If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   The new iPhone 5 is now a flip phone   (nypost.com) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, iPhone  
•       •       •

8388 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Sep 2012 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-23 10:11:28 PM

BullBearMS: Aside from instructing people to walk on water?


I assume you're aware that even if you select Google's pedestrian directions, that over water portion is on a ferry. Google doesn't tell you to swim any more, like their trans atlantic directions used to. On the other hand, directions from California to Honolulu do involve the use of a kayak.

Microsoft's mapping website (I forget what it was called 12 or so years ago) used to have some fun bugs. It once gave me directions from DC to Baltimore via Nova Scotia.
 
2012-09-23 10:15:47 PM
It's hard to believe that in a 10 year period or so, people have gone from making calls (and txts) to spending hours in line obsessing over a CELL PHONE, even though there are hundreds of similar devices that do more and don't have a shiny Apple logo in it.

\Should have bought Apple stock 10 years ago.
 
2012-09-23 10:24:43 PM
Probably same people that buy a new wardrobe every year. They aren't really interested in functionality, as the 5 doesn't do much the 4s doesn't, but they are of the belief that having the 5 makes them cooler than the rest of us.

I'll upgrade when my contract is up and I don't have to pay full price for a new phone.
 
2012-09-24 12:12:36 AM

Dokushin: It's really not, since the iPhone 5 saves a lot of battery by having a smaller, lower resolution screen


That's funny. Apple's screen got bigger and it's resolution increased, yet it's battery life went up, not down.

I guess what you are saying is that Apple really is magical after all?
 
2012-09-24 12:21:23 AM
Dave: "Google. I'd like you to give me walking directions from point A to point B."

dl.dropbox.com

Google: "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that."
 
2012-09-24 02:33:26 AM

BullBearMS: Dokushin: It's really not, since the iPhone 5 saves a lot of battery by having a smaller, lower resolution screen

That's funny. Apple's screen got bigger and it's resolution increased, yet it's battery life went up, not down.

I guess what you are saying is that Apple really is magical after all?


New tech is better than old tech. We were talking about present-day smartphones, of which ones with a smaller, lower-resolution screen (like the iPhone 5) are going to have a power advantage since there is less display to drive. It probably factored into Apple's decision to go with a 4" screen not capable of 720p -- it extends battery life.
 
2012-09-24 03:24:01 AM

Dokushin: New tech is better than old tech.


Samsung's Galaxy S III didn't come out less than two months ago? Why yes it did.

So how did Apple's screen get bigger and it's resolution get higher while the battery life increased and the device got much thinner?

How does Apple's phone spank the Galaxy S III on CPU performance, GPU performance, and battery life all at the same time?
 
2012-09-24 03:51:05 AM

BullBearMS: Dokushin: New tech is better than old tech.

Samsung's Galaxy S III didn't come out less than two months ago? Why yes it did.

So how did Apple's screen get bigger and it's resolution get higher while the battery life increased and the device got much thinner?

How does Apple's phone spank the Galaxy S III on CPU performance, GPU performance, and battery life all at the same time?


Allow me to be more clear.

The S3 is a new phone. The iPhone 5 is a new phone. Therefore, their capabilities are comparable. The iPhone 4s is old tech, so it's capabilities are not interesting.

The iPhone 5 got better battery life than the iPhone 4s by being a newer phone.

Since the iPhone 5 and the S3 came out at similar times, their battery capabilities are more comparable. The iPhone 5 gains a battery life lead by having a lower-res, lower-contrast, smaller screen than the S3. As the screen is the item that typically consumes the most power, a sizable reduction in screen area (which is obvious when comparing the iPhone 5 to the S3) corresponds to a sizable increase in battery life.

CPU: Benchmarks are largely single-threaded; the S3 has a quad-core, which Android is better equipped to take advantage of. I'd say the benefit here is unclear until there's more real-world use.

GPU: The iPhone 5 has less than 80% of the pixels the S3 does, meaning that even with the same GPU it would seem faster. The margins are actually smaller than they should be; this is another area Apple clearly planned on leveraging when they planned to go with a smaller, lower resolution non-HD screen.
 
2012-09-24 04:18:59 AM

Dokushin: Since the iPhone 5 and the S3 came out at similar times, their battery capabilities are more comparable. The iPhone 5 gains a battery life lead by having a lower-res, lower-contrast, smaller screen than the S3.


The Galaxy S III has a much larger case and therefore has room for a much larger battery to make up for the difference in screen sizes. It still gets spanked on battery life by the new iPhone with it's much faster CPU and GPU.

Dokushin: CPU: Benchmarks are largely single-threaded


No. No they aren't. Web browsing in particular is multithreaded and Apple spanks Android on browsermark.

dl.dropbox.com

Dokushin: the S3 has a quad-core


Not in the United States, it doesn't.

Dokushin: The iPhone 5 has less than 80% of the pixels the S3 does, meaning that even with the same GPU it would seem faster.


Also not true.

PC Magazine
Performance in the "onscreen" tests is dependent on a phone's graphics power but also on screen resolution (you can do more frames per second if you're pushing fewer pixels.) The "offscreen" tests are purely graphics-crunching power. The Galaxy S III has 26 percent more pixels than the iPhone 5 (921,600 to the iPhone's 727,400) but as you can see, in the "offscreen" measure of raw graphics performance, the iPhone 5 doubles the Galaxy S III's result. It's simply a more powerful phone.

My, that's a lot of false claims for one little post.
 
2012-09-24 06:02:23 AM

BullBearMS: Dokushin: Since the iPhone 5 and the S3 came out at similar times, their battery capabilities are more comparable. The iPhone 5 gains a battery life lead by having a lower-res, lower-contrast, smaller screen than the S3.

The Galaxy S III has a much larger case and therefore has room for a much larger battery to make up for the difference in screen sizes. It still gets spanked on battery life by the new iPhone with it's much faster CPU and GPU.

Dokushin: CPU: Benchmarks are largely single-threaded

No. No they aren't. Web browsing in particular is multithreaded and Apple spanks Android on browsermark.

[dl.dropbox.com image 630x480]

Dokushin: the S3 has a quad-core

Not in the United States, it doesn't.

Dokushin: The iPhone 5 has less than 80% of the pixels the S3 does, meaning that even with the same GPU it would seem faster.

Also not true.

PC Magazine
Performance in the "onscreen" tests is dependent on a phone's graphics power but also on screen resolution (you can do more frames per second if you're pushing fewer pixels.) The "offscreen" tests are purely graphics-crunching power. The Galaxy S III has 26 percent more pixels than the iPhone 5 (921,600 to the iPhone's 727,400) but as you can see, in the "offscreen" measure of raw graphics performance, the iPhone 5 doubles the Galaxy S III's result. It's simply a more powerful phone.

My, that's a lot of false claims for one little post.


You're seeing the marketing and not doing the research.

Battery: It's true that larger phones have more room for battery, but the space that a larger screen creates doesn't mean battery time "profit." A 20% larger screen doesn't make room for a 20% larger battery.

Browsermark: I can't believe how much hype this is getting. Browsermark is a browser benchmark; it runs in your browser. It has much more to do with the stock browsers on iOS and Android than it does with the hardware. It's not a hardware benchmark. One more time -- it's not a hardware benchmark. If you want to argue that the default iOS browser is better than the default Android one, that's fine by me; that's why I always install something else. (This all 100% applies to Sunspider, also, which is a javascript benchmark developed solely to test differing implementations of browsers -- nothing to do with hardware.)

The memory bandwidth tests are clearly in the iPhone's favor, and that's to their credit. That's not some magic decisive victory, though, and certainly not the "spanking" you keep calling it.

Quad core: I understand if you want to use the slower of the two S3 models for comparison, but the claim I keep hearing is the iPhone is faster than any phone. Has that been downgraded to "any US phone"? That's topical, since it's what PCMag did. (Dishonestly, too; see above.)

Pixels: You're really missing this. You quoted the part that says pixels matter for everything you can see. Scenes being rendered "off screen" don't matter. Indeed, it's something of a philosophical question as to what, exactly, is being measured. Modern GeForce cards will do sweet FA if you tell them to render off screen; I wonder what benchmark they would post?

So, yeah, no false claims. Look, I'm sorry that it upsets you that the iPhone 5 isn't full of alien magic and that it's made with the same materials, the same science, and the same limitations of all these other phones. Apple does not have a super seekrit lab where all the most bestest physicists, engineers, programmers, and chemists get whisked away to make sure Apple is the only one with "our-processor-is-farking-magic" tech. Indeed, Apple's primary strength appears to be (again) it's marketing.
 
2012-09-24 06:13:38 AM

Dokushin: Browsermark: I can't believe how much hype this is getting. Browsermark is a browser benchmark; it runs in your browser. It has much more to do with the stock browsers on iOS and Android than it does with the hardware.


How many false claims are you going to make in a row?

Sunspider, Browsermark, and Guimark 3 Bitmap all test Web browser performance. Sunspider is about JavaScript, Guimark is about interactive HTML5, and Browsermark is an overall browser benchmark. Different browsers will score differently on the same phone. We test with the default browser, because that's what most people use.

(Since you're wondering about Chrome, which is an optional download on Android phones, it gives similar Browsermark results to the default browser on the Samsung Galaxy S III.)


iPhone 5 nearly doubles the performance of Android devices in multi-threaded web browsing. Switching over to Chrome on Android didn't make a difference.

That is a complete and utter spanking.
 
2012-09-24 07:23:55 AM

BullBearMS: Dave: "Google. I'd like you to give me walking directions from point A to point B."

[dl.dropbox.com image 325x260]

Google: "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that."


So, if I want driving directions to Martha's Vineyard, Google Maps should just give up and say that it can't, since it requires a ferry? I mean, that's not driving.
 
2012-09-24 07:32:21 AM

finnished: BullBearMS: Dave: "Google. I'd like you to give me walking directions from point A to point B."

[dl.dropbox.com image 325x260]

Google: "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

So, if I want driving directions to Martha's Vineyard, Google Maps should just give up and say that it can't, since it requires a ferry? I mean, that's not driving.


What part of walking directions do you not understand?

Are you claiming it's impossible to walk from point A to point B?

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-24 12:22:25 PM

BullBearMS: Dokushin: Browsermark: I can't believe how much hype this is getting. Browsermark is a browser benchmark; it runs in your browser. It has much more to do with the stock browsers on iOS and Android than it does with the hardware.

How many false claims are you going to make in a row?

Sunspider, Browsermark, and Guimark 3 Bitmap all test Web browser performance. Sunspider is about JavaScript, Guimark is about interactive HTML5, and Browsermark is an overall browser benchmark. Different browsers will score differently on the same phone. We test with the default browser, because that's what most people use.

(Since you're wondering about Chrome, which is an optional download on Android phones, it gives similar Browsermark results to the default browser on the Samsung Galaxy S III.)

iPhone 5 nearly doubles the performance of Android devices in multi-threaded web browsing. Switching over to Chrome on Android didn't make a difference.

That is a complete and utter spanking.


Or not, no real horse in this race myself... Link
 
2012-09-24 01:24:52 PM
The iPhone 4 was my first iPhone and I'm perfectly happy with it. I guess I'll upgrade at some point if my contract is up but really I'm in no rush.

Is there something wrong with me?
 
2012-09-24 01:30:12 PM

BullBearMS: finnished: BullBearMS: Dave: "Google. I'd like you to give me walking directions from point A to point B."

[dl.dropbox.com image 325x260]

Google: "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

So, if I want driving directions to Martha's Vineyard, Google Maps should just give up and say that it can't, since it requires a ferry? I mean, that's not driving.

What part of walking directions do you not understand?

Are you claiming it's impossible to walk from point A to point B?

[dl.dropbox.com image 460x285]


Let's try this again. Google gives you two routes for that search. One includes a ferry; the other does not. The one with the ferry is included because it cuts out 5ish hours from the trip. The ferry is included because it's meant to allow even pedestrians to travel to islands. If however you just want to walk, then select the other trip that's only walking and doesn't include ferry travel. Clear?
 
2012-09-24 03:19:34 PM
Saw that there were a few people on here looking to sell an iphone 4 to pay for the upgrade. Just wanted to pass along that I was easily able to craigslist my iphone 4 16gb for $200. If you're just looking for the first offer you can get $160. But in less than a day my new phone was paid for.
 
2012-09-24 07:08:07 PM

sirrerun: Also, the iPhone has been around for five years now; every new version is just a minor iteration over the last now. Nice to have, but no reason to lose one's shiat over.


It's not just iPhones. I have an Android phone that's coming up to 2 years and nothing is making me feel like upgrading.

Phones are done. Jonny Ive and all those guys at Apple can keep using words like "incredible", but making a phone 2mm thinner is "new hat" on a Malibu Stacy doll. Even things like faster processors are irrelevant because most of the heavy lifting for phones is being done on servers. Give it maybe 3 years, and you'll see most people going towards owning phones outside of contracts because they'll only change them when they die, break or are at least 5 years old.
 
2012-09-25 03:16:00 AM

farkeruk: Even things like faster processors are irrelevant because most of the heavy lifting for phones is being done on servers.


They are absolutely relevant on phones.

Audio editing, Video editing. Photo editing.
 
2012-09-25 05:32:38 AM

BullBearMS:

Are you claiming it's impossible to walk from point A to point B?


Nope, but it is an overall shorter walking distance because the ferry carries you most of the way.
 
kab
2012-09-25 03:57:04 PM

balki1867: The iPhone 4 was my first iPhone and I'm perfectly happy with it. I guess I'll upgrade at some point if my contract is up but really I'm in no rush.

Is there something wrong with me?


I've had 2 iphones now, the 3 and 4. My contract ended on the 4 recently, and I simply downgraded to a monthly pre-paid card, only losing 3g access in the process. I'll simply use it in this fashion until it stops working at this point.

Were I to go back in time, I wouldn't have bothered to begin with. The smartphone is sort of neat, but the yearly cost of ownership makes it a complete waste of money for me. I don't have any pressing need for net access at every waking moment, and any of it's other capabilities are already covered by other, better products.

YMMV
 
kab
2012-09-25 03:58:22 PM

BullBearMS:
Audio editing, Video editing. Photo editing.


What are... 3 things I wouldn't bother doing on a phone, Alex.
 
2012-09-26 09:42:51 AM

BullBearMS: What part of walking directions do you not understand?


What part of "Walking directions (beta): use caution" is tripping you up?
 
Displayed 23 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report