Discussion:
Compare Google Pixel & Pixel XL to the iPhone 7 by specifications only
(too old to reply)
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 03:37:39 UTC
Permalink
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.

Here is the Google Pixel XL spec:
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_xl-8345.php

Here is the corresponding iPhone 7 spec:
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php

Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...

1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7

Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel XL is
arguably far better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.

Looking up the price for a 32GB version of each:
Pixel XL = $769
iPhone 7 = $650

Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 03:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
Here is the Google Pixel spec:
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel-8346.php

Here is the corresponding iPhone 7 spec:
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php

Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...

1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel screen size (5.0") is slightly larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel has much greater resolution & pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel than on the iPhone 7
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is almost double for the Pixel over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is almost 3 times that of the iPhone 7

Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel is
arguably better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.

Looking up the price for a 32GB version of each:
Pixel = $650
iPhone 7 = $650
Rod Speed
2016-10-07 04:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel-8346.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php
Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...
1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel screen size (5.0") is slightly larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel has much greater resolution & pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel than on the iPhone 7
But apple doesn’t allow apps to access that which is better for
security but may not be as good if you don’t care about security.
Post by Algeria Horan
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is almost double for the Pixel over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is almost 3 times that of the iPhone 7
Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel is
arguably better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.
Pixel = $650
iPhone 7 = $650
That's a bit low end IMO.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 18:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel than on the iPhone 7
But apple doesn¢t allow apps to access that which is better for
security but may not be as good if you don¢t care about security.
I have never understood NFC, simply because I have it on my S3 and I've
never had a need to even *care* about NFC.

So, since I'm ignorant of NFC, I only read the spec as something like "the
pixel can do everything with NFC while the iPhone 7 can only do some things
with NFC".

I guess what you're saying is that this is true, but because of the Apple
limitations, then NFC "security" is better.

If that's the case, neither is better; they're just different where Apple
(as usual) is more restrictive and Google (as usual) is more open.
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel = $650
iPhone 7 = $650
That's a bit low end IMO.
I don't understand that comment since I googled for the price and it seems
that the Google Pixel price is exactly the same as the Apple iPhone 7
price, which, I'm sure, is no coincidence.

Did I get the prices wrong?
What are the correct prices for a 32GB version of each phone?
nospam
2016-10-07 19:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
I have never understood NFC, simply because I have it on my S3 and I've
never had a need to even *care* about NFC.
you have never understood a lot of things.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 22:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
I have never understood NFC, simply because I have it on my S3 and I've
never had a need to even *care* about NFC.
you have never understood a lot of things.
You're so predictable, when I wrote that, I was thinking that this would be
*exactly* what you'd say.

You do realize it adds zero value and everyone else has to wade through
your pissing on me and me rebutting that pissing contest, right?

It would be best if you just stick to the facts, e.g., list the LTE bands
that are so important that the Pixel is missing that the iPhone 7 has, for
example.

Then everyone would benefit from the conversation.
nospam
2016-10-07 22:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
You do realize it adds zero value and everyone else has to wade through
your pissing on me and me rebutting that pissing contest, right?
more accurately, they piss on you too and you fail to rebut *anything*.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
You do realize it adds zero value and everyone else has to wade through
your pissing on me and me rebutting that pissing contest, right?
more accurately, they piss on you too and you fail to rebut *anything*.
:)
Lewis
2016-10-07 23:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
You do realize it adds zero value and everyone else has to wade through
your pissing on me and me rebutting that pissing contest, right?
Rebutting? You're going to be rebutting? When are you planning on
starting? Won't that interfere with your constant trolling?
--
On nights such as this, evil deeds are done. And good deeds, of course.
But mostly evil deeds. --Wyrd Sisters
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Rebutting? You're going to be rebutting?
Your lack of grasp of the English language is always startling.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 21:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
I have never understood NFC, simply because I have it on my S3 and I've
never had a need to even *care* about NFC.
you have never understood a lot of things.
You're so predictable, when I wrote that, I was thinking that this would be
*exactly* what you'd say.
Corse there is nothing predictable about your pathetic excuse for trolls, eh
?
Post by Algeria Horan
You do realize it adds zero value and everyone else has to wade through
your pissing on me and me rebutting that pissing contest, right?
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
Post by Algeria Horan
It would be best if you just stick to the facts, e.g., list the LTE bands
that are
so important that the Pixel is missing that the iPhone 7 has, for example.
Corse always do that with your pathetic excuse for trolls about MARKETING eh
?
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 19:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel than on the iPhone 7
But apple doesn't allow apps to access that which is better for
security but may not be as good if you don¢t care about security.
I have never understood NFC, simply because I have it on
my S3 and I've never had a need to even *care* about NFC.
Because you are a dinosaur that is too stupid to use cards, let alone the
modern incarnation of them, Apple Pay, Android Pay and Samsung Pay.
Post by Algeria Horan
So, since I'm ignorant of NFC, I only read the spec as something
like "the pixel can do everything with NFC while the iPhone 7
can only do some things with NFC".
Yes, apps on iOS devices can't use NFC, only iOS can do that.
Post by Algeria Horan
I guess what you're saying is that this is true, but because
of the Apple limitations, then NFC "security" is better.
Yes, no malicious app can use the NFC on an iOS device.
Post by Algeria Horan
If that's the case, neither is better;
That is just plain wrong if you care about security.
Post by Algeria Horan
they're just different where Apple (as usual) is more
restrictive and Google (as usual) is more open.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel = $650
iPhone 7 = $650
That's a bit low end IMO.
I don't understand that comment since I googled for the price
and it seems that the Google Pixel price is exactly the same as
the Apple iPhone 7 price, which, I'm sure, is no coincidence.
I meant that 32GB versions of phones is very low end now.
Post by Algeria Horan
Did I get the prices wrong?
Nope.
Post by Algeria Horan
What are the correct prices for a 32GB version of each phone?
The problem wasn’t with the price, its which model you
priced, the lowest GB version.
nospam
2016-10-07 05:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...
1. Network technology is the same.
nope.

the iphone 7 (and 6s for that matter) has more lte bands, which means
better coverage and wider carrier support.
Post by Algeria Horan
2. SIM cards are the same
so what?

nobody buys a phone based on the size of the sim card.
Post by Algeria Horan
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
as usual, you're intentionally comparing different products to skew
your 'comparison'.

the pixel xl is comparable to the iphone 7+ *not* the smaller iphone 7,
which compares with the regular pixel.
Post by Algeria Horan
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
it's a little bit higher than the iphone 7+, but not anything human
eyes can see so it doesn't actually matter in the real world.

it's just more pixels to move around (which increases memory demands).
Post by Algeria Horan
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
fuck no. not even close.

the iphone 7/7+ processor, which by the way, is *not* a quad core but
rather a dual dual core, blows away the pixel. even last year's iphone
6s is faster.

<http://bgr.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7-vs-pixel-benchmarks/>
Geekbench 4 scores that just hit the web confirm as much ‹ Google¹s
Pixels score a 1580 on the single-core test and about 4100 on the
multi-core test, while Apple¹s latest iPhones score 3430 and about
5600.

geekbench rates the iphone 7 at *double* the performance on single core
and about 50% faster on multicore. double!! with half the cores!

<http://www.redmondpie.com/google-pixel-pixel-xl-vs-apple-iphone-7-7-plu
s-benchmarks-comparison/>
Early benchmarks from Geekbench 4 suggests that Apple¹s iPhone 7 and
iPhone 7 Plus easily beat the Pixel phones by Google on both single
and multi-core tests, with even older Apple hardware like the iPhone
SE and iPhone 6s outperforming the yet-to-be-released Google devices.

even *last* *year's* iphone 6s beats the pixel!!

as for memory, android has a higher memory overhead. it *needs* the
extra memory.

not only that, but the iphone 7+ has 3 gig (versus 4 gig in the pixel,
just ~30% more), mostly for the dual-lens camera which the pixel does
not have.
Post by Algeria Horan
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
let's not, because the cameras are not even.

the pixel lacks optical image stabilization, has a slower lens and for
the iphone 7+, does not have a dual lens with optical zoom and portrait
mode.

they're both good cameras, but not 'even'.
Post by Algeria Horan
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
who cares. most people never use either one.

wireless is where it's at.
Post by Algeria Horan
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
wrong.

iphones have had wifi direct for *years*, the very feature you keep
insisting is not needed because you prefer the much slower bluetooth.
Post by Algeria Horan
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
first valid thing you've said so far.
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
also true. nfc on android is a bit more flexible.
Post by Algeria Horan
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
that doesn't mean much of anything in the real world because flash
memory is the limiting factor.
Post by Algeria Horan
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
you're once again comparing a larger pixel xl with the smaller iphone 7.

i'm quite sure you're doing that intentionally to skew your supposed
'comparison'.

either compare the pixel with the iphone 7 or the pixel xl with the
iphone 7+.
Post by Algeria Horan
Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel XL is
arguably far better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.
it's an invalid comparison.

they're both good phones, which are priced exactly the same.

so much for android being cheaper.
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel XL = $769
iPhone 7 = $650
you're so disingenuous that you even artificially inflated the iphone
price by a buck.

here's the price comparison:

iphone 7+ 32 gig: $769
pixel xl 32 gig: $769
128 gig version, add $100

pixel 32 gig: $649
iphone 7 32 gig: $649
128 gig version, add $100

they're *exactly* the same.

also note that the iphone offers 256 gig for an additional $100 over
the 128 gig, while the pixel does not offer 256 gig at all, no matter
how much you want to pay.
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
that's what you should have done in the first place.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 18:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
1. Network technology is the same.
nope.
the iphone 7 (and 6s for that matter) has more lte bands, which means
better coverage and wider carrier support.
What you say doesn't show up in the gsmarena specs, but, sometimes what you
say is actually true (although you never back up what you say, and, 90% of
the time, your wrong - so I'm forced to ask you for clarification).

The Pixel is chock full of LTE bands so, I must ask you *which* bands
specifically you feel are *important* for a USA customer of either phone
that the iPhone 7 has that the Pixel does not have?
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
2. SIM cards are the same
so what?
nobody buys a phone based on the size of the sim card.
Fair enough.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
as usual, you're intentionally comparing different products to skew
your 'comparison'.
the pixel xl is comparable to the iphone 7+ *not* the smaller iphone 7,
which compares with the regular pixel.
Read the title of the thread.
The goal was to compare both of the Pixel phones to the iPhone 7.

If *you* want to compare the iPhone 7+ to the phones, you're welcome to do
so but that doesn't make *this* comparison any different.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
it's a little bit higher than the iphone 7+, but not anything human
eyes can see so it doesn't actually matter in the real world.
it's just more pixels to move around (which increases memory demands).
Fair enough. I'm sure *both* displays are just fine.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
fuck no. not even close.
the iphone 7/7+ processor, which by the way, is *not* a quad core but
rather a dual dual core, blows away the pixel. even last year's iphone
6s is faster.
<http://bgr.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7-vs-pixel-benchmarks/>
Geekbench 4 scores that just hit the web confirm as much ‹ Google¹s
Pixels score a 1580 on the single-core test and about 4100 on the
multi-core test, while Apple¹s latest iPhones score 3430 and about
5600.
geekbench rates the iphone 7 at *double* the performance on single core
and about 50% faster on multicore. double!! with half the cores!
This is interesting information.
You will note that there was a benchmark score on the gsmarena Apple iPhone
7 page, but there was no corresponding score on the Pixel, so I was forced
to drop that comparison for lack of data (since I was only comparing the
two GSMarena spec pages).
Post by nospam
<http://www.redmondpie.com/google-pixel-pixel-xl-vs-apple-iphone-7-7-plu
s-benchmarks-comparison/>
Early benchmarks from Geekbench 4 suggests that Apple¹s iPhone 7 and
iPhone 7 Plus easily beat the Pixel phones by Google on both single
and multi-core tests, with even older Apple hardware like the iPhone
SE and iPhone 6s outperforming the yet-to-be-released Google devices.
even *last* *year's* iphone 6s beats the pixel!!
as for memory, android has a higher memory overhead. it *needs* the
extra memory.
not only that, but the iphone 7+ has 3 gig (versus 4 gig in the pixel,
just ~30% more), mostly for the dual-lens camera which the pixel does
not have.
This is good information.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
let's not, because the cameras are not even.
the pixel lacks optical image stabilization, has a slower lens and for
the iphone 7+, does not have a dual lens with optical zoom and portrait
mode.
they're both good cameras, but not 'even'.
Fair enough. I think both cameras are fine.

One side note is that Google MARKETING is *advertising* the camera as "the
best smartphone camera ever", so, we will probably see Apple MARKETING
respond accordingly (where Apple has the best marketing in the world!).

Google claims the Pixel has the 'best smartphone camera ever'
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/04/googles-pixel-has-the-best-smartphone-camera-rating-ever/

Of course, the clickbait has followed suit:
5 reasons why the Pixel may have the best smartphone camera ever
http://www.greenbot.com/article/3127150/android/5-reasons-why-the-pixel-may-have-the-best-smartphone-camera-ever.html

Given this is a contentious argument that is out of my league (and given I
don't give a hoot about cameras since I own a real one), I will stay out of
the fray by saying the cameras are essentially equivalent.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
who cares. most people never use either one.
wireless is where it's at.
A lot of people care, and "I" care, so, that's why the jack is there.
I think Apple will *eventually* crumble due to their dictator-like
autocratic decisions which they can only MARKET as "courageous".

Well, Josef Stalin was courageous. So was Sheikh Hasina. Apple is more like
Kim Jong-il in that they are a "dynasty" where Tim Cook is just a
figurehead where the real power is APPLE MARKETING.

I don't think the Apple dictatorship will crumble in the next five years,
but, with Google seemingly going directly for the jugular, APPLE MARKETING
can only keep up the charade for so long. How long? Dunno. Ten years?
I don't think Apple will crumble in less than five years. So, mark my words
on ten years and we'll just have to discuss that comment in the future.

Point is that APPLE MARKETING can only carry the company for so long. At
some point, someone else will COPY the MARKETING MOVES by Apple. Google is
clearly doing that here with the Pixel, even down to the price.

So I wouldn't put it past Google themselves to remove the headphone jack,
and pass the lost functionality on to the consumer as a "courageous"
marketing move.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
wrong.
iphones have had wifi direct for *years*, the very feature you keep
insisting is not needed because you prefer the much slower bluetooth.
Huh? Who said anything about bluetooth in that spec? Now you're just
complaining with a total lack of merit.

The WiFi is essentially the same, with the Pixels being "slightly better"
in that they have Wi-Fi Direct and DLNA whereas the iPhone 7 doesn't list
that.

It is a big deal?
Probably not.

But it *is* slightly better on the Pixels.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
first valid thing you've said so far.
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
also true. nfc on android is a bit more flexible.
Actually, Rod Speed countered that the NFC on Android, while more flexible,
is perhaps less secure.

So I'd call the NFC a wash, overall in that:
a. Apparently NFC on the iPhone 7 is less flexible but more secure
b. Apparently NFC on the Pixels is more flexible but perhaps less secure

It's a wash, overall, but either one is slightly better than the other
depending on if you're scared or if you want flexibility.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
that doesn't mean much of anything in the real world because flash
memory is the limiting factor.
Fair enough. What I *love* about USB 3.0 is the bi-directional connector,
which, as we all know, Apple pioneered.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
you're once again comparing a larger pixel xl with the smaller iphone 7.
i'm quite sure you're doing that intentionally to skew your supposed
'comparison'.
either compare the pixel with the iphone 7 or the pixel xl with the
iphone 7+.
The talk time is slightly more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone
7, and slightly less than double for the Pixel over the iPhone 7, so, we
can "summarize" that as both Pixels are about double the talk time as the
iPhone 7. This is a big deal from a battery standpoint.

Similarly, the music-play time is slightly more than three times for the
Pixel XL and slightly less than three times for the Pixel, so, again, we
can "summarize" that as about three times more.

This is a big deal if battery life is important to the user.
The huge battery life difference is not as meaningful if battery life isn't
important to the user.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel XL is
arguably far better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.
it's an invalid comparison.
they're both good phones, which are priced exactly the same.
so much for android being cheaper.
I *knew* you'd say that last comment, and I'd *agree* with you.
Of course, I can find *plenty* of cheaper Android phones, but I don't look
at price first. I look at *performance* first, and, essentially, the Pixel
line of phones is apparently designed to complete on *performance* with the
iPhone 7 line of phones.

After looking at these specs, and then, at the end, looking up the price,
it seems that these two lines of phones are direct 1:1 competitors on
price:performance.

This means, (to me), Apple will eventually crumble.

Why I say such a remarkable thing is that up until now, Apple has been able
to maintain artificially high prices based purely on hugely successful
MARKETING campaigns.

Up until now, almost nobody could claim the hardware margins that Apple
claims, and, as you yourself said, Google sold many of its phones at a
*loss*.

Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple MARKETING
(almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios), what happens
*next* is a matter of conjecture - but - I feel Apple must fail "if" Google
wins.

I don't see into the future, so I can see one of two scenarios:
a. Google wins big with these phones, or,
b. Nobody buys them.

If nobody buys them, nothing changes for Apple, since Apple isn't in the
market for low price:performance ratios.

However, if these Pixel phones sell, then that means that Apple no longer
can maintain the sole spot in the lousy price:performance ratios (for the
consumer).

I personally would *never* buy a Pixel simply because the price:performance
sucks as bad as it does for an iPhone 7 (that isn't free anyway).

But, if *other* people buy the Pixel line of phones, then what happens is
that Apples market share in the lousy price:performance category is eroded,
and, since there are too many other competitors out there who would love to
be in that niche, Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.

However, I don't actually think many Android people will be dumb enough to
pay that much for the performance of the Google Pixel phones.

Lord knows there are plenty of Apple aficionados who pay that much for so
little of a price:performance ratio; but the question at hand is whether
Android users will be that dumb.

Personally, I don't think so.
That means Apple is safe for now.

However, if there are a lot of dumb Android users out there, then Apple is
doomed.

It all depends on who is willing to pay for a lousy price:performance ratio
on a very good phone.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel XL = $769
iPhone 7 = $650
you're so disingenuous that you even artificially inflated the iphone
price by a buck.
Thanks for catching that. I was cutting and pasting but the Apple site
wouldn't cut and paste so I typed it.

You're correct that I was off by a buck for the 32GB version:
Pixel XL $770
iPhone 7 $650

Plus tax.
Post by nospam
iphone 7+ 32 gig: $769
pixel xl 32 gig: $769
128 gig version, add $100
pixel 32 gig: $649
iphone 7 32 gig: $649
128 gig version, add $100
they're *exactly* the same.
This is the most obvious point, which is that the Google Pixel line of
phones is *designed* to compete directly, 1:1, on Price:Performance, to the
Apple iPhone 7 line of phones.

If this gamble works, it will spell the beginning of the end for the Apple
dictatorship; if this gamble fails, nothing will change.

So everything depends (IMHO) on whether Android users are dumb enough to
pay that much for a good phone.
Post by nospam
also note that the iphone offers 256 gig for an additional $100 over
the 128 gig, while the pixel does not offer 256 gig at all, no matter
how much you want to pay.
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
that's what you should have done in the first place.
Your idea of comparing the iPhone 7 to the Pixel and the iPhone 7+ to the
Pixel XL makes a lot of sense; but I had not known ahead of time that they
would be essentially mirror equivalents in so many specs and in the price.

Remember, I always look at price *last* and I have to take the assemblage
of specs as a whole, so, were I to start this thread over, I would compare,
as you did:

iPhone 7 to Pixel
iPhone 7+ to Pixel XL

BTW, I think this Google gamble will fail in that Android users aren't so
dumb as to pay that much for a good phone but if this gamble wins, then
Apple is doomed since this lousy Price:Performance point is *their*
fundamental market, and if Google can play in Apple's pond, so can everyone
else.
nospam
2016-10-07 19:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
1. Network technology is the same.
nope.
the iphone 7 (and 6s for that matter) has more lte bands, which means
better coverage and wider carrier support.
What you say doesn't show up in the gsmarena specs,
it shows up in google and apple's specs, which are the only specs that
matter.
Post by Algeria Horan
but, sometimes what you
say is actually true (although you never back up what you say, and, 90% of
the time, your wrong - so I'm forced to ask you for clarification).
unlike *you*, i always back up what i say, you lying sack of shit.
Post by Algeria Horan
The Pixel is chock full of LTE bands so, I must ask you *which* bands
specifically you feel are *important* for a USA customer of either phone
that the iPhone 7 has that the Pixel does not have?
the usa isn't the only place the phones are sold.

it might not matter for some people but it *will* matter for other
people.

they are not 'the same'.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
2. SIM cards are the same
so what?
nobody buys a phone based on the size of the sim card.
Fair enough.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
as usual, you're intentionally comparing different products to skew
your 'comparison'.
the pixel xl is comparable to the iphone 7+ *not* the smaller iphone 7,
which compares with the regular pixel.
Read the title of the thread.
The goal was to compare both of the Pixel phones to the iPhone 7.
except that's not what you did.
Post by Algeria Horan
If *you* want to compare the iPhone 7+ to the phones, you're welcome to do
so but that doesn't make *this* comparison any different.
it makes your comparison bogus.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
it's a little bit higher than the iphone 7+, but not anything human
eyes can see so it doesn't actually matter in the real world.
it's just more pixels to move around (which increases memory demands).
Fair enough. I'm sure *both* displays are just fine.
they are.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
fuck no. not even close.
the iphone 7/7+ processor, which by the way, is *not* a quad core but
rather a dual dual core, blows away the pixel. even last year's iphone
6s is faster.
<http://bgr.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7-vs-pixel-benchmarks/>
Geekbench 4 scores that just hit the web confirm as much ‹ Google¹s
Pixels score a 1580 on the single-core test and about 4100 on the
multi-core test, while Apple¹s latest iPhones score 3430 and about
5600.
geekbench rates the iphone 7 at *double* the performance on single core
and about 50% faster on multicore. double!! with half the cores!
This is interesting information.
so interesting that it blows your claim to bits.
Post by Algeria Horan
You will note that there was a benchmark score on the gsmarena Apple iPhone
7 page, but there was no corresponding score on the Pixel, so I was forced
to drop that comparison for lack of data (since I was only comparing the
two GSMarena spec pages).
in other words, you fabricated that the pixel is faster.

so much for you backing up what you say.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
<http://www.redmondpie.com/google-pixel-pixel-xl-vs-apple-iphone-7-7-plu
s-benchmarks-comparison/>
Early benchmarks from Geekbench 4 suggests that Apple¹s iPhone 7 and
iPhone 7 Plus easily beat the Pixel phones by Google on both single
and multi-core tests, with even older Apple hardware like the iPhone
SE and iPhone 6s outperforming the yet-to-be-released Google devices.
even *last* *year's* iphone 6s beats the pixel!!
as for memory, android has a higher memory overhead. it *needs* the
extra memory.
not only that, but the iphone 7+ has 3 gig (versus 4 gig in the pixel,
just ~30% more), mostly for the dual-lens camera which the pixel does
not have.
This is good information.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
let's not, because the cameras are not even.
the pixel lacks optical image stabilization, has a slower lens and for
the iphone 7+, does not have a dual lens with optical zoom and portrait
mode.
they're both good cameras, but not 'even'.
Fair enough. I think both cameras are fine.
One side note is that Google MARKETING is *advertising* the camera as "the
best smartphone camera ever", so, we will probably see Apple MARKETING
respond accordingly (where Apple has the best marketing in the world!).
of course they're going to claim that. do you really think they're
going to say "we're almost as good as the iphone" ??

their claim is also based on a single metric from a company they paid
off to report it that way and one which has questionable evaluations
(see dpreview for *lots* of issues).

not only that, but there's only one way dxo could have received a
camera to evaluate which was not announced, and that's directly from
google, who obviously would have tweaked it to score high on
benchmarks.
Post by Algeria Horan
Google claims the Pixel has the 'best smartphone camera ever'
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/04/googles-pixel-has-the-best-smartphone-came
ra-rating-ever/
5 reasons why the Pixel may have the best smartphone camera ever
http://www.greenbot.com/article/3127150/android/5-reasons-why-the-pixel-may-ha
ve-the-best-smartphone-camera-ever.html
Given this is a contentious argument that is out of my league (and given I
don't give a hoot about cameras since I own a real one), I will stay out of
the fray by saying the cameras are essentially equivalent.
they aren't.

the pixel camera lacks optical image stabilization and the dual-lens
camera in the 7+. the pixel's lens is also slower, but only by about a
half-stop, which isn't *that* much.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
who cares. most people never use either one.
wireless is where it's at.
A lot of people care, and "I" care, so, that's why the jack is there.
I think Apple will *eventually* crumble due to their dictator-like
autocratic decisions which they can only MARKET as "courageous".
nonsense.

not only will apple *not* crumble, but most other phones will follow
suit by dropping the outdated and aging analog headphone jack.

the industry is moving towards wireless, making that jack no longer
needed (plus it's redundant with lightning or usb-c).

also note that apple is *not* the first to drop the analog headphone
jack either, but it was actually *android* who first dropped it.

already, there are several android phones without an analog headphone
jack, including the moto z.
Post by Algeria Horan
Well, Josef Stalin was courageous. So was Sheikh Hasina. Apple is more like
Kim Jong-il in that they are a "dynasty" where Tim Cook is just a
figurehead where the real power is APPLE MARKETING.
I don't think the Apple dictatorship will crumble in the next five years,
but, with Google seemingly going directly for the jugular, APPLE MARKETING
can only keep up the charade for so long. How long? Dunno. Ten years?
I don't think Apple will crumble in less than five years. So, mark my words
on ten years and we'll just have to discuss that comment in the future.
Point is that APPLE MARKETING can only carry the company for so long. At
some point, someone else will COPY the MARKETING MOVES by Apple. Google is
clearly doing that here with the Pixel, even down to the price.
So I wouldn't put it past Google themselves to remove the headphone jack,
and pass the lost functionality on to the consumer as a "courageous"
marketing move.
it's *already* happening.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
wrong.
iphones have had wifi direct for *years*, the very feature you keep
insisting is not needed because you prefer the much slower bluetooth.
Huh? Who said anything about bluetooth in that spec? Now you're just
complaining with a total lack of merit.
you've consistently ranted that bluetooth file transfer is *very*
important while ignoring the much better wifi direct (aka airdrop).

now you babble that wifi direct is important, oblivious to the fact
that iphones have had it for years, a feature which you refuse to even
use and go on to criticize as being part of a walled garden.

not only are you a hypocrite, but an idiot.
Post by Algeria Horan
The WiFi is essentially the same, with the Pixels being "slightly better"
in that they have Wi-Fi Direct and DLNA whereas the iPhone 7 doesn't list
that.
iphones have had wifi direct long before the pixel was even an *idea*,
let alone a shipping product and dlna is not a hardware feature, and
something that's available from shitloads of apps.
Post by Algeria Horan
It is a big deal?
Probably not.
But it *is* slightly better on the Pixels.
wrong.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
first valid thing you've said so far.
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
also true. nfc on android is a bit more flexible.
Actually, Rod Speed countered that the NFC on Android, while more flexible,
is perhaps less secure.
a. Apparently NFC on the iPhone 7 is less flexible but more secure
b. Apparently NFC on the Pixels is more flexible but perhaps less secure
It's a wash, overall, but either one is slightly better than the other
depending on if you're scared or if you want flexibility.
nfc on android offers the ability to tap-transfer (which you refuse to
use because you're obsessed with outdated bluetooth) as well as nfc
tags.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
that doesn't mean much of anything in the real world because flash
memory is the limiting factor.
Fair enough. What I *love* about USB 3.0 is the bi-directional connector,
which, as we all know, Apple pioneered.
usb 3 does not have reversibility. usb 3 is just faster, with bigger
and less convenient plugs, notably micro usb 3.

usb-c, however, is reversible, but might still only support usb 2 (or
might support thunderbolt 3).

if reversibility is all that matters, iphones have had that since the
iphone 5 in 2012 with the lightning connector.

apple is also why usb-c is reversible, as they're part of the group who
came up with the standard.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
you're once again comparing a larger pixel xl with the smaller iphone 7.
i'm quite sure you're doing that intentionally to skew your supposed
'comparison'.
either compare the pixel with the iphone 7 or the pixel xl with the
iphone 7+.
The talk time is slightly more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone
7,
that's because the xl is a much bigger phone than the iphone 7 and has
a much bigger battery.

the iphone 7+ has better battery life than the iphone 7.

once again, if you're going to use the xl, then compare it with the
larger iphone 7+.

here's a comparison from the specs;

video playback on *both* is 14 hours.
internet use for the iphone 7+ is 13 hours for 3g/lte and 15 for wifi,
versus 14 hours on the pixel xl (either way). close enough to be
considered equivalent.
talk time is 16 hours for the iphone 7+ and 23 hours for the pixel.

while 23 hours talk time is longer, it also doesn't matter since nobody
talks for 23 hours straight (or even 16 hours straight). all that
matters is that the phone lasts for the entire day, after which it can
be charged at night.

both phones do that.

also, actual real world use will be a combination of standby, talk,
internet and media playback.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel XL is
arguably far better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.
it's an invalid comparison.
they're both good phones, which are priced exactly the same.
so much for android being cheaper.
I *knew* you'd say that last comment, and I'd *agree* with you.
Of course, I can find *plenty* of cheaper Android phones, but I don't look
at price first. I look at *performance* first, and, essentially, the Pixel
line of phones is apparently designed to complete on *performance* with the
iPhone 7 line of phones.
there are plenty of cheaper android phones but they have lesser specs
(or are subsidized). that's why they're cheaper.

google has done away with the subsidized business model (it failed), so
now you're paying market price.
Post by Algeria Horan
After looking at these specs, and then, at the end, looking up the price,
it seems that these two lines of phones are direct 1:1 competitors on
price:performance.
This means, (to me), Apple will eventually crumble.
no.
Post by Algeria Horan
Why I say such a remarkable thing is that up until now, Apple has been able
to maintain artificially high prices based purely on hugely successful
MARKETING campaigns.
no.
Post by Algeria Horan
Up until now, almost nobody could claim the hardware margins that Apple
claims, and, as you yourself said, Google sold many of its phones at a
*loss*.
plenty of people could and did, notably samsung, who has phones that
sell for *more* than iphones do.
Post by Algeria Horan
Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple MARKETING
(almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios), what happens
*next* is a matter of conjecture - but - I feel Apple must fail "if" Google
wins.
a. Google wins big with these phones, or,
b. Nobody buys them.
If nobody buys them, nothing changes for Apple, since Apple isn't in the
market for low price:performance ratios.
However, if these Pixel phones sell, then that means that Apple no longer
can maintain the sole spot in the lousy price:performance ratios (for the
consumer).
I personally would *never* buy a Pixel simply because the price:performance
sucks as bad as it does for an iPhone 7 (that isn't free anyway).
But, if *other* people buy the Pixel line of phones, then what happens is
that Apples market share in the lousy price:performance category is eroded,
and, since there are too many other competitors out there who would love to
be in that niche, Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
However, I don't actually think many Android people will be dumb enough to
pay that much for the performance of the Google Pixel phones.
Lord knows there are plenty of Apple aficionados who pay that much for so
little of a price:performance ratio; but the question at hand is whether
Android users will be that dumb.
Personally, I don't think so.
That means Apple is safe for now.
However, if there are a lot of dumb Android users out there, then Apple is
doomed.
It all depends on who is willing to pay for a lousy price:performance ratio
on a very good phone.
more idiocy.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel XL = $769
iPhone 7 = $650
you're so disingenuous that you even artificially inflated the iphone
price by a buck.
Thanks for catching that. I was cutting and pasting but the Apple site
wouldn't cut and paste so I typed it.
nonsense, but even if you did have to resort to typing, you fucked that
up too.
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel XL $770
iPhone 7 $650
Plus tax.
only for states that charge tax. not all do.

and some people choose the installment plan and there are also the
usual carrier 'deals'.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
iphone 7+ 32 gig: $769
pixel xl 32 gig: $769
128 gig version, add $100
pixel 32 gig: $649
iphone 7 32 gig: $649
128 gig version, add $100
they're *exactly* the same.
This is the most obvious point, which is that the Google Pixel line of
phones is *designed* to compete directly, 1:1, on Price:Performance, to the
Apple iPhone 7 line of phones.
If this gamble works, it will spell the beginning of the end for the Apple
dictatorship; if this gamble fails, nothing will change.
So everything depends (IMHO) on whether Android users are dumb enough to
pay that much for a good phone.
nonsense
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
also note that the iphone offers 256 gig for an additional $100 over
the 128 gig, while the pixel does not offer 256 gig at all, no matter
how much you want to pay.
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
that's what you should have done in the first place.
Your idea of comparing the iPhone 7 to the Pixel and the iPhone 7+ to the
Pixel XL makes a lot of sense; but I had not known ahead of time that they
would be essentially mirror equivalents in so many specs and in the price.
Remember, I always look at price *last* and I have to take the assemblage
of specs as a whole, so, were I to start this thread over, I would compare,
iPhone 7 to Pixel
iPhone 7+ to Pixel XL
BTW, I think this Google gamble will fail in that Android users aren't so
dumb as to pay that much for a good phone but if this gamble wins, then
Apple is doomed since this lousy Price:Performance point is *their*
fundamental market, and if Google can play in Apple's pond, so can everyone
else.
nonsense.
AL
2016-10-07 22:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
But, if *other* people buy the Pixel line of phones, then what happens is
that Apples market share in the lousy price:performance category is eroded,
To most Apple users price/performance is Greek. If their phones do what
they want, they're happy. And IMO they will stick with what they're
comfortable using over buying something strange at about the same price.
I doubt Apple has much to worry about from the Pixel.
Post by Algeria Horan
and, since there are too many other competitors out there who would love to
be in that niche,
But Android users who likewise might not want to change to a new system
but want to step up a bit, may go for the Pixel. IMO Samsung may be the
bigger loser in this race, especially with the recent troubles.
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
Perhaps. Apple almost went broke once before. One never knows what the
market will do. Think Palm Pilot and BlackBerry...
nospam
2016-10-07 23:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
But, if *other* people buy the Pixel line of phones, then what happens is
that Apples market share in the lousy price:performance category is eroded,
To most Apple users price/performance is Greek.
nonsense.
Post by AL
If their phones do what
they want, they're happy. And IMO they will stick with what they're
comfortable using over buying something strange at about the same price.
that applies to every product.
Post by AL
I doubt Apple has much to worry about from the Pixel.
they don't.
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
and, since there are too many other competitors out there who would love to
be in that niche,
But Android users who likewise might not want to change to a new system
but want to step up a bit, may go for the Pixel. IMO Samsung may be the
bigger loser in this race, especially with the recent troubles.
maybe.
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
Perhaps. Apple almost went broke once before. One never knows what the
market will do. Think Palm Pilot and BlackBerry...
that was a totally different era, when apple was grossly mismanaged.

it's a very, very different company now.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
Perhaps. Apple almost went broke once before. One never knows what the
market will do. Think Palm Pilot and BlackBerry...
that was a totally different era, when apple was grossly mismanaged.
it's a very, very different company now.
I would never have predicted that Apple could sustain the huge profit
margins that it does sustain, but, you have to understand that the extremly
low (actually dismal) price:performance ratio is what makes Apple one of
the most profitable companies on this planet.

I always give credit where credit is due, so I applaud Apple MARKETING for
maintaining those artificially high profit margins on dismally low
price:performance ratios, and as you know, I have always argued on high
price:performance metrics (which is why I almost always buy Android
equipment that is roughly around half the price of "essentially equivalent"
Apple equipment for my needs.

What's *different* now, is that Google seems to be *matching* that dismally
low price:performance ratio, spec by spec, and even down to the very last
dollar (as you so clearly pointed out to me prior).

What that means is that the game has changed *if*.

If Google is successful, then the game for Apple has suddenly changed.
If Google fails at the Pixels, then, perhaps the game for Apple is still
playing well for them.

It all depends on whether Android customers will stoop to the level of
horrendous price:performance metrics.

I don't know the answer to that question.

All I know is that I would never pay that much for such a phone when I can
get a phone that is just as good (for the specs I care about) for far less
I'm sure.

For example, I care about a dual sim, and I care about an expansion slot
and I care about a removable battery and I care about the GSM frequencies
in my area and I care about having as much RAM as I can get and I won't
ever get a phone with less than 32GB of storage and I care about the
fastest CPU and GPU I can get, and I care about having Bluetooth file
transfer, and I care about Wi-Fi performance and features, etc., all at the
same time.

What I don't care about is the color of the phone (for heaven's sake!), or
the meaningless NFC specs, or the lousy camera lens that is in all
smartphones, etc.

Given that, I'm sure I can find a far better price:performance phone than
either the iPhone7 or the Pixel; so that's what I'll endeavor to do next
(but it's not the first thing on my agenda, so that may take time).

If Android users have a good suggestion for an Android or Apple phone that
is better in price:performance for the specs that matter, let me know.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
For example, I care about a dual sim, and I care about an expansion slot
and I care about a removable battery and I care about the GSM frequencies
in my area and I care about having as much RAM as I can get and I won't
ever get a phone with less than 32GB of storage and I care about the
fastest CPU and GPU I can get, and I care about having Bluetooth file
transfer, and I care about Wi-Fi performance and features, etc., all at the
same time.
What I don't care about is the color of the phone (for heaven's sake!), or
the meaningless NFC specs, or the lousy camera lens that is in all
smartphones, etc.
Correction, 16GB of storage is the bare minimum for me (with 32GB expansion
being the minimum).
nospam
2016-10-07 23:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
Perhaps. Apple almost went broke once before. One never knows what the
market will do. Think Palm Pilot and BlackBerry...
that was a totally different era, when apple was grossly mismanaged.
it's a very, very different company now.
I would never have predicted that Apple could sustain the huge profit
margins that it does sustain, but, you have to understand that the extremly
low (actually dismal) price:performance ratio is what makes Apple one of
the most profitable companies on this planet.
nonsense.

apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.

if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
nonsense.
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
Heh heh ... you *completely* misconstrued my words.

I never said that Apple phones lacked "performance", just as I never said
the Pixel phones lack *performance*.

What I said, very clearly, was that the price:performance ratio is dismally
low.

Apple phones are fantastic if you can get them for free.
They're even a great deal if you can get them for the price of sales tax.
Same with the Pixel phones.

They're all high-end phones.
However, the price:performance ratio is dismal.

I'm sure I can find an equal-or-better phone (for the specs that matter to
me), for far less money, which raises the price:performance ratio to an
acceptable level.

Up until now, I've been buying the Nexus and Moto phones from Google, but
they had better price:performance ratios than does this Pixel line of
phones (which has exactly the same utterly dismal price:performance ratio
as the Apple iPhone 7 line of phones).
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 00:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
nonsense.
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
Heh heh ... you *completely* misconstrued my words.
I never said that Apple phones lacked "performance", just as I never said
the Pixel phones lack *performance*.
What I said, very clearly, was that the price:performance ratio is dismally
low.
Apple phones are fantastic if you can get them for free.
They're even a great deal if you can get them for the price of sales tax.
Same with the Pixel phones.
They're all high-end phones.
However, the price:performance ratio is dismal.
I'm sure I can find an equal-or-better phone (for the specs that matter to
me), for far less money, which raises the price:performance ratio to an
acceptable level.
Up until now, I've been buying the Nexus and Moto phones from Google, but
they had better price:performance ratios than does this Pixel line of
phones (which has exactly the same utterly dismal price:performance ratio
as the Apple iPhone 7 line of phones).
Please cancel that message as I was in err in that I responded too hastily
and misconstrued myself what you had said. See my other response, which
admits that I made a mistake in this post above, and for that, I apologize.
nospam
2016-10-08 00:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
Heh heh ... you *completely* misconstrued my words.
nope.
Post by Algeria Horan
I never said that Apple phones lacked "performance", just as I never said
the Pixel phones lack *performance*.
What I said, very clearly, was that the price:performance ratio is dismally
low.
and what i said is that's pure nonsense.

again, if that were true (for any product), it would not sell very well.
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple phones are fantastic if you can get them for free.
They're even a great deal if you can get them for the price of sales tax.
Same with the Pixel phones.
nearly everything is fantastic if you can get it for free.

here in the real world, very little is truly free, with most stuff that
is supposedly 'free' actually not free at all.
Post by Algeria Horan
They're all high-end phones.
that's the whole *point*. not everyone wants bottom barrel junk.

lots of people want high end phones, just as they want high end
computers, high end televisions, luxury cars, nice clothes and first
class airline tickets. they dine in fancy restaurants when they could
buy the very same ingredients at the supermarket for a fraction of the
price.
Post by Algeria Horan
However, the price:performance ratio is dismal.
nope, but even if it was, it isn't important.
tlvp
2016-10-08 02:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
What I said, very clearly, was that the price:performance ratio is dismally
low.
Really? In comparison with the performance they deliver, their price is
*dismally low*? Great -- I may just buy one, then :-) . The lower the
price, or the higher the performance, after all, the lower that
price/performance ratio, so I'm all for trying to minimize that :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Lewis
2016-10-08 11:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Algeria Horan
What I said, very clearly, was that the price:performance ratio is dismally
low.
Really? In comparison with the performance they deliver, their price is
*dismally low*? Great -- I may just buy one, then :-) . The lower the
price, or the higher the performance, after all, the lower that
price/performance ratio, so I'm all for trying to minimize that :-) .
An iPhone 5S represents several (18?) Cray X-MP machines in your pocket.
The 7 is *far* more powerful.

I think the Cray started at around $5,000,000.
--
'There has to be enough light,' he panted, 'to see the darkness.'
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 19:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
An iPhone 5S represents several (18?) Cray X-MP machines in your pocket.
The 7 is *far* more powerful.
I think the Cray started at around $5,000,000.
That doesn't change the fact that the price:performance ratio of the Pixel
line to the iPhone 7 line is exactly the same.

There are millions of Android users whose economic decisions span the
spectrum, but, in general, the price:performance ratio of the Pixel is
dismal compared to the price:performance ratio of the previous Nexus and
Moto line of Google phones.

Given that the price:performance ratio of the Pixel line of phones is about
half of what it was for previous lines of Google phones, it will be
interesting to see if the Pixel sells to the Android customer.

I don't know how well or poorly the Pixel line of phones will sell, but I
don't think it will sell to the Android market, overall. I predict it won't
sell, and that Google *knows* this, and that Google has bigger plans.

I suspect Google is aiming at eroding the Apple franchise on overpriced
high-end equipment. This isn't to say Apple customers will flock to the
Pixel, as Apple customers are an amazingly loyal (and wasteful) crowd who
are the ones who make Apple one of the most profitable phone manufacturers
in the world. So Apple customers won't change over to the Pixel.

However, I don't think Android customers will settle for such a horrid
price:performance ratio either; and I don't think Google will halve the
price to where it belongs to get to an acceptable price:performance level
for Android customers.

So there is far more to this story than just what is obvious, since Google
marketing certainly knows everything I said, so they have a plan that takes
all that into account already.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 20:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Lewis
An iPhone 5S represents several (18?) Cray X-MP machines in your pocket.
The 7 is *far* more powerful.
I think the Cray started at around $5,000,000.
That doesn't change the fact that the price:performance
ratio of the Pixel line to the iPhone 7 line is exactly the same.
There are millions of Android users whose economic decisions
span the spectrum, but, in general, the price:performance ratio
of the Pixel is dismal compared to the price:performance ratio
of the previous Nexus and Moto line of Google phones.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Given that the price:performance ratio of the Pixel line of phones
is about half of what it was for previous lines of Google phones, it
will be interesting to see if the Pixel sells to the Android customer.
Bet it does because the high end Samsungs always have done.
Post by Algeria Horan
I don't know how well or poorly the Pixel line of phones will
sell, but I don't think it will sell to the Android market, overall.
More fool you.
Post by Algeria Horan
I predict it won't sell,
Have fun explaining why the high end Samsungs do.
Post by Algeria Horan
and that Google *knows* this, and that Google has bigger plans.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
I suspect Google is aiming at eroding the Apple
franchise on overpriced high-end equipment.
How odd that Samsung hasn’t done that.
Post by Algeria Horan
This isn't to say Apple customers will flock to the Pixel,
And even Google isnt actually stupid enough to believe that.
Post by Algeria Horan
as Apple customers are an amazingly loyal (and wasteful) crowd
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
who are the ones who make Apple one of the most
profitable phone manufacturers in the world.
What actually makes apple that is that they don’t bother
with low end phones/phablets and tablets or ipods either.
Post by Algeria Horan
So Apple customers won't change over to the Pixel.
Even Google doesn’t expect that they will. That’s not what its about.
Post by Algeria Horan
However, I don't think Android customers will settle
for such a horrid price:performance ratio either;
How odd that those who buy the high end Samsungs do.
Post by Algeria Horan
and I don't think Google will halve the price to where
it belongs to get to an acceptable price:performance
level for Android customers.
They obvious don’t need to. Have a look at the high end Samsungs sometime.
Post by Algeria Horan
So there is far more to this story than just what is obvious,
To pig ignorant fools like you, anyway.
Post by Algeria Horan
since Google marketing certainly knows everything I said,
And they will have noticed the high end Samsungs,
even if you are too stupid to do that yourself.
Post by Algeria Horan
so they have a plan that takes all that into account already.
You don’t know that either. Clearly what 'plan'
they had with Nexus didn’t work out very well.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 23:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
I predict it won't sell,
Have fun explaining why the high end Samsungs do.
I haven't compared one of the high-end samsungs to the iPhone spec by spec,
so, I'll have to run that comparison before I can say anything about their
price:performance ratio.
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 00:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
I predict it won't sell,
Have fun explaining why the high end Samsungs do.
I haven't compared one of the high-end samsungs to the iPhone spec by spec,
Yes, you're too stupid to realise that they are pretty close on performance
and that you don’t need to compare them spec by spec to know that.
Post by Algeria Horan
so, I'll have to run that comparison before I can
say anything about their price:performance ratio.
Anyone with even half a clue doesn’t need to do it that way.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 23:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
I predict it won't sell,
Have fun explaining why the high end Samsungs do.
I haven't compared one of the high-end samsungs to the iPhone spec by spec,
so, I'll have to run that comparison before I can say anything about their
price:performance ratio.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 19:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Really? In comparison with the performance they deliver, their price is
*dismally low*? Great -- I may just buy one, then :-) . The lower the
price, or the higher the performance, after all, the lower that
price/performance ratio, so I'm all for trying to minimize that :-) .
We already have a thread comparing the Nexus phone to the iPhone where the
Nexus was essentially equivalent for the things that mattered to me where
the Nexus phone was about half the price.

So, for the same performance of the things that mattered, the
price:performance ratio of the Apple equipment was half as good a ratio.

Now, for *you*, the price:performance of the things that matter to *you* is
whatever equation *you* make it, so the ratio is different for everyone
when the phones are not *exactly* the same.

However, in the case of the Pixel phones versus the iPhone 7, they're
almost exactly the same price and feature list, so, in this case, the
price:performance is basically exactly the same.

That means that they *both* have an utterly dismal price:performance ratio.
I can't see the future, so I can only predict that the Android customers
won't pay for such a dismal price:performance ratio.

So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the market
unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).

If they drop the Pixel price in half (or thereabouts), the
price:performance will be on par with many other Android phones - and that
would make the Pixel competitive in the Android market (in my humble
opinion).

Given that I don't think the Pixel will sell, and that I doubt Google will
drop the price in half (where it belongs), it will be interesting to see
what happens to the market, as a result of the phone not selling at that
price.
nospam
2016-10-08 19:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the market
unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.

the best selling phones are the iphone and samsung galaxy series, which
outsell the cheaper crap, by a *lot*.

from june 2015, with apple and samsung having *seven* of the top 10
best selling phones:
<http://fortune.com/2015/06/02/here-are-the-10-top-selling-smartphones-f
or-april/>
<http://time.com/3967880/smartphone-sales-june/>
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 20:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
from june 2015, with apple and samsung having *seven* of the top 10
<http://fortune.com/2015/06/02/here-are-the-10-top-selling-smartphones-f
or-april/>
<http://time.com/3967880/smartphone-sales-june/>
That first article said almost nothing relevant to the discussion:
http://fortune.com/2015/06/02/here-are-the-10-top-selling-smartphones-for-april/

It said that the S6 beat out the S5 and that the S6 nearly caught up to
Apple's iPhone in the same time period. It also said that the S6
cannibalized other Samsung sales and it said the S6 had supply issues.

They did say that in a short time period (April 2015), the iPhone 6 and 6+
sold the most phones by individual model number, with the S6 in third and
first place, but, that metric doesn't factor in the sheer number of no-name
phones that are sold, which dwarf Samsung phones 3:1 (not counting Apple
phones):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones

Still, Samsung's share is impressive, because being 1:3 against *all* other
Android manufacturers is a notable feat!

The second article says pretty much the same as the first article did.
http://time.com/3967880/smartphone-sales-june/
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 20:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the market
unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
I can only predict the future.

I openly predict that the Pixel won't sell well.
I predict that's because the price:performance is as bad as it is for
iPhones (which, I flatly state is a horrendous ratio).

Time will tell if my prediction comes true or if it won't come true.
Google marketing certainly knows what they're doing, so, they've taken the
risks into account.
Post by nospam
the best selling phones are the iphone and samsung galaxy series, which
outsell the cheaper crap, by a *lot*.
When you talk about best selling phones, you have to openly state the
metric, since I'll wager there are a *lot* of no-name phones being sold (an
extremely technical friend of mine just bought 10 no-name phones, for
example, and used ten 1-cent FreedomPOP SIM cards to make ten cars each
have their own roving web site using DDNS).

Even this friend's water tanks are their own SSH & web servers.
His chicken coop is its own web server.
Even his treehouse has its own web server.

All with cheap no-name Android phones.

Since you're almost always wrong, I simply googled for "the best selling
android phones"...

In this list, by total number of sold metrics, the Nokia phones, by far,
outsell all other mobile phones (including Apple phones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones

The Samsung E1100 is in 7th place by the metric of units sold, for example,
and Apple doesn't show up until you get to 12th place.

However, if you look *only* at recent sales, it is very true that Samsung
has the most phones sold with more than 20% of the market share, while
Apple has about 15% of the market share, depending on how far back you want
to look.

However, if you look at the number of phones sold by "others", it dwarfs
the number of phones sold by Samsung and Apple *combined*, so, the problem
is that the *metric* used to define which phones "outsell the cheaper
crap".

In fact, the "cheaper crap" seems to outsell the Samsung by three times,
given that Q2-2106 shows 223 million non-samsung phones sold to 77 million
samsung phones sold (not including Apple's 44 million phones sold in the
same time period).
nospam
2016-10-08 20:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the market
unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
I can only predict the future.
nobody can.

heck, you can't even get the *past* correct.
Post by Algeria Horan
I openly predict that the Pixel won't sell well.
prepare to be wrong (again).

the fact that the pixel is being sold in every verizon store means it's
going to sell *quite* well, certainly much better than the nexus series
did.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 21:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the
market unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
I can only predict the future.
You can't do that either.
Post by Algeria Horan
I openly predict that the Pixel won't sell well.
Nothing like the original pathetic excuse for a troll at the top.
Post by Algeria Horan
I predict that's because the price:performance
is as bad as it is for iPhones
How odd that the high end iphones and high end
samsungs sell so well with that price:performance.
Post by Algeria Horan
(which, I flatly state is a horrendous ratio).
How odd that the high end iphones and high end
samsungs sell so well with that price:performance.
Post by Algeria Horan
Time will tell if my prediction comes true or if it won't come true.
We already know that you don’t have a fucking clue
because all those high end iphones and high end
samsungs sell so well with that price:performance.

The Pixels may not do that well, but that
wont be because of the price:performance.
Post by Algeria Horan
Google marketing certainly knows what they're doing,
They clearly didn’t with the Nexus line, or Glass etc etc etc.
Post by Algeria Horan
so, they've taken the risks into account.
There is no risk, Google has money to burn/piss against the wall.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
the best selling phones are the iphone and samsung
galaxy series, which outsell the cheaper crap, by a *lot*.
When you talk about best selling phones, you have to openly state the
metric, since I'll wager there are a *lot* of no-name phones being sold
(an extremely technical friend of mine just bought 10 no-name phones,
for example, and used ten 1-cent FreedomPOP SIM cards to make ten
cars each have their own roving web site using DDNS).
Even this friend's water tanks are their own SSH & web servers.
His chicken coop is its own web server.
Even his treehouse has its own web server.
All with cheap no-name Android phones.
Since you're almost always wrong, I simply
googled for "the best selling android phones"...
In this list, by total number of sold metrics, the Nokia phones,
by far, outsell all other mobile phones (including Apple phones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones
The Samsung E1100 is in 7th place by the metric of units sold, for
example, and Apple doesn't show up until you get to 12th place.
However, if you look *only* at recent sales, it is very true that
Samsung has the most phones sold with more than 20% of
the market share, while Apple has about 15% of the market
share, depending on how far back you want to look.
However, if you look at the number of phones sold by "others", it dwarfs
the number of phones sold by Samsung and Apple *combined*, so, the problem
is that the *metric* used to define which phones "outsell the cheaper
crap".
In fact, the "cheaper crap" seems to outsell the Samsung by three times,
given that Q2-2106 shows 223 million non-samsung phones sold to 77 million
samsung phones sold (not including Apple's 44 million phones sold in the
same time period).
Elfin
2016-10-08 21:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the
market unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
I can only predict the future.
You can't do that either.
Post by Algeria Horan
I openly predict that the Pixel won't sell well.
Nothing like the original pathetic excuse for a troll at the top.
In the forums I'm in that discuss Pixels and Project Fi the overall ordering seems to be going well. But it is a daunting market to try to penetrate. High priced phones from someone other than Apple/Samsung haven't done all that well in the past.

Oddly Google isn't bringing in anything at lower prices that work with Project Fi. And given that Project Fi is really targeting those that don't use a lot of cell data, you have to wonder why.
--
Elfin
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 22:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elfin
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the
market unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
I can only predict the future.
You can't do that either.
Post by Algeria Horan
I openly predict that the Pixel won't sell well.
Nothing like the original pathetic excuse for a troll at the top.
In the forums I'm in that discuss Pixels and Project Fi the overall
ordering seems to be going well. But it is a daunting market to
try to penetrate. High priced phones from someone other than
Apple/Samsung haven't done all that well in the past.
And there is a very good reason for that. Its always
been about a lot more than just price:performance.
Post by Elfin
Oddly Google isn't bringing in anything at lower prices that work
with Project Fi. And given that Project Fi is really targeting those
that don't use a lot of cell data, you have to wonder why.
Google has always had a very scattergun approach.

Some things work very well like google itself, far more never does.
tlvp
2016-10-09 04:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
I can only predict the future.
Of course you can. So can I; so can anyone. The acid test, though, is: will
the future develop as you predict :-) ? Best of luck there! Cheers, -- tlvp
--
(With thanks to Shakespeare.) Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 21:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
So, I predict that the Pixel phones will fail miserably in the market
unless the price is dropped (the performance is fine).
as usual, you'll be wrong.
the best selling phones are the iphone and samsung galaxy series, which
outsell the cheaper crap, by a *lot*.
from june 2015, with apple and samsung having *seven* of the top 10
<http://fortune.com/2015/06/02/here-are-the-10-top-selling-smartphones-f
or-april/>
<http://time.com/3967880/smartphone-sales-june/>
More meaningless crap. The low end phone market is so
fragmented that that means absolutely nothing at all.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 00:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
nonsense.
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
The previous post was in error as I misconstrued your words.
I apologize. I was in a rush, and I didn't read properly (so I am guilty of
that which I accuse you of, and for that I apologize).

You state that Apple phones are competitive, but I have posted in the past
entire threads showing that essentially equivalent phones (for the things
that matter to me) are *half* the price.

Now, to stay on topic, the Pixel line of phones is *exactly* the same price
(and performance) as the iPhone 7 line of phones.

So, it remains to be seen if the iPhone 7 is "competitive" with the Pixel
line of phones.

Personally, I think the Pixel line of phones is priced too high for Android
users for the specifications that they have; but the actual fact is up to
the sales figures and not up to me to say.
nospam
2016-10-08 00:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
The previous post was in error as I misconstrued your words.
I apologize. I was in a rush, and I didn't read properly (so I am guilty of
that which I accuse you of, and for that I apologize).
you never read properly. you always twist and lie and argue about stuff
never said.
Post by Algeria Horan
You state that Apple phones are competitive, but I have posted in the past
entire threads showing that essentially equivalent phones (for the things
that matter to me) are *half* the price.
no you haven't.
Post by Algeria Horan
Now, to stay on topic, the Pixel line of phones is *exactly* the same price
(and performance) as the iPhone 7 line of phones.
they're comparable. the pixel is a little better in some ways and not
as good in others. pick whatever best fits your needs.
Post by Algeria Horan
So, it remains to be seen if the iPhone 7 is "competitive" with the Pixel
line of phones.
no need to wait. it's *very* clear they're competitive.
Post by Algeria Horan
Personally, I think the Pixel line of phones is priced too high for Android
users for the specifications that they have; but the actual fact is up to
the sales figures and not up to me to say.
that's because you're a cheapskate who won't even spend 99 cents on an
app.

you want everything for free.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 22:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
nonsense.
apple's products are *very* competitive. they have to be.
if their products had such a dismal price/performance as you claim,
their sales would not be anywhere near what they are.
The previous post was in error as I misconstrued your words.
I apologize. I was in a rush, and I didn't read properly (so I am guilty of
that which I accuse you of, and for that I apologize).
You state that Apple phones are competitive, but I have posted in the past
entire threads showing that essentially equivalent phones (for the things
that matter to me) are *half* the price.
Now, to stay on topic, the Pixel line of phones is *exactly* the same price
(and performance) as the iPhone 7 line of phones.
So, it remains to be seen if the iPhone 7 is "competitive" with the Pixel
line of phones.
Personally, I think the Pixel line of phones is priced too high for Android
users for the specifications that they have;
Must explain why the high end samsungs so
completely dominate that android market segment.
Post by Algeria Horan
but the actual fact is up to the sales figures and not up to me to say.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 23:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Must explain why the high end samsungs so
completely dominate that android market segment.
Samsung sales are impressive; however, even if you count *every* samsung
phone ever sold, the number of Samsung phones sold is still dwarfed by the
number of lower-end Android phones sold by a 3:1 ratio.
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 00:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Must explain why the high end samsungs so
completely dominate that android market segment.
Samsung sales are impressive; however, even if you count *every* samsung
phone ever sold, the number of Samsung phones sold is still dwarfed by the
number of lower-end Android phones sold by a 3:1 ratio.
Irrelevant to the fact that Samsung has sold hordes of those
high end phones/phablets/tablets that you stupidly claim
have such a poor price:performance that they will never sell.

In fact more than even apple has sold.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 22:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
Apple will (I predict) eventually crumble.
Perhaps. Apple almost went broke once before. One never
knows what the market will do. Think Palm Pilot and BlackBerry...
that was a totally different era, when apple was grossly mismanaged.
it's a very, very different company now.
I would never have predicted that Apple could
sustain the huge profit margins that it does sustain,
Because you have never had a clue about the basics.
Post by Algeria Horan
but, you have to understand that the extremly low
(actually dismal) price:performance ratio is what makes
Apple one of the most profitable companies on this planet.
Wrong, as always. What has done that is that they don’t bother
with low end phones/phablets/tablets/media players.
Post by Algeria Horan
I always give credit where credit is due,
Obvious lie.
Post by Algeria Horan
so I applaud Apple MARKETING for maintaining
those artificially high profit margins on dismally
low price:performance ratios,
Nothing to do with marketing, its actually about what
part of the market they choose to be involved in.
Post by Algeria Horan
and as you know, I have always argued on high
price:performance metrics (which is why I almost
always buy Android equipment that is roughly
around half the price of "essentially equivalent"
Apple equipment for my needs.
But are too stupid to have gone with the Nexus line which are that in
spades.
Post by Algeria Horan
What's *different* now, is that Google seems to be *matching* that
dismally low price:performance ratio, spec by spec, and even down
to the very last dollar (as you so clearly pointed out to me prior).
What that means is that the game has changed *if*.
Nope, Samsung has always been in that part of the market.

And into the low end market as well, and into all sorts of other stuff
that apple doesn’t bother with including even tanks, quite literally.
Post by Algeria Horan
If Google is successful, then the game for Apple has suddenly changed.
Nope, because fuck all of those who choose to use apple
phones/phablets and tablets will even consider the Pixels.

The most it might be is a real problem for Samsung at the high end.
Post by Algeria Horan
If Google fails at the Pixels, then, perhaps the
game for Apple is still playing well for them.
It will be regardless of how well the Pixels sell, you watch.
Post by Algeria Horan
It all depends on whether Android customers will stoop
to the level of horrendous price:performance metrics.
They've been doing that for years now with the high end samsungs.
Post by Algeria Horan
I don't know the answer to that question.
Yes, you actually are that stupid/pig ignorant.
Post by Algeria Horan
All I know is that I would never pay that much for
such a phone when I can get a phone that is just as
good (for the specs I care about) for far less I'm sure.
But you were too stupid to do that with the Nexus phones.
Post by Algeria Horan
For example, I care about a dual sim, and I care about an expansion
slot and I care about a removable battery and I care about the GSM
frequencies in my area and I care about having as much RAM as I
can get and I won't ever get a phone with less than 32GB of storage
and I care about the fastest CPU and GPU I can get,
But are too stupid to use an OS that minimises the use of those.
Post by Algeria Horan
and I care about having Bluetooth file transfer,
Yes, you actually are that stupid.
Post by Algeria Horan
and I care about Wi-Fi performance and features, etc.,
But are too stupid to even work out what
airdrop, continuity and handoff do.
Post by Algeria Horan
all at the same time.
What I don't care about is the color of the phone
I do, because white phones look tacky. Gold phones too.
Post by Algeria Horan
(for heaven's sake!), or the meaningless NFC specs,
Nothing meaningless about them when you have enough of a clue
to use a decent modern way of using the phone to pay for stuff.
Post by Algeria Horan
or the lousy camera lens that is in all smartphones, etc.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Given that, I'm sure I can find a far better price:performance
phone than either the iPhone7 or the Pixel;
You clearly couldn’t manage that with the Nexus.
Post by Algeria Horan
so that's what I'll endeavor to do next (but it's not
the first thing on my agenda, so that may take time).
Yeah, you have to do much more important stuff like
run down to the library ever single day, dinosaur.
Post by Algeria Horan
If Android users have a good suggestion for an Android or Apple phone
that is better in price:performance for the specs that matter, let me
know.
No point, you'll just ignore that, as always.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-09 10:13:09 UTC
Permalink
I've liked android (and in particular Nexus) for being cheapER, though
not necessarily CHEAP, without feeling the need to slavishly buy every
model as it's been released, but I think Pixel now pushes Google's
product into "silly money" territory - so I'll keep an eye out for a
different vanilla android manufacturer.
I have bought a few "Google" phones, so I agree with you.

Up until now, the Google phones were fine for "cheap-er" Android
good-quality phones such as the Nexus line and Moto line of phones.

They were a good price:performance ratio; but, like you, I see the Pixel
has having an unconscionably *low* price:performance ratio, akin to the
dismal price:performance ratio of an Apple iPhone.

Therefore, the Pixel line of phones is not for you or for me, but for those
less discerning than we.
tlvp
2016-10-09 20:52:45 UTC
Permalink
... I see the Pixel
has having an unconscionably *low* price:performance ratio ...
Surely you mis-speak yet again, meaning *high*, not "low":
price "unconscionably _high_ " relative to performance (no?).

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 19:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
1. Network technology is the same.
nope.
the iphone 7 (and 6s for that matter) has more lte bands, which means
better coverage and wider carrier support.
What you say doesn't show up in the gsmarena specs, but, sometimes what you
say is actually true (although you never back up what you say, and, 90% of
the time, your wrong - so I'm forced to ask you for clarification).
The Pixel is chock full of LTE bands so, I must ask you *which* bands
specifically you feel are *important* for a USA customer of either phone
that the iPhone 7 has that the Pixel does not have?
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
2. SIM cards are the same
so what?
nobody buys a phone based on the size of the sim card.
Fair enough.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
as usual, you're intentionally comparing different products to skew
your 'comparison'.
the pixel xl is comparable to the iphone 7+ *not* the smaller iphone 7,
which compares with the regular pixel.
Read the title of the thread.
The goal was to compare both of the Pixel phones to the iPhone 7.
If *you* want to compare the iPhone 7+ to the phones, you're welcome to do
so but that doesn't make *this* comparison any different.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
it's a little bit higher than the iphone 7+, but not anything human
eyes can see so it doesn't actually matter in the real world.
it's just more pixels to move around (which increases memory demands).
Fair enough. I'm sure *both* displays are just fine.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
fuck no. not even close.
the iphone 7/7+ processor, which by the way, is *not* a quad core but
rather a dual dual core, blows away the pixel. even last year's iphone
6s is faster.
<http://bgr.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7-vs-pixel-benchmarks/>
Geekbench 4 scores that just hit the web confirm as much ‹ Google¹s
Pixels score a 1580 on the single-core test and about 4100 on the
multi-core test, while Apple¹s latest iPhones score 3430 and about
5600.
geekbench rates the iphone 7 at *double* the performance on single core
and about 50% faster on multicore. double!! with half the cores!
This is interesting information.
You will note that there was a benchmark score on the gsmarena Apple iPhone
7 page, but there was no corresponding score on the Pixel, so I was forced
to drop that comparison for lack of data (since I was only comparing the
two GSMarena spec pages).
Post by nospam
<http://www.redmondpie.com/google-pixel-pixel-xl-vs-apple-iphone-7-7-plu
s-benchmarks-comparison/>
Early benchmarks from Geekbench 4 suggests that Apple¹s iPhone 7 and
iPhone 7 Plus easily beat the Pixel phones by Google on both single
and multi-core tests, with even older Apple hardware like the iPhone
SE and iPhone 6s outperforming the yet-to-be-released Google devices.
even *last* *year's* iphone 6s beats the pixel!!
as for memory, android has a higher memory overhead. it *needs* the
extra memory.
not only that, but the iphone 7+ has 3 gig (versus 4 gig in the pixel,
just ~30% more), mostly for the dual-lens camera which the pixel does
not have.
This is good information.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
let's not, because the cameras are not even.
the pixel lacks optical image stabilization, has a slower lens and for
the iphone 7+, does not have a dual lens with optical zoom and portrait
mode.
they're both good cameras, but not 'even'.
Fair enough. I think both cameras are fine.
One side note is that Google MARKETING is *advertising* the camera as "the
best smartphone camera ever", so, we will probably see Apple MARKETING
respond accordingly (where Apple has the best marketing in the world!).
Google claims the Pixel has the 'best smartphone camera ever'
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/04/googles-pixel-has-the-best-smartphone-camera-rating-ever/
5 reasons why the Pixel may have the best smartphone camera ever
http://www.greenbot.com/article/3127150/android/5-reasons-why-the-pixel-may-have-the-best-smartphone-camera-ever.html
Given this is a contentious argument that is out of my league (and given I
don't give a hoot about cameras since I own a real one), I will stay out of
the fray by saying the cameras are essentially equivalent.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
who cares. most people never use either one.
wireless is where it's at.
A lot of people care, and "I" care,
Yeah, but you are a stupid dinosaur who is actually stupid
enough to manually move files using bluetooth instead of
using the vastly better automatic wifi/cloud to do it instead.
Post by Algeria Horan
so, that's why the jack is there. I think Apple will *eventually*
crumble due to their dictator-like autocratic decisions
More of your lies when the adapter is included for free.
Post by Algeria Horan
which they can only MARKET as "courageous".
More of your lies. Apple has done no such thing.
Post by Algeria Horan
Well, Josef Stalin was courageous. So was Sheikh Hasina. Apple is
more like Kim Jong-il in that they are a "dynasty" where Tim Cook
is just a figurehead where the real power is APPLE MARKETING.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
I don't think the Apple dictatorship will crumble in the next five
years, but, with Google seemingly going directly for the jugular,
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
APPLE MARKETING can only keep up the charade
for so long. How long? Dunno. Ten years?
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
I don't think Apple will crumble in less than five years. So, mark my words
on ten years and we'll just have to discuss that comment in the future.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Point is that APPLE MARKETING can only carry the company for so long.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
At some point, someone else will COPY the MARKETING MOVES by Apple.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Google is clearly doing that here with the Pixel, even down to the price.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
So I wouldn't put it past Google themselves to remove
the headphone jack, and pass the lost functionality on
to the consumer as a "courageous" marketing move.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
wrong.
iphones have had wifi direct for *years*, the very feature you keep
insisting is not needed because you prefer the much slower bluetooth.
Huh? Who said anything about bluetooth in that spec?
Now you're just complaining with a total lack of merit.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
The WiFi is essentially the same, with the Pixels being "slightly better"
in that
they have Wi-Fi Direct and DLNA whereas the iPhone 7 doesn't list that.
What matters is what it has, not what it lists.
Post by Algeria Horan
It is a big deal?
Probably not.
But it *is* slightly better on the Pixels.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
first valid thing you've said so far.
Post by Algeria Horan
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
also true. nfc on android is a bit more flexible.
Actually, Rod Speed countered that the NFC on
Android, while more flexible, is perhaps less secure.
No perhaps about it.
Post by Algeria Horan
a. Apparently NFC on the iPhone 7 is less flexible but more secure
b. Apparently NFC on the Pixels is more flexible but perhaps less secure
No perhaps about it.
Post by Algeria Horan
It's a wash, overall, but either one is slightly better than the
other depending on if you're scared or if you want flexibility.
Nothing to do with scared, everything to do with having enough
of a clue to not want to have to fart around reversing what some
malicious app has chosen to do with your less secure NFC.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
that doesn't mean much of anything in the real world because flash
memory is the limiting factor.
Fair enough. What I *love* about USB 3.0 is the bi-directional connector,
which, as we all know, Apple pioneered.
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
you're once again comparing a larger pixel xl with the smaller iphone 7.
i'm quite sure you're doing that intentionally to skew your supposed
'comparison'.
either compare the pixel with the iphone 7 or the pixel xl with the
iphone 7+.
The talk time is slightly more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone
7, and slightly less than double for the Pixel over the iPhone 7, so, we
can "summarize" that as both Pixels are about double the talk time as the
iPhone 7. This is a big deal from a battery standpoint.
Similarly, the music-play time is slightly more than three times for the
Pixel XL and slightly less than three times for the Pixel, so, again, we
can "summarize" that as about three times more.
This is a big deal if battery life is important to the user.
Only if it means that the one with the lower time on
battery isnt still fine with just an overnight charge.
Post by Algeria Horan
The huge battery life difference is not as meaningful
if battery life isn't important to the user.
And when a daily charge sees it never run out of battery.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Overall, on the listed performance features, it seems the Pixel XL is
arguably far better than the iPhone 7 by a wide margin in some specs, and
by a slim margin in others, and they're essentially equal in a bunch of
ways.
it's an invalid comparison.
they're both good phones, which are priced exactly the same.
so much for android being cheaper.
I *knew* you'd say that last comment, and I'd *agree* with you.
Of course, I can find *plenty* of cheaper Android phones, but I don't look
at price first. I look at *performance* first, and, essentially, the Pixel
line of phones is apparently designed to complete on *performance* with the
iPhone 7 line of phones.
It would be a fucking sight more surprising if they didn’t.
Post by Algeria Horan
After looking at these specs, and then, at the end, looking up the price,
it seems that these two lines of phones are direct 1:1 competitors on
price:performance.
Not on security of your personal data they arent.
Post by Algeria Horan
This means, (to me), Apple will eventually crumble.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Why I say such a remarkable thing is that up until now,
Apple has been able to maintain artificially high prices
In fact north american phone users mostly don’t even see
the high prices because of the megascam they have actually
been stupid enough to get sucked into with the stupid price
they pay for their cellphone service which includes a phone.
Post by Algeria Horan
based purely on hugely successful MARKETING campaigns.
Its actually due to that megascam they have got sucked into.
Post by Algeria Horan
Up until now, almost nobody could claim the hardware margins that Apple
claims, and, as you yourself said, Google sold many of its phones at a
*loss*.
You don’t know that last.
Post by Algeria Horan
Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple
MARKETING (almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios),
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
what happens *next* is a matter of conjecture
Nope.
Post by Algeria Horan
- but - I feel Apple must fail "if" Google wins.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.

Google wont win, you watch. And doesn’t need to either given that
google is about a hell of a lot more than just phones and phablets.

And there can never be a winner in that particular market anyway.
Post by Algeria Horan
I don't see into the future,
Or even manage a viable troll.
Its never that black and white, troll boy.
Post by Algeria Horan
a. Google wins big with these phones, or,
Not a chance given that as you say there is fuck all
in it performance wise and nothing in it price wise.

Even tho iphones are much better for the security of your
personal data, most don’t even realise that, so it will have
very little effect on how they do in the market because
there arent enough who know that to matter market wise.
Post by Algeria Horan
b. Nobody buys them.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.

That’s never going to happen given that as you say, there
is fuck all in it performance wise and nothing in it price
wise and so many hate apple for a variety of reasons.

It remains to be seen if google will actually manage to get
many who have previously chosen to have high end Samsungs
instead of an Apple device will now change to Google.
Post by Algeria Horan
If nobody buys them,
That's never going to happen, you pathetic excuse for a troll.
Post by Algeria Horan
nothing changes for Apple, since Apple isn't
in the market for low price:performance ratios.
However, if these Pixel phones sell, then that means
that Apple no longer can maintain the sole spot in
the lousy price:performance ratios (for the consumer).
It never has. Samsung has always been in that particular market segment too.
Post by Algeria Horan
I personally would *never* buy a Pixel simply because the
price:performance
sucks as bad as it does for an iPhone 7 (that isn't free anyway).
Bet that will see the google suits pouring from their windows like lemmings
for sure.
Post by Algeria Horan
But, if *other* people buy the Pixel line of phones,
Corse some will, just like some did with the Nexus phones and phablets.
Post by Algeria Horan
then what happens is that Apples market share in the lousy
price:performance
category is eroded, and, since there are too many other competitors out
there
who would love to be in that niche, Apple will (I predict) eventually
crumble.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
However, I don't actually think many Android people will be dumb enough
to pay that much for the performance of the Google Pixel phones.
Plenty have with the Samsung high end phones and phablets.
Post by Algeria Horan
Lord knows there are plenty of Apple aficionados who pay
that much for so little of a price:performance ratio; but the
question at hand is whether Android users will be that dumb.
Nope, its been known for years now.
Post by Algeria Horan
Personally, I don't think so.
More fool you. Too stupid to even notice that its been happening for years
now.
Post by Algeria Horan
That means Apple is safe for now.
However, if there are a lot of dumb Android
users out there, then Apple is doomed.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.

Fuck all users do anything other than stick with the latest incarnation
of the phone or phablet they have been using for years now.
Post by Algeria Horan
It all depends on who is willing to pay for a lousy
price:performance ratio on a very good phone.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Pixel XL = $769
iPhone 7 = $650
you're so disingenuous that you even artificially inflated the iphone
price by a buck.
Thanks for catching that. I was cutting and pasting but the Apple site
wouldn't cut and paste so I typed it.
Pixel XL $770
iPhone 7 $650
Plus tax.
Post by nospam
iphone 7+ 32 gig: $769
pixel xl 32 gig: $769
128 gig version, add $100
pixel 32 gig: $649
iphone 7 32 gig: $649
128 gig version, add $100
they're *exactly* the same.
This is the most obvious point, which is that the Google Pixel
line of phones is *designed* to compete directly, 1:1, on
Price:Performance, to the Apple iPhone 7 line of phones.
If this gamble works,
It isnt a gamble, clearly billions buy apple phones and tablets.
Post by Algeria Horan
it will spell the beginning of the end for the Apple dictatorship;
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
if this gamble fails, nothing will change.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
So everything depends (IMHO) on whether Android users
are dumb enough to pay that much for a good phone.
Those who have been buying the high end Samsungs clearly do.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
also note that the iphone offers 256 gig for an additional $100 over
the 128 gig, while the pixel does not offer 256 gig at all, no matter
how much you want to pay.
Post by Algeria Horan
Next I'll compare the Pixel to the iPhone 7 by specs.
that's what you should have done in the first place.
Your idea of comparing the iPhone 7 to the Pixel and the iPhone 7+ to the
Pixel XL makes a lot of sense; but I had not known ahead of time that they
would be essentially mirror equivalents in so many specs and in the price.
But you should have had enough to a clue to bin your pathetic excuse
for a troll when you eventually managed to work that out because you
always have been a slow learner/never had a fucking clue.
Post by Algeria Horan
Remember, I always look at price *last*
More fool you.
Post by Algeria Horan
and I have to take the assemblage of specs as a whole, so,
iPhone 7 to Pixel
iPhone 7+ to Pixel XL
A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself...
Post by Algeria Horan
BTW, I think this Google gamble
It isnt a gamble.
Post by Algeria Horan
will fail in that Android users aren't so dumb
as to pay that much for a good phone
How odd that so many have with the Samsung high end phones and phablets.
Post by Algeria Horan
but if this gamble wins, then Apple is doomed since this
lousy Price:Performance point is *their* fundamental market,
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
Post by Algeria Horan
and if Google can play in Apple's pond, so can everyone else.
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.

Samsung has always done that, you pathetic excuse for a pig ignorant troll.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 20:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple
MARKETING (almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios),
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
I realize you simply cut-and-paste these responses, but how can you
possibly say that the price and features of the two phones isn't
essentially the same when the articles all say the same thing?
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-10-08 21:15:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 21:31:48 +0100, Algeria Horan
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple
MARKETING (almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios),
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually
manage.
I realize you simply cut-and-paste these responses, but how can you
possibly say that the price and features of the two phones isn't
essentially the same when the articles all say the same thing?
There's no point in trying to engage Rod in a sensible discussion; he's
always right. Use the KillFile as mother nature intended.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 21:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
Now that Google MARKETING has apparently decided to copy Apple
MARKETING (almost completely with respect to price:performance ratios),
Even sillier and an even more pathetic excuse for a troll than you
usually manage.
how can you possibly say that the price and features
of the two phones isn't essentially the same
Everyone can see for themselves that I did no such thing.

I was commenting on your MARKETING broken record shit.
when the articles all say the same thing?
AL
2016-10-07 06:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_xl-8345.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php
Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...
1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
musika
2016-10-07 07:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_xl-8345.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php
Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...
1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
18. For 17. see 7.
--
Ray
UK
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 18:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
18. For 17. see 7.
I had omitted that neither has a removable battery also.
:(
nospam
2016-10-07 12:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 06:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the
phone so you can watch them where no wifi
is available like on the train all day here.

Corse there are some drives that work fine on the lightning port.
Savageduck
2016-10-08 06:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the phone so you can watch them
where no wifi is available like on the train all day here.
Corse there are some drives that work fine on the lightning port.
I have one of these:
<https://www.sandisk.com/home/mobile-device-storage/ixpand>
--
Regards,

Savageduck
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 17:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Savageduck
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the phone so you can
watch them where no wifi is available like on the train all day here.
Corse there are some drives that work fine on the lightning port.
<https://www.sandisk.com/home/mobile-device-storage/ixpand>
Yeah, that's one of the things I meant.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 19:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Savageduck
<https://www.sandisk.com/home/mobile-device-storage/ixpand>
Savageduck,
Have you looked yet at the camera on the two phones?

Google touts their camera as the best ever in a smartphone, and Apple is
generally acknowledged as having great cameras for smartphones.

I use "real" cameras when I need them, so, I don't care either way but I'm
just curious if Google has met the bar that the iPhone 7 set for a high-end
smartphone camera.
Savageduck
2016-10-08 20:00:45 UTC
Permalink
On 2016-10-08 19:18:15 +0000, Algeria Horan
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Savageduck
<https://www.sandisk.com/home/mobile-device-storage/ixpand>
Savageduck,
Have you looked yet at the camera on the two phones?
No. I don't need to.
I have no immediate intention of buying, or need to buy either of the
Google Pixel phones. You might have noticed that I have not been part
of this thread until you asked your question of me.
I have always considered any phone camera, including the one provided
by my iPhone, very much my camera of last resort, or convenience. As
good as the images are from the current generation of smart phone
cameras, and some are very good, they are not replacements for a DSLR
or an MILC. What they are is a replacement for compact P&S cameras
which are a dying market.
Post by Algeria Horan
Google touts their camera as the best ever in a smartphone, and Apple is
generally acknowledged as having great cameras for smartphones.
I use "real" cameras when I need them, so, I don't care either way but I'm
just curious if Google has met the bar that the iPhone 7 set for a high-end
smartphone camera.
As I said, I don't particularly care as I have my equipment for quality
photography handled, including my wish list for camera and lens
upgrades and future purchases.
--
Regards,

Savageduck
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 23:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Savageduck
I have always considered any phone camera, including the one provided
by my iPhone, very much my camera of last resort, or convenience
Understood.
I am of the same ilk.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 20:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Savageduck,
Have you looked yet at the camera on the two phones?
Google touts their camera as the best ever in a smartphone,
They lied.
Post by Algeria Horan
and Apple is generally acknowledged as
having great cameras for smartphones.
I use "real" cameras when I need them,
Mad, most of the time it makes more sense to use
the one in the phone that you always have with you.
Post by Algeria Horan
so, I don't care either way but I'm just curious
Don’t forget what that did to the cat.
Post by Algeria Horan
if Google has met the bar that the iPhone 7
set for a high-end smartphone camera.
Not in some areas.
nospam
2016-10-08 12:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the
phone so you can watch them where no wifi
is available like on the train all day here.
most movies are 1 gig or so, which means you can have up to around 250
movies if nothing else is on it. that ought to keep you entertained for
a really long train ride.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 17:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the
phone so you can watch them where no wifi
is available like on the train all day here.
most movies are 1 gig or so,
That's bullshit.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 19:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the
phone so you can watch them where no wifi
is available like on the train all day here.
most movies are 1 gig or so,
That's bullshit.
The microsd card is super convenient for transferring dozens of movies from
one phone to another in about half a minute, which is something I do all
the time.

Movie file size depends on a bunch of factors, as you all know, so I just
googled to see what *most* people consider a movie to be...

This Apple iTunes support document puts a movie at the following sizes:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201587
* 45-minute TV show is 200 MB
* 45-minute HDTV show is 600 MB
* 2-hour movie is 1.0-1.5 GB
* 2-hour HD movie is 3.0-4.5 GB

This article has a chart showing various movie file sizes:
http://filecatalyst.com/todays-media-file-sizes-whats-average/

The chart shows a DVD at 4GB and a 1080p movie at 8-15GB with a BlueRay
movie at 20-25GB and a 4K movie at 100+GB:
Loading Image...

Roughly, this discussion puts a movie at about 1GB per hour:
http://ask.metafilter.com/177347/What-size-is-the-average-movie-download-in-gb

This discussion puts an Amazon Prime movie at between 1 and 3 GB:
https://www.reddit.com/r/kindlefire/comments/2weqhn/how_much_space_does_an_average_movie_downloaded/
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 20:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by Rod Speed
Post by nospam
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
256 gig *and* the cloud is not enough?
Not if you want to have some movies on the
phone so you can watch them where no wifi
is available like on the train all day here.
most movies are 1 gig or so,
That's bullshit.
The microsd card is super convenient for transferring dozens
of movies from one phone to another in about half a minute,
Another utterly bogus number, you can't ignore the
time it took to get it onto the card in the first place.
Post by Algeria Horan
which is something I do all the time.
More fool you. Makes a lot more sense to move
it directly to the phone/phablet or tablet using a
direct wired connection or wifi if that is just as fast.
Post by Algeria Horan
Movie file size depends on a bunch of factors, as you all know, so I just
googled to see what *most* people consider a movie to be...
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201587
* 45-minute TV show is 200 MB
* 45-minute HDTV show is 600 MB
* 2-hour movie is 1.0-1.5 GB
* 2-hour HD movie is 3.0-4.5 GB
The most recent series one of the kids wanted was 60GB.
Post by Algeria Horan
http://filecatalyst.com/todays-media-file-sizes-whats-average/
What matters is what size the movies they want to watch are.
Post by Algeria Horan
The chart shows a DVD at 4GB and a 1080p movie at 8-15GB
http://www.filecatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/MediaFileSizes.jpg
http://ask.metafilter.com/177347/What-size-is-the-average-movie-download-in-gb
https://www.reddit.com/r/kindlefire/comments/2weqhn/how_much_space_does_an_average_movie_downloaded/
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
The microsd card is super convenient for transferring dozens
of movies from one phone to another in about half a minute,
Another utterly bogus number, you can't ignore the
time it took to get it onto the card in the first place.
The time is independent of the number of movies stored on the first phone
since the entire card is being moved from one phone to the other.

The half of a minute was for roughly fifteen seconds to pop the SD card out
of the first phone, and another fifteen seconds to pop it into the second
phone. Perhaps it takes longer since you're likely to reboot the second
phone before you can use the movies on the sd card.

I guess you're saying that it took something like 10 megabits per second to
*download* the movie (or to rip it off optical media), but I was just
talking about the transfer time from one computer to the next.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
which is something I do all the time.
More fool you. Makes a lot more sense to move
it directly to the phone/phablet or tablet using a
direct wired connection or wifi if that is just as fast.
I think you miss the inherent efficiency of just popping a full SD card
from one device to the other. It takes the same amount of time to transfer
10MB as it does to transfer 64GB that way.

It's always about 30 seconds to transfer from one machine to the next.
Post by Rod Speed
The most recent series one of the kids wanted was 60GB.
Yup. I gave the kids a series of series, and they get huge pretty quickly,
filling up the 64GB iPads "in a flash".
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 00:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
The microsd card is super convenient for transferring dozens
of movies from one phone to another in about half a minute,
Another utterly bogus number, you can't ignore the
time it took to get it onto the card in the first place.
The time is independent of the number of movies stored on the first
phone since the entire card is being moved from one phone to the other.
Hardly anyone uses a card to do that.
Post by Algeria Horan
The half of a minute was for roughly fifteen seconds to pop the SD
card out of the first phone, and another fifteen seconds to pop it into
the second phone. Perhaps it takes longer since you're likely to reboot
the second phone before you can use the movies on the sd card.
I guess you're saying that it took something like 10 megabits per
second to *download* the movie (or to rip it off optical media),
No, I was talking about the time it takes to put what
you want on the card, however you choose to do that.

I do in fact do that with the movies the neighbours
kids get to torrent for them, with USB sticks that
they then put in their PS3s and PS4 to watch them.
Post by Algeria Horan
but I was just talking about the transfer
time from one computer to the next.
So was I, but you obviously have to put it on the
card in the first place and that is what takes the time.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
which is something I do all the time.
More fool you. Makes a lot more sense to move
it directly to the phone/phablet or tablet using a
direct wired connection or wifi if that is just as fast.
I think you miss the inherent efficiency of just popping
a full SD card from one device to the other.
I know I don’t, because what matters is how long
it takes to put it on the card in the first place.
Post by Algeria Horan
It takes the same amount of time to transfer
10MB as it does to transfer 64GB that way.
But doesn’t with the time it takes to put it on the card in the first place.
Post by Algeria Horan
It's always about 30 seconds to transfer from one machine to the next.
Post by Rod Speed
The most recent series one of the kids wanted was 60GB.
Yup. I gave the kids a series of series, and they get huge
pretty quickly, filling up the 64GB iPads "in a flash".
Algeria Horan
2016-10-09 10:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
The time is independent of the number of movies stored on the first
phone since the entire card is being moved from one phone to the other.
Hardly anyone uses a card to do that.
The whole point of having the SD card is so that you can store data on that
card, such as all your APKs and all your video files, and then so you can
easily transfer that data to other devices.

For example, I store APKs from multiple repositories (e.g., F-Droid &
Google Play) on the expansion card, and I can easily install those APKs on
other devices *without* having to enable F-Droid or Google Play on those
other devices.

Same with movies. I can play scores of previously saved movies on any other
device simply by popping the expansion card into another device.

This works well between me and the wife because I'm technical enough to be
able to download anything out there, while she is only technical enough to
play it. :)
Post by Rod Speed
So was I, but you obviously have to put it on the
card in the first place and that is what takes the time.
The sdcard sneakernet method works fine for APKs also, which have to be
installed anyway, and which take zero extra time to archive automagically
to the expansion card with a free backup-and-restore utility.

But, I do agree that the movies have to be downloaded in the first place;
however, you'd be amazed at how quickly the NewPipe utility downloads a
2-hour youtube video. I generally only download the audio, so it's even
faster (much faster); but it's just a pushbutton in NewPipe and you can
even close NewPipe and go on with your business because it downloads the
entire movie (audio or video or both) in the background.

So, other than presumably slowing down the CPU, all the downloading (for
both movies and APKs) is done in the background.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
It takes the same amount of time to transfer
10MB as it does to transfer 64GB that way.
But doesn¢t with the time it takes to put it on the card in the first place.
The downloading of APKs and movies is done in the background.
I'm sure there's a background CPU/IO hit; but it's not noticeable.
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 18:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
The time is independent of the number of movies stored on the first
phone since the entire card is being moved from one phone to the other.
Hardly anyone uses a card to do that.
The whole point of having the SD card is so that you can store
data on that card, such as all your APKs and all your video files,
and then so you can easily transfer that data to other devices.
In fact hardly anyone moves movies from phone to phone using sd cards.
Post by Algeria Horan
For example, I store APKs from multiple repositories (e.g., F-Droid
& Google Play) on the expansion card, and I can easily install those
APKs on other devices *without* having to enable F-Droid or Google
Play on those other devices.
Irrelevant to what we were discussing, MOVIES and how long it takes to
put those on a particular phone using a card instead of a cable or wifi.
Post by Algeria Horan
Same with movies.
Nope, fuck all MOVE MOVIES FROM PHONE TO PHONE using a card.

Even kids mostly just airdrop them with idevices, something android can't
do.
Post by Algeria Horan
I can play scores of previously saved movies on any other device
simply by popping the expansion card into another device.
Yes that is possible, but fuck all in fact do it like that BETWEEN PHONES.
Post by Algeria Horan
This works well between me and the wife because I'm
technical enough to be able to download anything
out there, while she is only technical enough to play it. :)
But it makes a lot more sense to move the movies to the phone
using a cable or wifi because that is MUCH FASTER overall.

I in fact do that myself, torrent them using the desktop
because I find it more convenient to torrent on the
desktop and then move it to the iphone or ipad using
a cable, because that is much faster than using an sd
card to move it to the phone or tablet.

I do use usb sticks for the others that play them on their PS3/4
or set top box because those arent portable enough and the
usb sticks are. And the usb sticks are much more convenient
to use than sd cards in phones and tablets too.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
So was I, but you obviously have to put it on the
card in the first place and that is what takes the time.
The sdcard sneakernet method works fine for APKs also,
But is a stupid approach instead of cable or wifi.
Post by Algeria Horan
which have to be installed anyway, and which take zero extra time to
archive
automagically to the expansion card with a free backup-and-restore
utility.
Just as true of wifi and cable.
Post by Algeria Horan
But, I do agree that the movies have to be downloaded in
the first place; however, you'd be amazed at how quickly
the NewPipe utility downloads a 2-hour youtube video.
No I wouldn’t, because I do that myself just as quickly.
Post by Algeria Horan
I generally only download the audio, so it's even faster (much faster);
but it's just a pushbutton in NewPipe and you can even close NewPipe
and go on with your business because it downloads the entire movie
(audio or video or both) in the background.
Yeah, but I get the youngest kid to do that himself. He mostly
does get his music from youtube and is quite capable of doing
that himself. No point in using an sd card at all.
Post by Algeria Horan
So, other than presumably slowing down the CPU, all the downloading
(for both movies and APKs) is done in the background.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether there is
any point in using a card in that situation. There isnt.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
It takes the same amount of time to transfer
10MB as it does to transfer 64GB that way.
But doesn't with the time it takes to put it on the card in the first
place.
The downloading of APKs and movies is done in the background.
I'm sure there's a background CPU/IO hit; but it's not noticeable.
No point in downloading it to a phone that isnt going to be the
phone the movies are played on and moving it to the phone the
movies are going to be played on using a card. Makes a lot more
sense to download it to the desktop and move it to the phone or
tablet using a cable or wifi once its been downloaded.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-09 20:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
In fact hardly anyone moves movies from phone to phone using sd cards.
Fair enough.

I would think most people simply use the expansion card as additional
program storage and data storage, akin to the way they use the internal
system storage.
Post by Rod Speed
Irrelevant to what we were discussing, MOVIES and how long it takes to
put those on a particular phone using a card instead of a cable or wifi.
Fair enough. I download the *audio* from 2-hour documentaries, which takes
only a minute or two in the background (using the NewPipe Youtube-Red
freeware replacement).

No advertising either! :)
Post by Rod Speed
Nope, fuck all MOVE MOVIES FROM PHONE TO PHONE using a card.
Even kids mostly just airdrop them with idevices, something android can't
do.
How do most people move movies from phone to phone on Android or iOS?
Since I just pop out the card and pop it in the second phone, I've never
had a need for another mechanism.

What would you suggest for phone-to-phone moving of movies on Android &
iOS?
Post by Rod Speed
But it makes a lot more sense to move the movies to the phone
using a cable or wifi because that is MUCH FASTER overall.
Fair enough, I guess.
I can immediately see a bunch of other ways (other than the expansion card)
to move a movie from phone to phone on Android and iOS.

In fact, I often would love to move the movies from Android to iPad.

What would you suggest for moving a few dozen movies from Android to iPad?
Post by Rod Speed
I in fact do that myself, torrent them using the desktop
because I find it more convenient to torrent on the
desktop and then move it to the iphone or ipad using
a cable, because that is much faster than using an sd
card to move it to the phone or tablet.
Understood. It's very easy to torrent on the desktop, and just as easy to
move the movies over a USB (or WiFi) to the iPad or Android phone. I agree.

But how would you move the movies already on Android to the iPad?
Post by Rod Speed
Yeah, but I get the youngest kid to do that himself. He mostly
does get his music from youtube and is quite capable of doing
that himself. No point in using an sd card at all.
Just in case that kid is on Android, NewPipe will play or download any
audio (or video) from any Youtube video (without any advertisements ever!).

As usual, that functionality doesn't appear to exist on iOS.
If it does, let me know which app is on iOS that does this simple task:

a. Plays any youtube audio or video without ever seeing an advertisement!
b. Downloads that audio or video in the background by pressing a button

I always find out, by way of comparison, there is so much you *can't* do on
iOS that you *want* to do; so if that capability exists on iOS, please let
me know as we'd all benefit from having it.
Post by Rod Speed
Makes a lot more
sense to download it to the desktop and move it to the phone or
tablet using a cable or wifi once its been downloaded.
Agreed. Desktops torrent well.
My issue is moving the movie from the Android phone to iOS iPads.
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 21:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
In fact hardly anyone moves movies from phone to phone using sd cards.
Fair enough.
I would think most people simply use the expansion
card as additional program storage and data storage,
akin to the way they use the internal system storage.
Yes, particularly with the very low memory low priced
androids. But even with those, while the card is very useful
for stuff like movies and photos etc, it isnt for the apps.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Irrelevant to what we were discussing, MOVIES and how long it takes to
put those on a particular phone using a card instead of a cable or wifi.
Fair enough. I download the *audio* from 2-hour documentaries,
which takes only a minute or two in the background (using the
NewPipe Youtube-Red freeware replacement).
But with those there is no point in using a card to get
the audio onto the phone, wifi is much better for that.
Post by Algeria Horan
No advertising either! :)
I mostly listen to podcasts from our govt national broadcaster,
hardly any ads on those, just a few promos for other stuff from
the same source at times.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Nope, fuck all MOVE MOVIES FROM PHONE TO PHONE using a card.
Even kids mostly just airdrop them with idevices, something android can't
do.
How do most people move movies from phone to phone on Android or iOS?
Its mostly just kids that share stuff like that from phone to phone
and they airdrop with iOS because its so effortless to move them
that way. They mostly use a cloud with android, mostly using wifi.
Post by Algeria Horan
Since I just pop out the card and pop it in the second
phone, I've never had a need for another mechanism.
Too much farting around with phones.
Post by Algeria Horan
What would you suggest for phone-to-phone
moving of movies on Android & iOS?
Airdrop with iOS, cloud and wifi with android.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
But it makes a lot more sense to move the movies to the phone
using a cable or wifi because that is MUCH FASTER overall.
Fair enough, I guess.
I can immediately see a bunch of other ways (other than the expansion
card) to move a movie from phone to phone on Android and iOS.
Sure, but what matters with movies is how fast it can be done.
Post by Algeria Horan
In fact, I often would love to move the movies from Android to iPad.
What would you suggest for moving a few dozen movies from Android to iPad?
Cloud and wifi. Cable would be faster if the wifi isnt
the fastest available, but would involve more farting
around since it’s a mixed android ipad config.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
I in fact do that myself, torrent them using the desktop
because I find it more convenient to torrent on the
desktop and then move it to the iphone or ipad using
a cable, because that is much faster than using an sd
card to move it to the phone or tablet.
Understood. It's very easy to torrent on the desktop, and just as easy to
move the movies over a USB (or WiFi) to the iPad or Android phone. I agree.
But how would you move the movies already on Android to the iPad?
See above. They wouldn’t normally already be on android.
That would only happen if someone shows up with the movies
on their android phone and you want a copy on your ipad.

In that case cloud and wifi unless you want to bugger around
manually for the faster cable transfer when either the android
or ipad can't do that fastest wifi or when both can't.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Yeah, but I get the youngest kid to do that himself. He mostly
does get his music from youtube and is quite capable of doing
that himself. No point in using an sd card at all.
Just in case that kid is on Android, NewPipe will play or download any
audio (or video) from any Youtube video (without any advertisements ever!).
Nar, he's an apple fanatic, doesn’t have any androids at all.
He does have some games consoles, mostly xboxes etc.
Post by Algeria Horan
As usual, that functionality doesn't appear to exist on iOS.
a. Plays any youtube audio or video without ever seeing an advertisement!
b. Downloads that audio or video in the background by pressing a button
I don’t do that on iOS, I do that on Win7. Same with torrenting.

iOS does automatically download the podcasts I have told it I want
to listen to when out walking for exercise, over the home wifi without
any manual activity at all except telling it that I want it to do that with
particular podcast series and does that for years until I tell it to stop.

I don’t do that with youtube videos because I need the full video in
fact the lecture does refer to a slide I need to have a look at and I can't
be bothered stopping walking and looking that slide etc. That's why I
just use podcasts, not youtube lectures like the TED lectures.

I listen to the TED lectures on the desktop, mostly playing Freecell Pro,
like I do with the free to air TV that I never watch live so I can watch
when I want to instead of when its broadcast and skip the ads.
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Makes a lot more sense to download it to the desktop and move it to
the phone or tablet using a cable or wifi once its been downloaded.
Agreed. Desktops torrent well.
My issue is moving the movie from the Android phone to iOS iPads.
There is no need to move a movie from an android phone to an ipad
when you torrent it using the desktop. Just move it to whatever the
person who got you to torrent it wants to watch it on. In my case
on the one kid watches stuff on his ipad on the train, all the rest
watch the movies on their PS3/4s or set top boxes. They do all
have androids, but they prefer to watch the movies on their TVs
using their PS3/4 or set top box and so I put the movies on a usb
stick because that is the quickest way to move the movies.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 18:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
I think the common drawbacks to *both* phones are that too!

a. Neither phone has an expansion slot.
b. Neither phone has a removable battery.

Those are negatives to me too.
AL
2016-10-07 20:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by AL
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
Sorry I missed your #7. (Cleans glasses... :)
Post by Algeria Horan
I think the common drawbacks to *both* phones are that too!
a. Neither phone has an expansion slot.
b. Neither phone has a removable battery.
Those are negatives to me too.
Perhaps to the average user those omissions from earlier phone models
may not be a big problem. But I would have thought techies would want to
keep all the functionality on their devices that they could. Seems not.

At least the Pixel still has an earphone jack, though without the card
slot it's off my list.
Rod Speed
2016-10-08 06:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by AL
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_xl-8345.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_7-8064.php
Comparing the two phones by spec only in the order provided...
1. Network technology is the same.
2. SIM cards are the same
3. Pixel XL screen size (5.5") is larger than the iPhone 7 (4.7")
4. Pixel XL has far greater resolution and pixel density than the iPhone 7
5. Both have quad-core CPUs where the Pixel XL is faster with twice the RAM
6. Cameras are discussed on another thread (let's call it even for now)
7. Neither has an expansion card slot (which is a bummer for both)
8. The Pixel XL has a real 3.5mm jack while the iPhone 7 lost that feature
9. WiFi on the Pixel XL is slightly better (with Wi-Fi Direct & DLNA)
10. Bluetooth specs are the same essentially
11. GPS specs are the same essentially
12. NFC seems slightly better on the Pixel XL than on the iPhone 7
13. USB connector is 3.0 on the Pixel XL (versus 2.0 on the iPhone 7)
14. Sensors are the same (FP, Accel, Gyro, Prox, Compass, Baro)
15. Talk time is more than double for the Pixel XL over the iPhone 7
16. Music play time on the Pixel XL is three times that of the iPhone 7
17. Neither phone has a Micro SD card slot.
That's what his 7 said using different words.
Lewis
2016-10-07 21:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
--
Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its
tendency to bend at the knees. --Feet of Clay
nospam
2016-10-07 21:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
red cars are the fastest. ask any cop. :)
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 22:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Lewis
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
red cars are the fastest. ask any cop. :)
The reason Lewis hates specification discussions is because he doesn't
understand them and because he bought his phone purely out of the STYLE
cachet that Apple MARKETING advocates.

So, he never bought the phone on Price:Performance in the first place.

In fact, he didn't select the phone on either price nor on performance.

He'd pay *anything* for style, and he'd never even know what is inside.

Like a Gucci bag, he doesn't care if it's plastic fake leather, as long as
it has the Gucci logo, that's all he cares about.

So, no wonder he'd say that comparing specifications is pointless.

He only cares about his pink iPhone having gold-plated side buttons.
Lewis
2016-10-07 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
Post by Lewis
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
red cars are the fastest. ask any cop. :)
The reason Lewis hates specification discussions is because he doesn't
understand them and because he bought his phone purely out of the STYLE
cachet that Apple MARKETING advocates.
You are too stupid to even be amusing, trollboi.
--
Something wonderful, if you took the long view, was about to happen. If
you took the short or medium view, something horrible was about to
happen. It's like the difference between seeing a beautiful new star in
the winter sky and actually being close to the supernova. It's the
difference between the beauty of morning dew on a cobweb and actually
being a fly. --Reaper Man
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
You are too stupid to even be amusing, trollboi.
:)
FPP
2016-10-07 22:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Lewis
Post by Algeria Horan
In a recent thread on m.p.m.i, JF Mezei brought up the Google Pixel XL
camera comparison to the iPhone camera. I hadn't heard of the Pixel XL
before, so I decided to run a quick specification-by-specification
comparison of the closest iWhatever to the Google Nexus HTC Pixel XL phone.
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
red cars are the fastest. ask any cop. :)
Ot Christopher Titus, from the TITUS TV series:
[After Ken's arrest for DWI, which occurred while he was driving his
newly-customized pickup truck.]
Post by nospam
Ken: You built me a cop magnet!
I might as well be a black guy driving a large powdered doughnut!
--
Donald J. Trump is always thinking three steps ahead. Unfortunately
for him, he's generally facing backwards at the time.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 22:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
Formula 1 cars are compared by specs, and, in fact, Formula 1 cars are
literally *defined* by specs!

The internal combustion engine of a Formula One car must 1.6-litres in
capacity and rev-limited to 15,000rpm.

The engine must also have six cylinders arranged in a 90-degree
formation, with two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder and a single
turbocharger.

Engines exhaust systems must have a single tailpipe for the turbine and
either one or two tailpipes for the wastegate.

Fuel flow to the engine is limited to 100 kilograms/hour.

The use of any device, other than the engine and one MGU-K, to propel
the car, is not permitted.

etc.
https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/rules-regs/Power_Unit_and_ERS.html


The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg. The
Energy Store must be installed wholly within the survival cell and must
weigh between 20kg and 25kg.

"The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to
the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator)
pedal."
Article 5.5.1 of the 2016 FIA Technical Regulations

The crankcase and cylinder block of the engine must be made of cast or
wrought aluminium alloys
Lewis
2016-10-07 23:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Lewis
Spec comparison of cameras is even more pointless than comparing CPUs by
hertz or comparing F1 cars by color.
Formula 1 cars are compared by specs, and, in fact, Formula 1 cars are
literally *defined* by specs!
Ah, yes, I see your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. Such
simple short words and you still can't manage to read them.

But no, the only comparison that matters at all for and F1 is which one
crosses the finish line first.
--
I WILL NOT SELL LAND IN FLORIDA Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F16
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
But no, the only comparison that matters at all for and F1 is which one
crosses the finish line first.
As always, it is commendable how your every post proves the counterpoint,
in and of itself.

For example, James Hunt win at Jarama was disqualified, after the fact,
after stewards found his McLaren's width to be beyond "F1 specifications".

Likewise, Jenson Button won at Imola, but after the race, stewards found
that the car failed "F1 specifications" on weight.

Formula 1 racing is full of cheats of the specifications, where *keeping*
the title is wholly dependent on the stewards ascertaining that the car
passed "F1 specifications" to begin with.

Of course, you can't possibly understand a thing of what I just wrote, but
suffice to say that your every post proves the counterpoint in and of
itself.
tlvp
2016-10-07 23:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
"The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to
the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator)
pedal."
What?!? No auxiliary bicycle-crank pedals allowed :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-07 23:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Algeria Horan
"The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to
the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator)
pedal."
What?!? No auxiliary bicycle-crank pedals allowed :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp
The fact is that specs matter.

Despite Lewis' assertion to the contrary ... if the car doesn't meet
cursory inspection of the F1 specs before the race, it doesn't race, and if
the winning car doesn't meet closer inspection of the F1 specs after the
race, it didn't win.

Specs aren't everything, but you *start* with base specs, and only get to
price later on in the comparison.

That's why this thread starts with the bare-bones specs.

Now, nospam says that the iPhone 7 is a better performer on speed than the
Pixel, but that wasn't in the specs, and nospam says that the LTE bands
aren't the same, so, if that's true (he hasn't proved anything and he's
very often dead wrong so we don't know if it's true or not), then that's a
deeper look beyond the bare-bones specs.

1. First you start with base specs
2. Then you look at price
3. If necessary, you look deeper into both the price and the specs
nospam
2016-10-08 00:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
The fact is that specs matter.
actually they don't.

what matters is if the user is happy with whatever it is they bought.

more importantly, *you* don't get to decide that, nor does anyone else
other than the person who bought the product.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 00:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
more importantly, *you* don't get to decide that, nor does anyone else
other than the person who bought the product.
Which is why I said "I" could never justify the horrendous
price:performance ratio of the iPhone 7 or the Pixel line of phones
*unless* I get them for no more than the price of sales tax.

I buy plenty of phones that have a better price:performance metric for the
things that matter to me.

And, while it matters greatly to him, the fact that Lewis' iPhone is
probably pink with gold overtones is *not* something that I would pay extra
for.
nospam
2016-10-08 00:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
more importantly, *you* don't get to decide that, nor does anyone else
other than the person who bought the product.
Which is why I said "I" could never justify the horrendous
price:performance ratio of the iPhone 7 or the Pixel line of phones
*unless* I get them for no more than the price of sales tax.
it's not horrendous at all.
Post by Algeria Horan
I buy plenty of phones that have a better price:performance metric for the
things that matter to me.
only because you're a cheapskate who is satisfied with bottom barrel
crap, like that noname android phone you keep babbling about.
Post by Algeria Horan
And, while it matters greatly to him, the fact that Lewis' iPhone is
probably pink with gold overtones is *not* something that I would pay extra
for.
it probably isn't, but even if it was, choice of colour is not an extra
cost.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-08 00:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
only because you're a cheapskate who is satisfied with bottom barrel
crap, like that noname android phone you keep babbling about.
I bought the Samsung Galaxy S3 when it was the best phone Samsung made, and
I _still_ have it, and you know that.
nospam
2016-10-08 00:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
only because you're a cheapskate who is satisfied with bottom barrel
crap, like that noname android phone you keep babbling about.
I bought the Samsung Galaxy S3 when it was the best phone Samsung made, and
I _still_ have it, and you know that.
the fact that you haven't upgraded in over 4 years tells all.

the s3 came out back when the iphone 4s was top of the line, in may,
2012.
Frank Slootweg
2016-10-09 14:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by nospam
only because you're a cheapskate who is satisfied with bottom barrel
crap, like that noname android phone you keep babbling about.
I bought the Samsung Galaxy S3 when it was the best phone Samsung made, and
I _still_ have it, and you know that.
the fact that you haven't upgraded in over 4 years tells all.
Well, IMO that one of the few (the only?) *sane* thing he did/does! :-)
Post by nospam
the s3 came out back when the iphone 4s was top of the line, in may,
2012.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-09 18:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by nospam
the fact that you haven't upgraded in over 4 years tells all.
Well, IMO that one of the few (the only?) *sane* thing he did/does! :-)
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_t999-4804.php

1. Network includes GSM, HSPA, LTE
2. 1.5GHz Dual core Qualcomm MSM8960 Snapdragon S4 Plus & Adreno 225 GPU
3. Expansion card up to 64GB
4. Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA, hotspot
5. Bluetooth v4.0, A2DP, EDR, aptX
6. GPS with A-GPS, GLONASS
7. NFC
8. USB microUSB v2.0 (MHL TV-out), USB Host
9. Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer
10. Removable Li-Ion 2100 mAh battery (mine is currently 7,100mAh)
11. Camera is 8 MP, f/2.6 (yeah, that sucks - but it's fine for me)
12. A real headphone jack!

The price:performance of this device is great, for me.
Bearing in mind I use about 100MB of data a month, and I don't take
pictures with the phone all that much, what do I get by buying a new phone?
nospam
2016-10-09 18:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by nospam
the fact that you haven't upgraded in over 4 years tells all.
Well, IMO that one of the few (the only?) *sane* thing he did/does! :-)
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
a shitload of stuff.

just because *you* don't want any of it doesn't mean nobody else does.
tlvp
2016-10-09 20:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Algeria Horan
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
a shitload of stuff.
just because *you* don't want any of it doesn't mean nobody else does.
Silly! Who do you know that wants a load of shit? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 18:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by nospam
the fact that you haven't upgraded in over 4 years tells all.
Well, IMO that one of the few (the only?) *sane* thing he did/does!
:-)
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
The latest android for starters. That has always been the problem
with samsungs, you don’t get the latest android for long.
Post by Algeria Horan
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_t999-4804.php
1. Network includes GSM, HSPA, LTE
2. 1.5GHz Dual core Qualcomm MSM8960 Snapdragon S4 Plus & Adreno 225 GPU
3. Expansion card up to 64GB
4. Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA, hotspot
5. Bluetooth v4.0, A2DP, EDR, aptX
6. GPS with A-GPS, GLONASS
7. NFC
8. USB microUSB v2.0 (MHL TV-out), USB Host
9. Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer
10. Removable Li-Ion 2100 mAh battery (mine is currently 7,100mAh)
11. Camera is 8 MP, f/2.6 (yeah, that sucks - but it's fine for me)
12. A real headphone jack!
The price:performance of this device is great, for me.
Not all of us are such desperate povs that we must have the best
price:performance and if we did need that, would get a Nexus,
not an S3 and have a lot better access to the latest androids.
Post by Algeria Horan
Bearing in mind I use about 100MB of data a month, and I don't take
pictures with the phone all that much, what do I get by buying a new phone?
The latest androids.
Algeria Horan
2016-10-09 20:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
The latest android for starters. That has always been the problem
with samsungs, you don¢t get the latest android for long.
Bear in mind, *most* of the functionality of the *latest Androids* is
already available in apps already, on the older Androids.

And, also bear in mind *security updatse* by the phone manufacturer
continue (e.g., my ancient S3 is *still* getting security policy updates
from Samsung).

In addition, I would *assume* that if I rooted my S3, I would assume that
this might enable me to load the latest Android (I don't know that for a
fact though since I haven't rooted it).

Would rooting the S3 enable me to load a later Android version?
Rod Speed
2016-10-09 21:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Algeria Horan
What does a *new* phone have, that an S3 doesn't have, that matters?
The latest android for starters. That has always been the problem
with samsungs, you don¢t get the latest android for long.
Bear in mind, *most* of the functionality of the *latest Androids*
is already available in apps already, on the older Androids.
With a lot more farting around.

And that dinosaur of a phone cant do Android Pay or Samsung Pay.

It can't do Android Pay because its stuck with the older android.
Post by Algeria Horan
In addition, I would *assume* that if I rooted my S3, I would
assume that this might enable me to load the latest Android
You can't do Android Pay on a rooted android.
Post by Algeria Horan
(I don't know that for a fact though since I haven't rooted it).
Would rooting the S3 enable me to load a later Android version?
Nope, you still need to get the modified android for
that particular phone and samsung has never made that.

Lewis
2016-10-08 00:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Algeria Horan
Despite Lewis' assertion to the contrary ... if the car doesn't meet
cursory inspection of the F1 specs
Yep, you still can't read.
--
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents -- except at
occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind
which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies)
rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of
the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
Loading...