For me it's less to glance at the phone when you return to the room. Much better than picking it up and checking. I also miss messages when my phones in my pocket when driving etc because of other noise and the vibration being hard to distinguish at times. It would be much better in that situation to see that you definitely did get a message without interacting with your phone.
Runaway success at what, exactly? Google hardly even mentions Android in it's most recent quarterly earnings report, as it's not a money maker for them. Hardware makers like Samsung hide Android behind their own interfaces like TouchWiz and have their own open source OS's like Bada in development. Android isn't what sells the phones for Samsung, and if phone makers can put together their own open source OS, why exactly would they need Android? Android has also been a magnet for successful patent litigation, with Microsoft routinely winning licensing agreements for their patents that Android violated. That eats the margins for hardware running Android. Oracle may be on the verge of a major patent lawsuit victory against Android as well, which could either kill off Android or add even more burdensome licensing fees. Again, Android is basically just a patchwork of open source coding with a lot of licensing and litigation headaches. Why do you need a separate company to provide you with a litigation plagued open source OS if you're a big enough company to develop your own?
When you're at the top of the game the way Google is with Android, all of the player hating fools want to take you down. Microsoft has had no success with WP7 so they're suing. Apple is a has-been that's steadily losing market share, so they're suing. Google right now is just like MS back in the 90s with all of the antitrust bullshit.
The differences between Android and Windows are glaringly obvious. Windows wasn't open source and leveraged the lack of viable competitors into a licensing gold mine for MS. Hardware manufacturers literally had no viable reason to sell PC's without Windows, because that's where the applications that sold computers were based. That kind of leverage doesn't exist today in the mobile market. There aren't any killer apps that are specific to Android that other platforms can't offer. Google gives Android away and has no interest in making money from the OS itself. It's sole purpose is to protect mobile search $$ for Google. However, the "free" part is going down the tubes due to Androids chronic patent problems that add licensing cost, and big companies like Samsung are not in the same position as PC manufacturers were in the early 90's. Android needs Samsung and HTC more than they need Android.
what you might be missing here is that Samsung is to IBM when Google is to Microsoft, Samsong makes the H/w, not the OS, MS doesn't hold exclusivity to the H/w, neither did IBM... Samsung however... sort of does. Samsung isn't like MS, it's more like IBM with a more consumer-centrik philosophy, sort of the IBM IBM would be if they could go back a step. Google doesn't want to become MS, but it will, it has to.
Apple: makes it's money primarily by selling hardware, but also has a major software development side. Samsung: makes it's money primarily by selling hardware, but also has a minor software development side. Microsoft: makes it's money primarily by licensing software, but also has a minor hardware development side. Google: makes it's money primarily by search related advertising, but also has a major software development side. Apple and Samsung are probably the closest match in that group of companies.
I've heard it quite often, but how do you make the distinction between 'Licensing software' and 'software development'?? Sure MS license a lot of it's games from studios they purchase, but their mainstay, Office, is developed solely by them, Windows is developed mainly by them (though a bit loser on the whole licensing thing). I'm just trying to say, in my view, MS is still in the buisness of DEVELOPING products. Sure they license... that's the nature of making a proprietary OS, but does not Apple as well? Android may not License per say I'll give you that one.. And then there's IBM, what I was trying to say is it seems we're TOTALLY forgeting about them when comparing situations! AFAIK (Back than) Big Blue was probably primarily H/W, but it DID have the makings of PC Dos, OS/2 and Lotus...
MS is a major software developer, but the primary source of revenue for MS is the OS licensing to hardware manufacturers, so that's why I say "software licensing". In other words, direct software sales to consumers is not where most of their money comes from. Office is also a key money maker and does come from direct sales, but it's not the primary one. Microsoft's market value is due to the OS licensing for PC's. Google and Microsoft are similar in the respect that they don't rely on direct sales to consumers to make their money. Most of what Google creates for software is simply given away as part of a strategy to protect their ad search revenue dominance.
Are you sure about that? http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Microsoft_%28MSFT%29 This says that after Business (office mainly), Windows is their second largest money maker, with 80% of that revenue coming from sales of products with windows pre-installed. Considering as of today they've sold around 500 million copies of Win 7. Even if they only make on average $10 per sale, that's a lot of their total revenue for the last 2 years right there.
The Windows division is typically the most profitable (even if it accounts for lower overall revenue), and it's the primary key to their business dominance. No OS licensing dominance for PC hardware = no business dominance.
Obviously it's not that simple which is why supersonic made this thread. It's not a matter of what you like using most for some people. It's what works for their needs. Also how do you know which you like using most of you've never used either phone?
So the iPhone came in stock, and I got it. Testing it out now. Pros: Screen is top notch Reader feature is awesome So-So: Siri is a lying bitch. But good enough to set an alarm clock or quick reminder. Cons: Coming from Android I don't find the interface intuitive. It's downright stupid in parts.
• Swipe the screen left/right to move to the next page of apps or left from the home screen to move to the keyboard. •Press and hold app icons to enter mode where icons can be moved, app groups can be made (drag/drop icons over each other), or apps can be deleted (press the x in the black circle). •Double click the home button to see the apps that are running. Press and hold app icons in that strip to enter mode to quit apps (press the - in the red circle). •Click the gears icon on the home screen to enter the system preferences menu for a wide variety of functions/apps. •Pinch gestures or double tap to zoom in/out. That's basically the interface.
Cool. I actually didn't know all of those. I guess it's more culture shock, the centralized settings can/is nice, but I'm used to modifying settings in the specific applications themselves. Not having a back button is the biggest issue I keep running into. All in all, it's a pretty solid piece of technology.
I want to ask siri to root itself.... maybe that's something you only tell it when you get mad. go root yourself siri
Android does a similar thing when holding the home key, or at least the GS2 does. It brings up recent apps and a button to access the task manager (defaulting on the active applications tab). So you don't need the program monitor widget at all. Double clicking the home key brings up voice talk (like siri).
yea, that's a standard android feature. ics is moving to a more seamless way to multitask with the multitask button and having it pull up screenshot of the saved states.