Why do Android Tablets lag the ipad so much?

[Doboji]

Did you read my post ? The Galaxy does sell on price, not necessarily the price to the consumer though. Apple can set it's own terms to ATT, Verizon, Sprint; none of them can get enough iphones to meet demand; and the existence of the Galaxy gives them something else to sell, and Samsung has to give them more room for markup to move product.

Very small part of the smartphone market is people making their decision based on your reason, which is nothing new, there are always contrary shoppers who don't want whatever the majority wants, so retailers market to them with that in mind.

And I wouldn't be surprised by what those iphone users tell you, and what they say when you leave the room.

Look at the ads for the Galaxy. A tech savvy nerd, but good looking(LOL), shows his BIG screen to a bunch of hippie,artsy clueless about tech, types, waiting in line for the new iphone, which doesn't "look" different. You see yourself as that "smarter" guy. Just like the Apple ads that make the iphone or ipad look like amazing products full of wonder and delight. The difference is, the Apple ads are kinda true; the good looking nerd in the Samsung ad is an actor who probably has an iphone in real life.

And RIM more or less created the Smartphone market, "Blackberry" was what smartphones were called before they were called smartphones.

I can't believe I'm even going to respond to this... but here goes. The idea that Android is not-innovative and is a mindless copy is as moronic as the notion that iPhone is completely original. Both technologies are innovative, and both technologies bring some amount of original ideas and concepts.

I know this will be VERY difficult for you to grasp... but not everyone watches commercials and immediately become iSheeps and Phandroids based on the characters portrayed in the commercial. I think at one point that was true... but I think now people get that you don't have to have an "iPhone" to have all the glory and wonder that a smartphone offers.

People's motivations to buy now have gotten pretty complex... here's a quick list of influencers

1. Price... advantage Android... even if they're not cheaper they're perceived as cheaper and often are.
2. FUD.. advantage iPhone... people think Android is buggier and more difficult even if it's not always true
3. Bigger brighter screens
4. Incumbent apps
5. Feel of the phone... people actually go to the store and try them out
6. Google Navigation
7. Siri
8. Hatred of Apple
9. Love of Apple
10. Advice of nerd relatives
etc etc etc

Why do you have to hate Android to love Apple?

 

[micrometers]

I thought it was clear that Android is a rip-off of the iPhone. Android didn't have a full-sized touchscreen for most of its life in development. It was only after the iPhone was released that android went that route.

 

[Doboji]

I thought it was clear that Android is a rip-off of the iPhone. Android didn't have a full-sized touchscreen for most of its life in development. It was only after the iPhone was released that android went that route.

So by your definition any touchscreen phone is just an iPhone rip-off by virtue of being a touchscreen phone? Is that unique to that particular feature or do we include things like color screen phone? Or Phone with headset jack? Where do we differentiate the ripped off point?

 

[AstroManLuca]

I thought it was clear that Android is a rip-off of the iPhone. Android didn't have a full-sized touchscreen for most of its life in development. It was only after the iPhone was released that android went that route.

That doesn't even make any sense. Android is an OS, not a phone. Phone companies like HTC and Motorola are the ones who "copied" the iPhone, but it's not like the iPhone was the first all-touchscreen phone. Early Android builds simply ran on the hardware that was available at the time, and that meant older style phones with buttons.

If you want to talk about copying, I may as well bring up that iOS copied Android with the notification area, but honestly everyone copies everyone and I don't care.

 

[Larries]

So by your definition any touchscreen phone is just an iPhone rip-off by virtue of being a touchscreen phone? Is that unique to that particular feature or do we include things like color screen phone? Or Phone with headset jack? Where do we differentiate the ripped off point?

There was an image of the google phone prototype posted in one of the threads on this forum few weeks ago.

That google prototype phone looked nothing like a iPhone. It looked 95% like a blackberry that is white and have google logos on it...

Then, when the nexus was released, it looked nothing like the prototype, the phone looked more like an iPhone than the prototype...

Andriod is a good phone O/S. There is a lot of innovation in some of the latest Andriod phones (3D camera, large beautiful screens, etc).

But the whole Andriod ecosystem (from the phone design principle to the appstore to the tablet) is a copy of the iPhone/iPad model.

To the consumers, there is nothing wrong with it. More competition = choice and better for the consumers.

Just like when Asus designed the first netbook, every other vendor makes their own version of netbook. But other vendors cannot really say they didn't copy Asus.

 

[zerocool84]

There was an image of the google phone prototype posted in one of the threads on this forum few weeks ago.

That google prototype phone looked nothing like a iPhone. It looked 95% like a blackberry that is white and have google logos on it...

Then, when the nexus was released, it looked nothing like the prototype, the phone looked more like an iPhone than the prototype...

Andriod is a good phone O/S. There is a lot of innovation in some of the latest Andriod phones (3D camera, large beautiful screens, etc).

But the whole Andriod ecosystem (from the phone design principle to the appstore to the tablet) is a copy of the iPhone/iPad model.

To the consumers, there is nothing wrong with it. More competition = choice and better for the consumers.

Just like when Asus designed the first netbook, every other vendor makes their own version of netbook. But other vendors cannot really say they didn't copy Asus.

So then by your logic, Apple copied as well. There were phones prior to the iPhone that looked like that, there were phones prior to the iPhone that had multi-touch, there were phones that had a grid of icons like the iPhone.

 

[Oyeve]

I thought it was clear that Android is a rip-off of the iPhone. Android didn't have a full-sized touchscreen for most of its life in development. It was only after the iPhone was released that android went that route.

Then apple clearly copied sony-ericsson who had a full-sized touchscreen phone 3 years before anyone ever heard of the iphone. Shit, even the Compaq iPaq (hmm, iPaq) was a fullsized PDA with a cellphone pccard adapter even more years before the iphone.

 

[Tom]

I can't believe I'm even going to respond to this... but here goes. The idea that Android is not-innovative and is a mindless copy is as moronic as the notion that iPhone is completely original. Both technologies are innovative, and both technologies bring some amount of original ideas and concepts.

I know this will be VERY difficult for you to grasp... but not everyone watches commercials and immediately become iSheeps and Phandroids based on the characters portrayed in the commercial. I think at one point that was true... but I think now people get that you don't have to have an "iPhone" to have all the glory and wonder that a smartphone offers.

People's motivations to buy now have gotten pretty complex... here's a quick list of influencers

1. Price... advantage Android... even if they're not cheaper they're perceived as cheaper and often are.
2. FUD.. advantage iPhone... people think Android is buggier and more difficult even if it's not always true
3. Bigger brighter screens
4. Incumbent apps
5. Feel of the phone... people actually go to the store and try them out
6. Google Navigation
7. Siri
8. Hatred of Apple
9. Love of Apple
10. Advice of nerd relatives
etc etc etc

Why do you have to hate Android to love Apple?

I don't hate Android or love Apple. I gave credit to RIM,Microsoft, and Apple as innovators, I should probably have included Palm and some others.

As to your list, Google Navigation has nothing to do with an Android device, with the possible exception of deliberate crippling by Google, which is not what their role is supposed to be.

Bigger screens are not an innovation. What innovation do you think Android has brought to smartphones ?

 

[micrometers]

Then apple clearly copied sony-ericsson who had a full-sized touchscreen phone 3 years before anyone ever heard of the iphone. Shit, even the Compaq iPaq (hmm, iPaq) was a fullsized PDA with a cellphone pccard adapter even more years before the iphone.

but all of those were designed around the stylus. the iPhone was the first smartphone designed around touch input.

Android was initially developed to be put onto flip phones and the keyboard phones that were popular before the iPhone. the iPhone was developed ground up to be a touchscreen phone. There was never a phase when it was put onto a little motorola razr or something like that. It was after the iPhone was released that Android went the touchscreen route. Coincidence?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Did you read my post ? The Galaxy does sell on price, not necessarily the price to the consumer though. Apple can set it's own terms to ATT, Verizon, Sprint; none of them can get enough iphones to meet demand; and the existence of the Galaxy gives them something else to sell, and Samsung has to give them more room for markup to move product.

Very small part of the smartphone market is people making their decision based on your reason, which is nothing new, there are always contrary shoppers who don't want whatever the majority wants, so retailers market to them with that in mind.

And I wouldn't be surprised by what those iphone users tell you, and what they say when you leave the room.

Look at the ads for the Galaxy. A tech savvy nerd, but good looking(LOL), shows his BIG screen to a bunch of hippie,artsy clueless about tech, types, waiting in line for the new iphone, which doesn't "look" different. You see yourself as that "smarter" guy. Just like the Apple ads that make the iphone or ipad look like amazing products full of wonder and delight. The difference is, the Apple ads are kinda true; the good looking nerd in the Samsung ad is an actor who probably has an iphone in real life.

And RIM more or less created the Smartphone market, "Blackberry" was what smartphones were called before they were called smartphones.

What makes you think the Galaxy s2 is cheaper for the carries either? besides it's not like any consumer gives a crap about what the carriers pay for their phones.

Yeah, I am sure all of my friends who have iPhones are lying to me. Never mind the fact that one of them went out and replaced his iPhone with a Galaxy S2 and another is literally counting down the days until he can replace his "POS iPhone 4" (his words not mine) with a Galaxy Nexus.

You seriously think apple products are full of wonder and delight? That statement alone seriously undermines the credibility of your post. All I see when I watch those commercials is people being easily impressed by shiny things, not exactly a sign of intelligence.

You want one innovation Android has brought to smartphones? How about dual cores, Super Amoled+, 3d displays, HD displays, contour displays, and 3D cameras. All of those were Android firsts and most are still Android exclusives. Additionally Android was the first and is still the only option for a 4G LTE smartphone or a Wimax smartphone. Plus Android is also the driving force behind NFC in smartphones.

 

[Larries]

So then by your logic, Apple copied as well. There were phones prior to the iPhone that looked like that, there were phones prior to the iPhone that had multi-touch, there were phones that had a grid of icons like the iPhone.

I didn't say Apple didn't copy anything from other people. In the most fundamental sense, Apple didn't create phones in the first place.

The biggest difference between Apple and Andriod is, Apple actually combined things from different people to create something new.

The LG Prada, for example, looks a lot like the iPhone (completely touch screen) and comes out before the iPhone (by 6 months). But the O/S is not something new. The O/S doesn't even have a virtual qwerty keypad (it used the traditional phone number pads with 3 alphabets type). The touch screen is just a gimmick rather than an integrated part of the phone design.

A LG Prada released by Apple would not have such impact to the smartphone.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Prior to the Ericsson acquisition, which... happened just now, they lacked the capability to design their own phone devices, and needless to say, all the components that went into those phones except for the screen, and some other specific stuffs. But I'm sure as heck they didn't have the capability to write their own mobile software, or design their phones' hardwares.

If they had tossed in a cell modem to the PSP when it launched it would have *decimated* every other phone by a *huge* margin. Look at the Vita, slight packaging change and a cell modem- it would be an absolute beast of a phone(not as huge as the PSP could have been though). Sony has hardware engineering resources beyond anyone outside of Samsung in this space, their software resources are bigger then anyone outside of Microsoft(go ahead and look up actual software sales, Sony is larger then almost every other player in the mobile sector combined if we exclude MS).

As for being a media platform, Sony lacks that as well. The only thing that they have that can be remotely considered a media platform, is PSN, but it's mostly for their gaming consoles, and they can't just bring it over to their tablets and phones overnight.

Do you ignore the portable markets outside of Samsung/Apple cell phones and Apple products? Sony has several different media distribution outlets on multiple platforms. Their gaming devices simply give them the luxury of a 100 million device built in head start to exploit them on.

I don't think anyone can dismiss the stretch of Sony's prowess as an electronic giant, but I dare say, their mobile products have been lacking as of late, and to say they have a fighting chance is like saying you believe a fat rich kid with no training can defeat a dragon.

People said the same thing about that failed SNES CD-ROM drive Sony made called the Playstation. They also said the same thing when an upstart called Apple tried to take over Sony's Walkman market with that device they called the iPod. Sony has all of the pieces under their control- *IF* they do it or not is an entirely different matter, but in terms of positioning they are in a better place then Apple by a lot.

What else can you do on a tablet but consume media?

Based on iPad owners' comments the only thing to reasonably do on a tablet, run apps When I speak of media I mean mainly video and audio, web consumption is obvious and it doesn't matter that much on the platform as long as you have proper basic support. In that realm, Sony has a massive amount of IP they own full rights to, Apple has close to nothing.

 

[Doboji]

I don't hate Android or love Apple. I gave credit to RIM,Microsoft, and Apple as innovators, I should probably have included Palm and some others.

As to your list, Google Navigation has nothing to do with an Android device, with the possible exception of deliberate crippling by Google, which is not what their role is supposed to be.

Bigger screens are not an innovation. What innovation do you think Android has brought to smartphones ?

Notification bar, removable customizable widgets, removable customizable home screens, wholistic integrated search, integrated voice input, NFC, the list goes on. If Google navigation can't be considered innovation because it's been deliberatly crippled for other devices, then the same rule applies to Siri, and iTunes both which could work on any device were it not Apples crippling...

I don't understand what planet you've been living on... How can you say there's no innovation in Android.

 

[Doboji]

There was an image of the google phone prototype posted in one of the threads on this forum few weeks ago.

That google prototype phone looked nothing like a iPhone. It looked 95% like a blackberry that is white and have google logos on it...

Then, when the nexus was released, it looked nothing like the prototype, the phone looked more like an iPhone than the prototype...

Andriod is a good phone O/S. There is a lot of innovation in some of the latest Andriod phones (3D camera, large beautiful screens, etc).

But the whole Andriod ecosystem (from the phone design principle to the appstore to the tablet) is a copy of the iPhone/iPad model.

To the consumers, there is nothing wrong with it. More competition = choice and better for the consumers.

Just like when Asus designed the first netbook, every other vendor makes their own version of netbook. But other vendors cannot really say they didn't copy Asus.

Well then who cares? Everything is "just" a rip-off then...

Apple deserves credit for breaking ground on alot of levels in this new industry... But I don't devalue Android for mimicking elements of what Apple has done particularly with the marketplaces. Easy access to apps, and media is a fundamental element of mobile devices... Kind of like 4 wheels and 2 axles is fundamental to the design of an automobile. You wouldn't expect competitors to have different numbers of wheels or be considered worthless ripoffs.

 

[alent1234]

There was an image of the google phone prototype posted in one of the threads on this forum few weeks ago.

That google prototype phone looked nothing like a iPhone. It looked 95% like a blackberry that is white and have google logos on it...

Then, when the nexus was released, it looked nothing like the prototype, the phone looked more like an iPhone than the prototype...

Andriod is a good phone O/S. There is a lot of innovation in some of the latest Andriod phones (3D camera, large beautiful screens, etc).

But the whole Andriod ecosystem (from the phone design principle to the appstore to the tablet) is a copy of the iPhone/iPad model.

To the consumers, there is nothing wrong with it. More competition = choice and better for the consumers.

Just like when Asus designed the first netbook, every other vendor makes their own version of netbook. But other vendors cannot really say they didn't copy Asus.

did apple invent the touch screen? no

the touch screen companies started shopping their new products to everyone and not just apple

 

[MrX8503]

Apple didn't invent the smartphone or touch screen, however they did redefine the smartphone industry in 2007.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Apple didn't invent the smartphone or touch screen, however they did redefine the smartphone industry in 2007.

I can agree with that. Which is why Android phones (first one, the G1, came out in 2008) all have a big screen entirely centered on touch input.

I'll say again, it's not Google that designed the phones, that was HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc. To karmypolitics: do you honestly think that, after the iPhone was released, ANYONE would have bought THIS?:

OF COURSE NOT! Which is why they didn't sell it! At most, it means the phone manufacturers followed the industry trends that Apple set in motion, and that is something that happens all the time in every industry. Did American automakers "copy" Japanese ones by transitioning to more efficient car-based SUVs over the past decade? No! They were just providing what consumers wanted. If they had kept selling 14 mpg Suburbans they wouldn't be as successful as they are today.

A company that doesn't follow industry trends for the sole purpose of being "original" or to avoid accusations of copying will surely die. I don't understand how anyone can attack Android devices for copying the iPhone, the exception perhaps being the Samsung Galaxy S, which obviously took a lot of design cues (both in the hardware AND the software) from the iPhone beyond just having a large touch screen.

 

[tdawg]

the lack of apps for Android is overhwleming.

Is there a Facebook app yet (for tablets)? ><

The facebook app works fine on Honeycomb, but it's not a tablet-optimized version.

 

[Oyeve]

The facebook app works fine on Honeycomb, but it's not a tablet-optimized version.

Yeah, plus who needs the app? Full website works great.

 

[micrometers]

it's all a piss match. the android is a very successful platform and I am impressed with what they have done.

At the same time, it is a rip-off of the iphone's touch screen paradigm.

 

[AstroManLuca]

it's all a piss match. the android is a very successful platform and I am impressed with what they have done.

At the same time, it is a rip-off of the iphone's touch screen paradigm.

You do not understand what the term "rip-off" means.

 

[akugami]

Notification bar, removable customizable widgets, removable customizable home screens, wholistic integrated search, integrated voice input, NFC, the list goes on. If Google navigation can't be considered innovation because it's been deliberatly crippled for other devices, then the same rule applies to Siri, and iTunes both which could work on any device were it not Apples crippling...

I don't understand what planet you've been living on... How can you say there's no innovation in Android.

Notification bars have been around on desktop PC's and web browsers prior to their use on the OS level in smartphones. More along the lines of a transplanted technology.

Widgets. Same as above with the customizable widgets.

Wholistic integrated search? Not sure what you mean by that.

Integrated voice input. Dumb phones have had that to be honest. Google did it better than dumb phones obviously and iPhones prior to iOS 5 had voice input. What Siri did was refine the voice input to a degree that it almost sounds like a natural conversation rather than having specific syntax you must use to enter commands. That can be innovative depending on your point of view but I'll leave that up to the individual persons.

NFC...I don't believe Android was the first with NFC.

 

[Zaap]

Notification bars have been around on desktop PC's and web browsers prior to their use on the OS level in smartphones. More along the lines of a transplanted technology.

Widgets. Same as above with the customizable widgets.

How does something being on a desktop PC have anything to do with being innovative to mobile technology? The whole point is how much desktop level function a smart phone can put in the palm of my hand. Everything is transplanted technology in some form- by this standard, virtually nothing in mobile tech could be considered innovative.

 

[MrX8503]

How does something being on a desktop PC have anything to do with being innovative to mobile technology? The whole point is how much desktop level function a smart phone can put in the palm of my hand. Everything is transplanted technology in some form- by this standard, virtually nothing in mobile tech could be considered innovative.

I think that's what he means. I've even heard people say the iPad isn't innovative because it was on Star Trek first.

 

[runawayprisoner]

If they had tossed in a cell modem to the PSP when it launched it would have *decimated* every other phone by a *huge* margin. Look at the Vita, slight packaging change and a cell modem- it would be an absolute beast of a phone(not as huge as the PSP could have been though). Sony has hardware engineering resources beyond anyone outside of Samsung in this space, their software resources are bigger then anyone outside of Microsoft(go ahead and look up actual software sales, Sony is larger then almost every other player in the mobile sector combined if we exclude MS).

I'm not sure if you really mean what you are saying.

For one, I wouldn't want to carry a phone that lasts only 6 hours on battery... and yes, I did own a PSP, but to put a cell modem in one is really stretching it.

Do you ignore the portable markets outside of Samsung/Apple cell phones and Apple products? Sony has several different media distribution outlets on multiple platforms. Their gaming devices simply give them the luxury of a 100 million device built in head start to exploit them on.

Please list said platforms. I'd love to know. Apple has iTunes on Mac and Windows, and iOS, which includes tablet (iPad), media player (iPod), mobile phone (iPhone), and media center (Apple TV).

People said the same thing about that failed SNES CD-ROM drive Sony made called the Playstation. They also said the same thing when an upstart called Apple tried to take over Sony's Walkman market with that device they called the iPod. Sony has all of the pieces under their control- *IF* they do it or not is an entirely different matter, but in terms of positioning they are in a better place then Apple by a lot.

Sony lucked out with the SNES CD-ROM. They actually executed right on the PS2. They haven't done right by the PS3, they totally failed the PSP, and the PS Vita isn't looking so good. I'm not sure what you mean by "in a better place" there.

Does that mean more potential? Because last I checked, consumers want facts rather than theories...

Based on iPad owners' comments the only thing to reasonably do on a tablet, run apps When I speak of media I mean mainly video and audio, web consumption is obvious and it doesn't matter that much on the platform as long as you have proper basic support. In that realm, Sony has a massive amount of IP they own full rights to, Apple has close to nothing.

Apple has licenses and agreements with more studios and content providers than Sony owns, and they have enough cash to straight out buy Sony itself if they want to.

What good is IP if it's not executed? It's like I claim that I have the plans for the most amazing computer in my mind, but I don't have the money to do it. That doesn't make me an amazing person, nor does it make me anyone that matters.