Why do Android Tablets lag the ipad so much?

[Red Storm]

Not sure why anyone would do this since the cost of a single 3DS game or Sony game = 20 or 30 iOS/Android games.

I've never owned a dedicated handheld gaming device, but I do know that those games typically are much deeper than even AAA mobile games. There is a reason why iOS/Android games are so cheap.

Heck, even the 26 year old game Super Mario Bros still beats any iOS/Android game in the one area that actually matters - game play.

 

[Ns1]

I've never owned a dedicated handheld gaming device, but I do know that those games typically are much deeper than even AAA mobile games. There is a reason why iOS/Android games are so cheap.

Heck, even the 26 year old game Super Mario Bros still beats any iOS/Android game in the one area that actually matters - game play.

I put more hours into fieldrunners than I ever did on FF3 for the NDS. GF got more use out of $1 Words With Friends than she ever did on her $20-$30 NDS games.


Don't really have time to play games now, but I always pay the $1 to buy highly rated on sale iOS apps. I just keep them there in my account until I have time to play. Waiting for the Infinity Blade 2 $2.99 sale.


Sometimes you don't need deep - just fun/addictive.

 

[Red Storm]

I put more hours into fieldrunners than I ever did on FF3 for the NDS. GF got more use out of $1 Words With Friends than she ever did on her $20-$30 NDS games.


Don't really have time to play games now, but I always pay the $1 to buy highly rated on sale iOS apps. I just keep them there in my account until I have time to play. Waiting for the Infinity Blade 2 $2.99 sale.


Sometimes you don't need deep - just fun/addictive.

If she enjoys electronic Scrabble more than "regular" video games, why did she get a DS in the first place?

My opinion is that mobile games just don't cut it. They are very limited in scope, and pale in comparison to even much older games. To me they are one and the same with flash based games on the PC: Forgettable. They're only real use is as a time waster (something to do when you're waiting for something else), and I personally find chatting with friends/reading news/watching videos to be much better suited for that task.

I've already mentioned this in another thread, but ever since I got SNES and N64 emulators working on my Android phone, all mobile games in the iOS/Android markets just seem so... lacking.

 

[pm]

While I respect your opinion, Red Storm, and to some extent I agree with what you are saying, I think I've spent more time playing Carcasonne on my iPad than I have played Skryim.

 

[Mopetar]

Not sure why anyone would do this since the cost of a single 3DS game or Sony game = 20 or 30 iOS/Android games.

Most iOS/Android games are pretty good for killing a few minutes in line, but I don't believe that most offer the same depth as many titles available for the DS/PSP. It's certainly possible to make better games for mobile devices, but touch screens impose their own set of limitations on controls.

What will help the dedicated gaming systems the most is the eventual death of physical media. As soon as Nintendo and Sony can sell directly to customers it cuts out the middlemen at the stores and allows developers to make more for each sale. This can allow them to be much more competitive on price.

 

[Ns1]

Most iOS/Android games are pretty good for killing a few minutes in line, but I don't believe that most offer the same depth as many titles available for the DS/PSP. It's certainly possible to make better games for mobile devices, but touch screens impose their own set of limitations on controls.

What will help the dedicated gaming systems the most is the eventual death of physical media. As soon as Nintendo and Sony can sell directly to customers it cuts out the middlemen at the stores and allows developers to make more for each sale. This can allow them to be much more competitive on price.

I agree re: depth, I just don't think it matters in terms of play time/$$$ spent. ex) $30 for 30 hours of FF3 or $1 for 80+ hours of fieldrunners...

If she enjoys electronic Scrabble more than "regular" video games, why did she get a DS in the first place?

Animal crossing? Elite beat agents?

Basically female-centric casual games which are now completely owned by the smartphone gaming market...

 

[Red Storm]

While I respect your opinion

Yep, that is basically what it comes down to, personal preferences and opinions. I know there are people out there who prefer the more casual mobile games, and that's completely fine. But I think it is important to realize the differences between the two platforms. Comparing super casual gaming to dedicated hardware gaming doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison to me.

What I'm wondering is, when are mobile games ever going to really take off in the game play depth department and match the classics? I think it's only going to happen with a full team of devs designing games. Feels like today's mobile games are only designed by a small group of people at most (this is an assumption based on the quality and scope of games I see). I don't think controls are as limiting a factor as people believe. I've been able to play Ocarina of Time via on-screen controls with no problems.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm not sure I follow you.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s-review-att-verizon/15

That help? HTC phones are absolutely terrible with battery life. BTW- The iPhone 4S gets just over three hours battery life playing games, so it looks like the Vita worse case would be directly comparable.

I'm not sure what my preference has to do with this discussion. Sony's eBook operation is only for its e-reader devices, correct?

Your preference is a bit of a stereotype of Apple enthusiasts. It tends to indicate they have no idea about what happens outside of the walled garden unless they think it relates to them somehow. It is rather comical that you follow that up with 'I had no idea Sony's eBook operation runs on hundreds of millions of non Sony devices'

There is a menu that says "iTunes Store" to the side. You may want to try clicking on it.

What do they have that Sony doesn't? I'm not seeing it.

And it's also a phone device with a more suitable form factor, and that's the price of an internationally unlocked version. But that's the 4S. The iPod Touch 8GB 4th generation is $199. Or less if you can find it through ones of the deals.

Single core with a many year old GPU with half of the memory you are saying the Vita needs? Maybe it you want to compare it to the PSP, not even remotely in the league of the Vita. The Vita has more then double the CPU power of the iPad2 and double the GPU power with a *vastly* superior screen. Honestly the iPhone4S isn't a fair comparison as that is seriously gimp hardware in comparison, but at least it is only a generation behind.

It would obliterate the competition until it runs out of battery life, or until the owner runs out of budget for it...

The Vita worst case numbers for battery life while gaming equal the iPhone 4 according to AT's battery life test(in the link I posted above). It is also significantly cheaper then the iPhone 4S.

Specs aren't everything. The DS showed that.

The iPhone 3GS is closer to the Galaxy Nexus then the iPod Touch is to the Vita. Specs may not be everything, but they aren't nothing.

I don't think so. Apple is not the only company to beat in the mobile space. Sony Ericsson had a lot to do to even catch up to the likes of Samsung and Motorola... and HTC.

Look at everything they are doing on their end and what Sony Ericson was doing before Sony bought them out. You don't see it coming? I'm not saying if they will pull it off or fail horribly, but the positioning seems pretty clear.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

You don't think Sony buying out Ericson was explicitly to take Apple on? Interesting perspective.

No they did it to take Microsoft on. Windows Phone 8 will be able to interact with Xbox 720 in some form. Sony wants to make sure it does not loses out on that market.

Howard Stringer did however admit they want to beat Apple in the upcoming "Smart TV" market.

 

[akugami]

That's not a sole qualification of innovation. You're confusing innovation with invention. Different things.

No. I'm not.

Very. Unless you're going to walk around or drive with a desktop computer, keyboard, and monitor strapped to your chest.

Is the functionality different? No. It is not. The size of the computing device is the only thing that has changed but the function itself is the same. I'd say the items on Doboji's list works in almost the same fashion in the mobile space as in the desktop. The main differences have to do with implementing it on a smaller screen. It's why I mentioned NTP and RIM. Mobile email is never have been patentable. It's just email over a small mobile device rather than a desktop computer. A notification bar on Android, and most of the functions mentioned by Doboji are along similar lines. Desktop features/functions, transplanted on a smaller device over a mobile wireless network. And the image of strapping a desktop to a person is ridiculous since we've had tablet PC devices for years as well as laptops.

Again, by these subjective standards, nothing has been 'innovative' since fire and the wheel.

Let's just ignore the many inventions since the fire and wheel to try to prove our point.

Personally, I don't care if the features meet everyone's own personal definition of 'innovative' [read, subjective to the point of meaninglessness] or not. The term is just being used here as a buzzword. I only care that my smartphone is USEFUL. Everything he listed is USEFUL, therefore highly valuable. Notifications in particular was clearly such a better implementation that even Apple copied it. Eventually they'll come out of the dark ages with widgets & iOS customization as well. Apple fans will herald it as the second coming, and moan at anyone who reminds them that Android had it for years prior.

I agree on the usefulness front. However, useful and innovative are two different things. No one is saying Androids implementation of notification isn't elegant. It is. However, elegant and innovative are two different things.

For the record you're the one who wanted to split hairs with me. If you didn't care about how we label the features, why all the fuss? For myself, innovation has to do with more than just transplanting an idea from one type of device to another. Especially when, as I've said, 90% of the way it functions is the same and most of the differences is visual. Unless there was some major hurdle that had to be overcome for that idea to happen, it's not innovative.

And what does the perceived Apple bias have to do with our conversation?

Again, being 'first' isn't a sole qualifier for innovation. Putting the listed features (and others) in a handheld package that millions of people now use was in fact, pretty damned innovative. Fine that you don't think so, but others disagree so I guess both opinions cancel each other out. (Hence: subjective)

I never said being “first” is the sole qualifier for innovation. But it is a major factor. There are a lot of technologies and ideas that seem so obvious now but someone had to have thought of them first. Being second may actually mean a more useful and elegant implementation of the idea. To me, invention is where most of the innovation happens. There can be innovation in the refinement process. It's a very vague area at times when talking about innovation but when your list of innovations is using existing ideas that are 90% the same between the desktop and mobile computing device, I have to seriously question where the innovation came in.

The irony of your arguments is that all of them applies to Apple's original iPhone and iOS and newer hyped iOS features such as Siri which many have sworn is not innovative.

 

[micrometers]

If I want a complex game I'll just play on the PS3 or 360.

Mobile games are for killing time while you're in line at the bank or post office.

and the iPod touch also can do motion video, internet browsing, music and video, even photo editing in addition to gaming, which is a fantastic value at 99 cents for most games, while an equivalent game on the DS would be 20 bucks.

So Android had a Blackberry knockoff in 2007? That's pretty funny. It is so obvious that they're a cheap apple knockoff.

 

[Red Storm]

If I want a complex game I'll just play on the PS3 or 360.

Mobile games are for killing time while you're in line at the bank or post office.

and the iPod touch also can do motion video, internet browsing, music and video, even photo editing in addition to gaming, which is a fantastic value at 99 cents for most games, while an equivalent game on the DS would be 20 bucks.

So Android had a Blackberry knockoff in 2007? That's pretty funny. It is so obvious that they're a cheap apple knockoff.

Or, you could play those PS3 and 360 games on your phone via OnLive. You need Wifi or 4G though, so at the moment Android has a bit of an advantage when it comes to using it on the go.

You have to first buy an iPod Touch to access those 99 cent games though. Which is expensive and quite redundant if you already have a smartphone (especially an iPhone).

I'm not even going to bother with your last sentence.

 

[runawayprisoner]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s-review-att-verizon/15

That help? HTC phones are absolutely terrible with battery life. BTW- The iPhone 4S gets just over three hours battery life playing games, so it looks like the Vita worse case would be directly comparable.

It is important to note that the 3 hours quoted for the Vita is considering screen backlight at 50%, WIFI off, bluetooth off. It's still not the worst case scenario, and the 3G modem isn't even mentioned.

Not sure if Anand turned off 3G and WIFI while conducting that test, but I'd assume that he didn't because that's a normal usage scenario. But also to note, under "normal" usage scenario, the iPhone 4S' screen backlight is likely to shoot up to max due to the way Apple implements the light sensor. Unless Anand forced the ambient light sensor to be off, too...

Your preference is a bit of a stereotype of Apple enthusiasts. It tends to indicate they have no idea about what happens outside of the walled garden unless they think it relates to them somehow. It is rather comical that you follow that up with 'I had no idea Sony's eBook operation runs on hundreds of millions of non Sony devices'

Well, I still wonder what my misinformation or lack of knowledge about Sony's services has to do with the discussion at hand? If anything, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that if I don't know about those services, then likely Sony isn't doing a very good job of making them popular. In contrast, I can see clearly the Android marketplace and Amazon marketplace from within the "walled garden".

What do they have that Sony doesn't? I'm not seeing it.

Well, a single popular online distribution channel that you can ask pretty much any person with a smartphone walking around the street and they'd be able to tell you its name and what it carries?

And also a large customer base for those services.

Single core with a many year old GPU with half of the memory you are saying the Vita needs? Maybe it you want to compare it to the PSP, not even remotely in the league of the Vita. The Vita has more then double the CPU power of the iPad2 and double the GPU power with a *vastly* superior screen. Honestly the iPhone4S isn't a fair comparison as that is seriously gimp hardware in comparison, but at least it is only a generation behind.

The iPhone 3GS is closer to the Galaxy Nexus then the iPod Touch is to the Vita. Specs may not be everything, but they aren't nothing.

Specs aren't everything, and they might well be nothing. Again, DS vs PSP showed that. Xbox vs PS2 also showed that. I'm not sure what more I can tell you.

Maybe perhaps that... more software is needed?

Look at everything they are doing on their end and what Sony Ericson was doing before Sony bought them out. You don't see it coming? I'm not saying if they will pull it off or fail horribly, but the positioning seems pretty clear.

Ericsson was a separate brand. Sony Ericsson was a joint venture. In a way, Sony was directly responsible for Sony Ericsson, so what Sony Ericsson was doing before was exactly what Sony was doing before.

And now after they have acquired Ericsson, what's new? Nothing. Not a new PS phone, not a new game console, not a new tablet. They are simply doing the inevitable, which was merging with Ericsson.

In a nutshell, perhaps there is the off chance that they wanted more control from Ericsson and they wanted to aggressively pursue the mobile market, but again, Apple is not their only competitor. I'd say it's more appropriate to consider that Sony is taking the mobile market more seriously.

In the same note, I can't recall the last Sony Ericsson device that made much or any buzz at all... so I'd say that they have continued to fail all the way up until the merge.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It is important to note that the 3 hours quoted for the Vita is considering screen backlight at 50%, WIFI off, bluetooth off.

The numbers I saw in that scenario were closer to six hours. Not saying that you are wrong, but that isn't what I have seen.

Well, I still wonder what my misinformation or lack of knowledge about Sony's services has to do with the discussion at hand?

I claimed Sony was best set up to deal with media consumption overall. You denied it while having no idea of what they had set up. Walled garden syndrome

If anything, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that if I don't know about those services, then likely Sony isn't doing a very good job of making them popular.

Apple is an exceptional marketing firm with good outsourcing. Sony certainly can't match the marketing muscle that is Apple and their followers with their current efforts, no doubt about that. Doesn't change their available distribution channels and what they have to offer.

Specs aren't everything, and they might well be nothing. Again, DS vs PSP showed that.

For the first three years of its' existance specs were pretty much the only reason to own a PSP and it still sold several millions of units without any real software support and with terrible battery life in spite of the DS having a staggering library of games from day one(GBA library). I owned both of them on release.

Xbox vs PS2 also showed that.

PS2 had a vastly superior CPU when compared to the XBox. Overall the XBox clearly had the edge, but it wasn't nearly as one sided as the other comparisons we are talking about.

Maybe perhaps that... more software is needed?

Sony generates significantly more money on software then Apple. That is a bad comparison to bring up.

Ericsson was a separate brand. Sony Ericsson was a joint venture. In a way, Sony was directly responsible for Sony Ericsson, so what Sony Ericsson was doing before was exactly what Sony was doing before.

And now after they have acquired Ericsson, what's new? Nothing. Not a new PS phone, not a new game console, not a new tablet. They are simply doing the inevitable, which was merging with Ericsson.

Walled garden again?

http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2011/1...s-50-stake-in-sony-ericsson-for-1-05-billion/

Ericsson has a market cap double that of all of Sony. Sony didn't do anything remotely approacing acquiring them. A lot of positioning is going on right now inside of Sony in terms of how this is going to impact things on a broader level. We should start seeing some of the results of that within the next couple of quarters.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The numbers I saw in that scenario were closer to six hours. Not saying that you are wrong, but that isn't what I have seen.

I'm afraid what you see is not considered factual...

I claimed Sony was best set up to deal with media consumption overall. You denied it while having no idea of what they had set up. Walled garden syndrome

Well, so... once again, how does this prove Sony is best set up to deal with media consumption overall?

If my denial is void, that means you are right? I don't think so...

Apple is an exceptional marketing firm with good outsourcing. Sony certainly can't match the marketing muscle that is Apple and their followers with their current efforts, no doubt about that. Doesn't change their available distribution channels and what they have to offer.

If they can't reach customers with their distribution channels, then it doesn't mean anything.

It's like saying you have the potential to be the world's savior, but you just don't have the chance to do it. That doesn't make you the world's savior by any long stretch.

For the first three years of its' existance specs were pretty much the only reason to own a PSP and it still sold several millions of units without any real software support and with terrible battery life in spite of the DS having a staggering library of games from day one(GBA library). I owned both of them on release.

So pretty much PSP's specs don't matter in the end...

PS2 had a vastly superior CPU when compared to the XBox. Overall the XBox clearly had the edge, but it wasn't nearly as one sided as the other comparisons we are talking about.

Uh... just no. The PS2 had more coprocessors, but the main processing unit wasn't faster than the XBox's by any long stretch. The graphics capability of the XBox compared to the PS2 was also on another class of its own.

Anand actually wrote an article on that a while ago...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/853/14

I think it'll be a good read. The XBox overall had superior hardware, and by far, almost with twice the graphics performance of the PS2.

But if you want an even more stark contrast, try PS2 vs XBox360 when it came out.

Sony generates significantly more money on software then Apple. That is a bad comparison to bring up.

Really? Any source you can cite for this claim?

Walled garden again?

http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2011/1...s-50-stake-in-sony-ericsson-for-1-05-billion/

Ericsson has a market cap double that of all of Sony. Sony didn't do anything remotely approacing acquiring them. A lot of positioning is going on right now inside of Sony in terms of how this is going to impact things on a broader level. We should start seeing some of the results of that within the next couple of quarters.

Uh... so... Sony bought Ericsson for 1 bil, that makes my claim that no new product has been announced so far void? That's cute.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm afraid what you see is not considered factual...

Considering the quality of the sources you seem to use, I'll take that as an extreme confidence boosting statement

Well, so... once again, how does this prove Sony is best set up to deal with media consumption overall?

They have all the content Apple does, they own a large chunk of it, and oh yeah- they own the largest collection of gaming IP outside of Nintendo. That kind of has them in a superior position.

If they can't reach customers with their distribution channels, then it doesn't mean anything.

Who can't they reach exactly? Or are you saying because they haven't marketed it yet? I believe I have rather explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that I have been talking about potential and positioning. Execution is another matter entirely.

So pretty much PSP's specs don't matter in the end...

Selling hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware doesn't matter where?

Uh... just no. The PS2 had more coprocessors, but the main processing unit wasn't faster than the XBox's by any long stretch.

Either you are confused, or you are just BSing. The PS2 had an asynchronous multi core processor. It was a singular CPU with multiple functioning units on it. It was easily, and clearly, superior to the XBox's CPU. Perhaps the wording of the article had you confused? VU0 and VU1 were very much part of the CPU.

Just for kicks I wend and read the article you pointed out(didn't need to) and Anand explains it out pretty clearly how the PS2's CPU is easily superior(although overall the XBox was, kind of like exactly what I said).

Really? Any source you can cite for this claim?

Sony moved ~7 million pieces of software for one of its' platforms last week. Not last year or last quarter, last week. Last quarter Apple hit 5% of the PC market for the first time in a long time, ~5 million Macs sold. Over three months. How much software do you think Apple makes?

Uh... so... Sony bought Ericsson for 1 bil, that makes my claim that no new product has been announced so far void? That's cute.

Your quote-

And now after they have acquired Ericsson, what's new? Nothing. Not a new PS phone, not a new game console, not a new tablet. They are simply doing the inevitable, which was merging with Ericsson.

Using the same logic applied, Apple is not releasing an iPad 3, glad you cleared that up for me

 

[runawayprisoner]

Considering the quality of the sources you seem to use, I'll take that as an extreme confidence boosting statement

Please feel free to check them all out.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/15/the-hidden-costs-of-playstation-vita-3ds-esque-battery-life-and/

A press release detailing much of Sony's initial Japanese PlayStation Vita offerings quantifies the portable's battery life: approximately "3~5 hours" for games, approximately "5 hours" for video, and approximately 9 hours for music "in stand-by mode." That's with Bluetooth turned off, headphones used instead of speakers, the "default setting" on screen brightness, and no "network" use in games, meaning ixnay on 3G or Wi-Fi. With some or all of those modifiers activated, it's anyone's guess how long the Vita will last.

They have all the content Apple does, they own a large chunk of it, and oh yeah- they own the largest collection of gaming IP outside of Nintendo. That kind of has them in a superior position.

I have 10 songs, half of which I recorded myself. You have 100 songs, which you buy from your Sony music store, therefore, I must own the same amount you do. Right?

Who can't they reach exactly? Or are you saying because they haven't marketed it yet? I believe I have rather explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that I have been talking about potential and positioning. Execution is another matter entirely.

So you are saying Sony has good standing in terms of potential...

Based on that logic, I should have good standing based on potential too, because I know how to dominate the world. I just haven't executed on that yet.

Selling hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware doesn't matter where?

What does the sale figure have to do with the specs of the device?

Based on your logic, the DS must have superior specs, and the iPod Touch must have even better specs.

Either you are confused, or you are just BSing. The PS2 had an asynchronous multi core processor. It was a singular CPU with multiple functioning units on it. It was easily, and clearly, superior to the XBox's CPU. Perhaps the wording of the article had you confused? VU0 and VU1 were very much part of the CPU.

Just for kicks I wend and read the article you pointed out(didn't need to) and Anand explains it out pretty clearly how the PS2's CPU is easily superior(although overall the XBox was, kind of like exactly what I said).

It's like saying the Tegra 3 is a multi-core processor consisting of 4 CPU cores tightly integrated with a single GPU, which also counts as the CPU.

I don't think it works that way. There's a reason the "CPU core" in the Emotion Engine is specifically called "the CPU core" and not "main processing unit" to go along with "vector processing unit".

And again, try comparing the PS2 against the XBox360 in its early days if this is so hard for you to grasp.

Sony moved ~7 million pieces of software for one of its' platforms last week. Not last year or last quarter, last week. Last quarter Apple hit 5% of the PC market for the first time in a long time, ~5 million Macs sold. Over three months. How much software do you think Apple makes?

Uh... so Sony "moved" 7 million pieces of software last week? Thanks for letting me know.

And how much software does Apple make? They make their own professional softwares like Logic Studio and Final Cut, which do sell for some pretty amount, and on top of that, they take 30% on top of every app and IAP sold in the App Store, on both the Mac and iOS.

And those are "sale", not "move".

Using the same logic applied, Apple is not releasing an iPad 3, glad you cleared that up for me

Well, specifically what new device is Sony Ericsson coming out with?

And Apple is not coming out with the iPad 3? Might very well be. It could be an iPad 2S for all the world knows. That doesn't really have anything to do with the nature of the Sony Ericsson acquisition, or am I getting something wrong here?

 

[BenSkywalker]

I have 10 songs, half of which I recorded myself. You have 100 songs, which you buy from your Sony music store, therefore, I must own the same amount you do. Right?

I've done the comparisons side by side. I don't live inside a walled garden with blinders on. You weren't even aware of the existance of a six year old distribution platform. One of the people in this conversation is nigh utterly ignorant of what's going on when comparing the two, and it certainly isn't me.

It's like saying the Tegra 3 is a multi-core processor consisting of 4 CPU cores tightly integrated with a single GPU, which also counts as the CPU.

It's a vector unit- do you know what that even is? The CPU is the PS2 is the Emotion Engine. They call the main core the main core as it is the only one that handles general purpose code. The vector units are functionally the floating point unit on the Emotion Engine. All of it combined is the central processing unit.

And again, try comparing the PS2 against the XBox360 in its early days if this is so hard for you to grasp.

What are you talking about? I pointed out a fact, you linked to an article that explicitly agreed with me, now you are talking about the 360 having a superior CPU to the PS2, of course it did? WTH is the point of brining that up?

Uh... so Sony "moved" 7 million pieces of software last week? Thanks for letting me know.

Moved is sold. My job is handling sales trends, it's what I do for a living.

And how much software does Apple make? They make their own professional softwares like Logic Studio and Final Cut, which do sell for some pretty amount, and on top of that, they take 30% on top of every app and IAP sold in the App Store, on both the Mac and iOS.

I am not talking about any of their online distribution. Sony sells *significantly* more software then Apple, it isn't remotely close.

Well, specifically what new device is Sony Ericsson coming out with?

I have told you with precission the exact same details you have told me about the iPad3

 

[AstroManLuca]

This thread makes my head hurt.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I've done the comparisons side by side. I don't live inside a walled garden with blinders on. You weren't even aware of the existance of a six year old distribution platform. One of the people in this conversation is nigh utterly ignorant of what's going on when comparing the two, and it certainly isn't me.

So based on your comparison, Sony must be in a better position, and if another person doesn't see it, they are utterly ignorant. I see where this is headed now.

It's a vector unit- do you know what that even is? The CPU is the PS2 is the Emotion Engine. They call the main core the main core as it is the only one that handles general purpose code. The vector units are functionally the floating point unit on the Emotion Engine. All of it combined is the central processing unit.

Yes, I know what the vector unit is. And yes, I know it's mainly for floating point operations, but the "main core" of the Emotion Engine also has its own floating point unit.

As Anand pointed out in his article, the VPUs were put in specifically to handle geometric transformations and T&L. Technically they are part of the CPU, but factually they are meant to do a different type of calculation. It's like calling the Cell BE a CPU, which is not really true. There's a reason why these things are called "Engine". But I'll cede defeat if that's what you want to consider it to be. In that case, the XBox's GPU would far outclass the PS2's GPU on so many levels.

What are you talking about? I pointed out a fact, you linked to an article that explicitly agreed with me, now you are talking about the 360 having a superior CPU to the PS2, of course it did? WTH is the point of brining that up?

The point is, PS2's specs are inferior to both the XBox and the 360, yet it beat both of them. If that's not the simplest version of it, I don't know what is.

Also I'm not seeing where Anand agreed with your view. The only thing I can see that both you and Anand recited was that the XBox had better hardware overall.

Moved is sold. My job is handling sales trends, it's what I do for a living.

Okay. Be that as it may, where does it say Sony made more money than Apple did?

I am not talking about any of their online distribution. Sony sells *significantly* more software then Apple, it isn't remotely close.

So... again, where does it say Sony made more money than Apple did?

I have told you with precission the exact same details you have told me about the iPad3

And that being? The iPad 3 might well not exist. So am I to assume that you are basically agreeing with me that nothing new has happened since the Sony Ericsson acquisition?

 

[Fingolfin269]

How did a thread about Android Tablets vs. iPad that devolved into some discussion on the Vita? I'm going back to bed.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I think the tablet market is slowing down quite a bit, Apple has dropped the price of refurb iPad 2's to $419 http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC769

 

[Zaap]

No. I'm not.
Is the functionality different? No. It is not. The size of the computing device is the only thing that has changed but the function itself is the same.

Of course, a cellphone is functionally different than a desktop computer, and the size of devices make a huge amount of difference. You're just waxing past the obvious differences to try and hammer your square point into an octagonal hole.

It's like me saying the automobile wasn't a major innovation over the steam locomotive because it's just the same idea of an object with wheels that takes people places. So what about the lack of needing a fixed track, and the size difference? Oh, that doesn't matter, is the functionality different?

I'd say the items on Doboji's list works in almost the same fashion in the mobile space as in the desktop.

Again, no it doesn't, unless one is walking or driving around carrying a desktop, swiping a touchscreen. Just as even a brick-sized cellphone was a major innovation over a phone tethered to a wall and shrinking the cellphone to a convenient size was innovative as well. Size has always been an important factor of tech innovations.

The main differences have to do with implementing it on a smaller screen.

Which of course you're just waxing past as if that was as easy as someone just pooping it out and voila it existed. If it weren't a major innovation, we'd have had it right after the first cellphones.

Let's just ignore the many inventions since the fire and wheel to try to prove our point.

That's pretty much what your argument has been doing.

I agree on the usefulness front. However, useful and innovative are two different things. No one is saying Androids implementation of notification isn't elegant. It is. However, elegant and innovative are two different things.

Agreed, but I don't really care about 'elegant' when once again it's just another subjective term. What either of may find elegant, the other may think is clunky and useless.

For the record you're the one who wanted to split hairs with me. If you didn't care about how we label the features, why all the fuss?

You're misreading me: I don't really care how you label the features. To me, and others they are innovative. To you and others, they aren't. So be it. What you're missing, is that the innovation lies in the perceived usefulness to the intended user, and the two things are deeply related.

For instance, I'm sure there's been lots of innovation in golf clubs over the years. I couldn't care less, because I'm not a golfer and I hate golf because it wastes so much space. Someone could argue with me all day about golf club innovations... and I still wouldn't care as it's 100% out of my area of interest and perceived usefulness. The whole 'sport' could drop off the face of the planet and I'd be happy. But: I also realize this is just my opinion, and it doesn't matter to those who do care about golf innovations.

Someone else's opinions of the innovations of my cell phone are equally meaningless to me.

For myself, innovation has to do with...

KEY word here: for yourself. Exactly.

The irony of your arguments is that all of them applies to Apple's original iPhone and iOS and newer hyped iOS features such as Siri which many have sworn is not innovative.

It's not an irony- it's ALL subjective. By your own definition of innovative, the iPhone could never be because every element of it existed before. Ditto iOS, and clearly Siri could never be innovative. And, pretty much everything since fire and the wheel.

But in actuality, innovation isn't invention (which IS the way you're defining it) it's exactly what we're arguing here: the rethinking/retooling/revamping of ideas into something more useful, more widely accepted than it was previously.

Just because an idea is new, doesn't make it innovative. If it's not USEFUL to anyone, it's never going to be widely accepted for anyone's use, therefore it meets no one's definition of innovative.

And any innovation that solves a problem by definition HAS to be a rethink of an older idea- otherwise how could you have the problem to begin with? Humans pretty much have a fixed set of needs- an innovative product or feature meets them. It rarely invents the need in the first place, which is more what you're talking about. Sure, when it happens it's certainly innovative and great, but it's far from the only thing that's innovative.

 

[scott.deagan]

It's because of the performance of iOS vs. Android.

1. iOS is far more responsive than Android.
2. iOS is buttery smooth (while Android is laggy and choppy in many places - even ICS).

User experience is something that is pretty difficult to quantify, but Intel gave it a good shot by reverse engineering the iPad user experience:

http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...indows-7-tablets-can-outperform-ipad-2-961563

Android feels like a 'second rate' product because it's choppy and laggy (I'm not a "hater" - just stating a fact).

 

[shabby]

It's because of the performance of iOS vs. Android.

1. iOS is far more responsive than Android.
2. iOS is buttery smooth (while Android is laggy and choppy in many places - even ICS).

User experience is something that is pretty difficult to quantify, but Intel gave it a good shot by reverse engineering the iPad user experience:

http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...indows-7-tablets-can-outperform-ipad-2-961563

Android feels like a 'second rate' product because it's choppy and laggy (I'm not a "hater" - just stating a fact).

There was an article written recently that stated one of the reasons for the choppyness was due because the first android os was originally written to mimic a blackberry device, meaning the input would be a keypad/buttons as seen in post 107. Once apple came out with the iphone the engineers didn't have enough time to rewrite the entire framework to be a touch only device from the ground up, this must be why ios/wp7 are so damn smooth. A rewrite of the framework has to happen eventually, but this will break all apps unless you add legacy support for older apps.

Here's that artice http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ag_occurs_more_often_in_android_than_ios.html