innovative company in the world, just as President Obama frequently says the same thing about America.

You said they don't claim that, I showed they do. What else do you want?

Quote:
So what are you trying to prove?

Absolutely nothing mate. Look at my first post in this thread.
What are you?

rubaiyat
15 December 2011
Tim Cook is an employee of Apple, not Apple.

And nonsense. You were making an accusation.

I have run into this plenty of times before and should have learnt my lesson. It falls into the class of "Too many notes" (Amadeus).

Just something the mediocre find objection to, so people still know they are in the room.

As a designer I've heard some doolies. One of the classics I had, totally out of left field after a presentation, was that it was "Too good". I couldn't help myself and responded to the genius who came up with that one, "Something that you would have avoided!"

Needless to say that went nowhere. As has this.

ory_zm
15 December 2011
I'm just baffled as to how you can so strongly believe all those things about me, without never meeting me or knowing anything about who I am.
It's strange, I used to have so much more respect for you before this conversation of ours. Anyway, we at least agree on one thing: this is going nowhere.
Good day, mate.
photohounds
15 December 2011
amcmo wrote:
Android cannot remotely be considered the underdog.

Check their marketshare. They are very much to top dog.

The only questions to be resolved are whether they got their riding on the backs of others. I'm thinking here of the suit agaisnt Google for stealing Java code and the internal emails that pretty much say they intended to do just that.

Enough android fanboys accusing anyone who defends Apple as being mindless Apple fanboys. Look in the mirror guys...

Top dog in tablets? Top dog in ONE model of phone? Funny I thought that was Apple.
Let alone 'very much'.

Yes Sammy flog a lot of phones by tailoring their manufacturing to people's needs and budgets, instead of trying to market and sue the others out of the ball park. As we see, the wheels are falling off. The wheels are also falling off Oracle's case - with major parts of their claim now thrown out as well.

They'll remain a strong competitor - which is good as true competition keeps everyone keen.


Competition is the one thing that businesses seem to universally HATE, rarely if ever acknowledging its benefit TO THEM. I look in the mirror, and there's LESS fanboy in me than in the average apple lover - let alone the extreme ones. Johnny addams?

Android WAS until recently the underdog, by the way.
It HAS stormed its way to the top for some reason - must be all those deluded buyers...
rubaiyat
15 December 2011
There will always be a huge number of deluded Buyers.

Of whatever flavour.
photohounds
17 December 2011
rubaiyat wrote:
There will always be a huge number of deluded Buyers.

Of whatever flavour.


Absolutely agree with that!

However, it is not delusional to want value for money and the ability to CHOOSE what suits one's needs/budget. At this stage Android phones have that NO ONE else has YET provided - something to suit everyone.

Selling old alongside the new doesn't count as a "range". Is it possible that Apple are hampered by a "this was successful, so we'll do it forever" mentality?

The others experiment, sometimes fail spectacularly and sometimes succeed spectacularly. A look at Ferrari history reveals some of the most beautiful cars, but also some very ugly models.

rubaiyat
17 December 2011
So does EACH manufacturer offer as wide range of electronics and software as Apple, or does Apple have to take on all comers as if they represented one entity?

My reference to deluded buyers would demonstrably favor those who are chasing the bargain, but not finding it.

You only have to look at the numbers to see that Apple's customers stick with Apple and buy Apple again. This is in sharp contrast to those who deliberately buy non-Apple persuaded by all the hype to do so, only to regret it and nominate Apple as their choice when they buy again.

So yes the competition IS good for Apple, they get customers who KNOW why they are switching and are very likely to stay.
ory_zm
18 December 2011
I'm curious, can you back up the claims about Apple's users sticking and Android's users going back to Apple?
rubaiyat
18 December 2011
http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/01/iPhone-user-loyalty-still-tops-android-others.php

http://www.trefis.com/stock/aapl/articles/88067/apple-notes-ahead-in-mobile-loyalty-and-itv-expectations/2011-11-30

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8915861/Apple-iPhone-users-most-brand-loyal.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/11/29/apple_iphone_user_loyalty_twice_that_of_android.html

All current surveys. The contrast is marked.

I have to make a note that Android users are slightly more likely to repurchase Android but it looks like there is churn amongst the manufacturers. That either shows an attempt to get what they hadn't got the first time or just shopping for deals.

Apple still benefits because almost one and a half times as many Android users switch to iPhones as iPhones users switch to Android. There is a much higher churn rate amongst Android users as well.

Curious that according to the first survey absolutely none of the Android users are looking outside the choice of iPhones or Android. I find that very strange.

Edited by rubaiyat: 18/12/2011 10:07:11 AM
photohounds
18 December 2011
That all makes sense - for now.

The incumbent will have this advantage for a year or so from now. The public (particularly in the numbers discussed) appear to react to the state of the market LAST YEAR.

The desire to change in many customers is likely brought about by the related to phone contracts or leases approaching expiry.

re: "one and a half times as many Android users switch to iPhones as iPhones users switch to Android", true, but conveniently ignores the fact that Android is picking up MORE than twice as many users at this time, a little bleeding is no problem as the overall flow looks to be decidedly the other way. I can't see that dynamic changing for the next 12 months.


Maybe the belatedly coming decent screen sized iphone will have an effect?
Or the invention of the smart TV by Apple? At least it WILL have a good screen and image processing, but so do the other 'with it' brands.
willtell
18 December 2011
I think there are reports for every point of view. As long as there is competition in the market, the consumer wins. Apple hit the ground running when it revolutionised the idea of the smartphone. Everyone else has been playing catch up since. Although it has taken a long time, competitors products aiming at the same high end of the market have matured reducing the difference between them as a "Mercedes vs BMW" debate - both a great, it just comes down to personal preference.
rubaiyat
18 December 2011
Android is picking up business by cutting margins and cutting quality, which is fine but Apple is still growing steadily and has plenty of room to adjust both their products and their prices.

Android has not cut into Apple's growth at all, it has just picked up some of the late adopters and people standing on the sidelines. Even converting some of those into Apple customers after cutting their teeth on an Android.

I will restate my position as an interested observer. I haven't committed to either side, although I almost succumbed to a tempting offer on a Samsung S II yesterday. My interest is that we don't go down the usual path where the market gets flooded by shit and everyone takes that to be normal, along with all the virii, hacking and data theft.
photohounds
18 December 2011
True enough Ruby,

Still. the SG Sii is most certainly not shit by any onjective measure. I have a perfectly functional S but screen envy is making me wonder how best to get to a phone with a bigger (and better) screen. You can simply DO MORE with a great screen as long as the phone is also up to it. All objective reports say the SG Sii is right up there in the quality stakes.

Markets get flooded no matter what you're considering. Looking around at the landscape, there are already many sub-$100 smartphones and tablets from dodgy chines makers. The better-selling phones are at the other end of the spectrum.

A flat, glass-screened rectangular phone is (mostly) a fine thing. LG and Samsung started down that path, failed and temporarily gave up the lead to Apple.
They (well Samsung) are simply reclaiming that lead, while pursuing a different direction.
photohounds
29 December 2011
$59 per month now at Telstra (the exact same data/call allowances an the Sammy Galaxy S2 and iphone 4s.

Side by side comparisons make one of them look tiny and much harder to read. Time to update the value stars in the review?

Patentstupidity.com ...apple now has a patent for something that TREOs had years before.



http://blogs.computerworld.com/19482/iphone_apps_menu_patent_more_apple_bogosity?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2011-12-23

Another ridiculous 'patent': http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,082,523.PN.&OS=PN/8,082,523&RS=PN/8,082,523

WOW! Taking a call and starting an app or have it started by touching the screen - all at the same time!

And retro-inventing pushing on an email address, web address OR phone number in text?
ALL opened the relevant app on my TREO - years before the iCopy was a twinkle in the marketer's eye ...
Touch screens? Yep. Installable apps? Yep.

Proof of one such device: http://www.hpwebos.com/asia/assets/pdf/support/usg/Treo600_UG.pdf.

Some forget (or never knew) that TREOs (and later PALM) phones did a LOT to bring smart-phones into the public consciousness.
They had most of the stuff we only now hear of Apple 'retro-inventing' - years ago.


Another way to waste money fighting over - but more cheap publicity for Samsung, HTC, Motorola and LG et al.

The better Makers are now gliding away into the distance,they don't NEED to retro-invent.
photohounds
5 January 2012
Tried the nexus, smooth, fast, slick and a wonderful screen. Variety is not a baaaad thing. We don't all HAVE to buy what apple is flogging, ruby ... there are many alternatives.

Some of these are alternatives are noticeably superior, as long as it is not your objective to simply have the latest apple gadget.

Fashion "sense" keeps a lot of 'em coming back, and reluctance to try anything else, perhaps flimsily based on just ONE experience they've either had or heard from someone in the herd.

amcmo
11 January 2012
Ah, but what about screen-gate. Screens that seem to crack at the slightest knock? PC&T_ silent on that to date.

Not one of these alternatives is 'noticeably' superior, with every reasonable review showing them all to be a very close run thing.

If you want/need a larger screen- Android (at the moment).

If you value a substantially lower chance of malware - iOS.

If you want a substantial list of apps, all guaranteed to run on the last 3 versions of the phone - iOS

If you're happy with a substantial number of apps that MIGHT run on your particular brand and MIGHT contain malware - Android.

I can see how the Android fanboys would conclude that they are noticeably superior...:d
rubaiyat
11 January 2012
I am reminded of Churchill's comment that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Apple is in the same category as far as I am concerned.

I've had a good play with the Samsung Tab and thought of all the things that Apple could do better, and Android has found NONE of them! In fact the use of obscure methods has taken yet another leap forward in the "Open Source" solution.
ory_zm
11 January 2012
rubaiyat wrote:
I am reminded of Churchill's comment that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Apple is in the same category as far as I am concerned.


Ha! been loving that quote since history lessons in high school. I totally agree - just substitute "Apple" with "Android" :-D

Edited by ory_zm: 11/1/2012 06:16:11 PM
photohounds
18 January 2012
AM, drop an iphone and it's double-sided glass "construction" has a decidedly more "glass jaw" aspect to it. The local phone kiosks do a brisk trade in fixing iphones. I asked two of these chaps to confirm my suspicions when I saw the iphone 'fixing' wares on display.

The partial solution get a silicone case for it - BANG! There goes all the so-called "design beauty", making it look brick-like and utilitarian rather than "stylish" - but it DOES fix ANTENNA-GATE.

Drop a Galaxy and the chance of survival without breakage is much higher.

Why? Better fitness for purpose (things do slip no matter what brand you get) - THAT'S an important part of "design" - fitness for purpose that seems to evade these "reviewers". Everything's OK when out of the real world

And ... if someone is too pathetic to work an Android phone with minimal instruction, I certainly hope they don't give them driver's licenses or shoes with laces!
amythompson172
16 February 2012
What I like a lot about the phone:

1) Size of screen - very easy to read!
2) ICS - very clean interface and runs smooth, not necessarily super intuitive, but very functional! I wish I could say I love the task manager button.. but I forget about it often. Honestly any task killer will do the job, without you swiping stuff away a billion times.
3) Internal storage of 30 GB - yes i know this is a negative for some people, but for me I like it. I had like 60+ apps and some music and two movies on my phone and still had about 25 gb left. So trust me folks, storage will not be an issue!
4) Led notifier - yes I know other phones have this. but man, the LED light on this thing is BRIGHT. And I like how you can customize the colors. Fantastic. Download Lightflow.
5) Real-time voice to text - just fantastic. love seeing the text appear as you're speaking. very effective and fairly accurate!
6) ICS keyboard - just great, you could blind type and do a pretty good job
7) Updates from Google - a definite perk

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0061R2A1S/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=emjay2d-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0061R2A1S
Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest Comments

Latest Poll

What PC component are you planning to upgrade in the next six months










Ads by Google

From our Partners

PC & Tech Authority Downloads