This is called the hype effect. All new products get raved about. Wait for actual reviews
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your employer's plan for the 30 June protests?
Nokia (and Microsoft) versus Android and Apple
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
This is called the hype effect. All new products get raved about. Wait for actual reviews
cerebus
Honorary Master
So firstly there was no praise. Then the praise was all hype effect. Whatever you like...
elvis_presley
Expert Member
There's plenty of N9 reviews. Same design. I haven't seen a bad one yet. Engadget, who are notorious for their Apple-slanted reviews, say (in their official review, which by your own admission is a reflection of what people think)
IdlePhaedrus
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,621
- Reaction score
- 500
Regardless of all the tit for tat going on here, another player in the smart-phone market is good for everyone. It is called competition. It drives down prices. Nokia and Microsoft both have a lot of clout still irrespective of their market share in the smart phone arena. They could still make interesting things happen if they do it right.
I'm all for it.
It means that when my SGS1 contract is up I will have a greater smorgasbord to choose from.
I'm all for it.
It means that when my SGS1 contract is up I will have a greater smorgasbord to choose from.Elimentals
Honorary Master
Oops, so specs dont count?
[video=youtube;ajE-KoQC2vw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajE-KoQC2vw[/video]
[video=youtube;8NuzEAQLyKw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NuzEAQLyKw[/video]
[video=youtube;ajE-KoQC2vw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajE-KoQC2vw[/video]
[video=youtube;8NuzEAQLyKw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NuzEAQLyKw[/video]
elvis_presley
Expert Member
In general day-to-day use, no - UI responsiveness and common tasks are super quick on WP7's lower spec CPU. You have to go to CPU-intensive tasks like the browser to see the difference, and it'd obvious that the more powerful CPU would win there.
Once loaded, there's nothing to choose between the devices in terms of navigation, etc - with the WP7 device leveraging hardware acceleration, etc.
At some point you have to make a decision - do you want to have your phone's battery last for 24+ hours and take 4 seconds to load a complex webpage, or have it last 8 hours and take 2 seconds to load that webpage. Horses for courses. I can leave all functions on my WP7 (wifi, gps, bluetooth) and get 24+ hours of normal usage with EASE. The iPhone 4(s) sits up at night dreaming about that kind of battery life. But it doesn't dream for too long, because the battery then dies.
Elimentals
Honorary Master
Aah so you say that real life things like Browsing, media playback and games dont count as long as the phone can have more battery life, I get it, no wonder the Windows Phone slogan is "For people that want to get in and out of there phones". Sounds more to me like Microsoft is targeting Feature phones than Smart phones, in that case partnering with Nokia makes perfect sense, seeing that it doesn't do full Multitasking
Anyway, as odd as it my sound I am actually glad there is another phone on the market, it just helps push innovation... well that is if they dont try and kill it off in courts with patents.
This is what I expect MS will do if they get any significant market share
elvis_presley
Expert Member
For day to day browsing you won't notice the second extra it takes to load a page
Media playback is irrelevant - works 100% on alll devices, the decoding is built right into the SoC, shouldn't touch the CPU most the time
Games - WP7 holds its own here with the optmized GPU acceleration, DirectX, etc. Android takes up the rear, regardless of what CPU
And regardless of CPU, stuff like messaging, email, etc is snappier and quicker to use on WP7, in my (quite extensive) experience. The vast majority of your activities on a phone aren't going to max out the CPU; your speed of use will all be down to how nippy the UI and memory management are. A good example of this is Android; no matter what phone you're running, the UI seems sluggish. It's not about the specs most the time.
100%. Apple and Google had better sort their crap here. Apple's being a bully, and Google's pretending they hate patents, but building up a warchest of their own. It's funny that Microsoft are the only one that are actually using patents like a gentleman, licensing their own out, and paying for their licenses where necessary, and not bitching about it like Google. How times have changed!
elvis_presley
Expert Member
Dude, it's not 1990 anymore. MS are the only ones playing the patent game right. Apple and Google are the a-holes in this space right now.
Elimentals
Honorary Master
Nope, Apple is the one trying to kill it, Mafiasoft is to busy making money off it to try and kill it, its a win-win situation for them, they add a price to free and if they lose market share they still win.
To be honest they all stuffing up the software world. If you dont believe my just try and sell software in the US. The company I work for in NZ was doing fine until we started making a name in USA... we already have a patent case against us and we been in the US for just 1 year and this by a company that doesn't "exist".
Not so sure that's true.
Links: http://eupat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/?iframe=true&width=95%&..
From Link "Microsoft Corporation grew large and successful without patents, relying instead on copyright. In 1991, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates warned that patents could bring the software market to a complete standstill and drive out small players. In 1994, Microsoft was the only software company at the USPTO hearings which spoke in favor of software patentability. Meanwhile, Microsoft had been stepping up efforts to build a patent portfolio to counter the much larger portfolios of traditional IT hardware companies such as IBM, HP, Canon etc. When the patent lawyers at the European Commission pressed for legalising software patents in Europe in 1997, they cited Microsoft as a success model, pointing out that Microsft already owned 400 software patents. In late 1998, an internal Microsoft stratgegy document about the "opensource threat" leaked out which suggested using software patents alongside with proprietary standards in order to crush competition from free software such as Apache and Linux. In 2000, Microsoft forced a free sofware project to abandon support for its patented video streaming format ASF. In 2001/07, in the midst of an ongoing campaign against free software, a leading MS executive challenged opensource companies to keep clear of Microsoft patents or else "Get your money and let's go to court!". In 2002/03 Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, declared that Microsoft's new standard DotNet was protected by patents and free implementations would not be allowed. In 2003/04 Microsoft published patent license terms for CIFS which disallow the use ore reimplementation of this communication architecture by GNU software. In late 2002, Microsoft began dissuade corproporate customers from introducing GNU/Linux by pointing out that if they use free software nobody would protect them from being sued for patent infringement."
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...tion-on-nortel-patents-anti-competitive/10271
Also I will give you apple being the a-hole but please elaborate as to how google is???? As far as I know they don't patent any of their android work {I could be wrong about this}.
Last edited:
elvis_presley
Expert Member
I don't think MS is trying to kill Android; as you say, they stand to gain a lot out of it. They obviously have very legitimate claims against Android if everyone is paying license fees without a fight. MS also pay license fees for WP7, it's built into the cost of the OS they license out.
Agreed. I consulted for a year in USA, doing business there is a nighmare.
elvis_presley
Expert Member
Yeah, I meant the 90's. Didn't realise someone would take me so literally
Eh? But there is one? Mono?
Let's be quite honest, they're 100% right here. It's happening today, they just called it right 10 years ago. Ironically, if you're a corporate MS client, they indemnify you against getting sued for your Linux usage. They know how to play the game!
The problem is Google's attitude towards patents ... they quite happily maintain and publish software which obviously infringes on patents, but don't do anything to indemnify their clients, as you can see today with Android. WebM was the same. They say "hey, here's some free stuff, if someone sues you, you're on your own". But it's all fine, because that free software they're pushing out works amazingly well as an advertising channel for them. So they make money that way. They're a-holes to their clients. The right way is how MS does it - pay $8 (or whatever it is) for a WP7 license, and they guarantee nobody will sue, as they'll take on that responsibility.
Things might change with their Motorola Aquisition - they now have a giant patent portfolio, and it's just a matter of time before we see if they go the Microsoft route of licensing, or the Apple route of trying to stop people selling devices in certain countries.
The bottom line is, the patent system was made so that companies could get their small cut if someone used their idea. Patent trolls that don't use the tech and try and sue for billions, or companies like Apple that try and block sales with patents are the guys that have broken the system. It's them who is the problem. I have no problem for companies collecting license fees for tech they've invented and actively develop and use.
Last edited:
Elimentals
Honorary Master
Erm you are wrong.
Part of the Microsoft agreement is that they have to keep it under the blanket, ie: not reveal what they are paying or what the agreement is for. Google more than once said that they are willing to help the OEM's in fact just recently they even transferred patents to HTC to help in a case against Apple.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the Motorola - Microsoft case, if Motorola wins it will show other OEM's that they dont need to pay "protection money".
Yeah, I meant the 90's. Didn't realise someone would take me so literally
Eh? But there is one? Mono?
Let's be quite honest, they're 100% right here. It's happening today, they just called it right 10 years ago. Ironically, if you're a corporate MS client, they indemnify you against getting sued for your Linux usage. They know how to play the game!
The problem is Google's attitude towards patents ... they quite happily maintain and publish software which obviously infringes on patents, but don't do anything to indemnify their clients, as you can see today with Android. WebM was the same. They say "hey, here's some free stuff, if someone sues you, you're on your own". But it's all fine, because that free software they're pushing out works amazingly well as an advertising channel for them. So they make money that way. They're a-holes to their clients. The right way is how MS does it - pay $8 (or whatever it is) for a WP7 license, and they guarantee nobody will sue, as they'll take on that responsibility.
Things might change with their Motorola Aquisition - they now have a giant patent portfolio, and it's just a matter of time before we see if they go the Microsoft route of licensing, or the Apple route of trying to stop people selling devices in certain countries.
The bottom line is, the patent system was made so that companies could get their small cut if someone used their idea. Patent trolls that don't use the tech and try and sue for billions, or companies like Apple that try and block sales with patents are the guys that have broken the system. It's them who is the problem. I have no problem for companies collecting license fees for tech they've invented and actively develop and use.
Also Stumbled across this article quite awhile ago have been trying to dig it up.
From Article "At the same time, Microsoft began to complain that the auction could result in a termination of the existing licensing agreements they had on the Nortel patents. And while they never specifically mentioned Google, it was pretty clear that they did not want Google winning — such a victory would eliminate at least some of Microsoft’s patent leverage over Android.
But this complaining was odd since we had heard that the existing licensing agreement on the Nortel patents would have to be honored by any winning bidder. So what was Microsoft complaining about? At least some believe Microsoft was just playing mind games at this point — mind games which would later come into play.
While much of the press after the auction focused on the Rockstar group’s win, the court documents make it very clear that it was actually Apple that won in partnership with Rockstar. Apple was the only group that had not dropped out. Again, they staked the Rockstar group to ensure a victory for the stronger player. Why was Rockstar the stronger player? Because of the other companies involved. RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony, and yes, Microsoft.
All of those groups together had the cash and clout to break Google’s will. And with Microsoft, there was clearly the desire.
But why on Earth was Microsoft doing bidding on patents they already had licensing rights to? That’s not yet clear. But one has to assume that they simply did not want Google winning them — at all.
Even if Microsoft maintained licensing rights to the patents, a Google win would ensure that it would be a lot harder to sue Android and its OEM partners for other patent infringements. So it sure looks like Microsoft teamed up with longtime enemy Apple to ensure victory.
Link: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/vesper/
Now I don't know if it's true but microsoft has long been the big bully and will have to do a lot more to convince me otherwise. Agree completely that apple is the main problem at least microsoft will license patents, apple won't.
This kind of thing is ecspecially sickening Link: http://www.dailytech.com/Master+of+...petoUnlock+Despite+Prior+Art/article23116.htm
])ragon_\/oid
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 0
Farewell Symbian, you will be missed! Helooo Windows Phone... Hope you can actually do what Symbian couldn't do the past 5 Years
elvis_presley
Expert Member
Yeah, they let stupid patents through all the time. Apple will never be able to actually enforce the patent. It's just a worthless piece of paper. But some lawyer at Apple thought it'd be a good idea to do.
Wouldn't be so sure I put this on another part of the forum am just copying and pasting from there...
While I partly agree with you apple has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa y to far with what they believe they can patent Links: http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crush...ticle22682.htm http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/apple-trademark/
A large reason why I can't stand behind apple anymore is that they will try and patent a shape or design but then argue that patents samsung developed in 3g must be licensed to them under FRAND. I think it's unfair that smasung is forced to license it's patents because they are necessary to the industry but apple can get away with the most absurd patents eg. quoted from the article in link "Ultimately, this ruling seems to indicate that Apple has sole rights to make ~10-inch tablets in Germany. While a competitor in theory could make a rival design, it would have to:
a) Have an abundance of physical buttons on the face
b) Be substantially thicker or heavier than the iPad
c) Not be a rectangle (e.g. a circular tablet)"
If apple can patent designs like the rectangle then samsung should not be compelled to license it's 3g technology to apple, I am not claiming that FRAND is not necessary but apple want the best of both world's, to block samsung {and other manufactures} from doing certain things while using samsung's patents which make cellphone communication possible. In my opinion this is just hypocrisy on apple's part.
More reading: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...d-backfire.ars
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...its-frand.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smar...sts-steal/6374