The Epic Android Thread - Page 98 - maemo.org

Active Topics

The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 6 hrs, 14 mins ago
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 2 hrs ago
more...

Page 98 of 468

Thread Tools

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 21:26
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#971

Rogers is making waves today! It looks as if their roadmap for the Tab and the Streak has been leaked!

http://www.bgr.com/2010/11/05/rogers...admap-revealed

Interestingly BGR leaks that the price for the Tab may be $299 on a 2yr or $199 on a 3yr contract! Wow. But I'm still not going subsidized.

Also, they make mention to their 'Data Sharing' feature that requires one account for multiple devices. Very nice.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
danramos, Slocan

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 21:31
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#972

Slashgear gives the Tab a thumbs up in its review (complete with video):

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-gal...view-31111323/

A good read, but nothing you don't know already

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
danramos

Rebski	2010-11-05 , 21:35
Posts: 874 \| Thanked: 316 times \| Joined on Jun 2007 @ London UK	#973

Pretty lukewarm review on Trusted Reviews
http://www.trustedreviews.com/laptop...-Galaxy-Tab/p1
or should that be 'realistic'?

I haven't seen a Tab in the flesh yet, I called into my local Carphone Warehouse on the day of launch but they didn't have one in stock.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rebski For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt, danramos, etuoyo

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 21:57
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#974

Originally Posted by Rebski

Pretty lukewarm review on Trusted Reviews
http://www.trustedreviews.com/laptop...-Galaxy-Tab/p1
or should that be 'realistic'?

I haven't seen a Tab in the flesh yet, I called into my local Carphone Warehouse on the day of launch but they didn't have one in stock.

When I read things like this....

The trouble is, nice as these touches are, it does nothing to address the problem which was suggested at the start of this review: the Galaxy Tab has a fundamental identity crisis. The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed it has not been referred to it as a tablet at any point and that is because it isn't one. Dear readers the Tab isn't the first mass market Android tablet, it is the largest mass market Android smartphone...

... it's hard to take the review seriously. Who gives a flying **** about the 'identity' of the device?! Should we start judging our devices based on their market positioning? This paragraph alone is enough to make me ignore the review.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
danramos, etuoyo

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 22:05
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#975

It's quite clear that the review was biased. Here's the author's personal blog where he states that he 'dislikes the Tab'.
http://gordonkelly.com/news/problems...ng-galaxy-tab/

He even includes two videos showing touchscreen 'lag'. The first video, he's trying to swipe the homescreen and it's not moving (he's swiping incredibly fast -- there may be a software limit on the swipe rate -- I would put one if I designed the UI). In the second video he's showing the slow scrolling with flash in the browser.

This is hardly adequate fodder to completely 'dislike' a device, though I can understand that they take away from the user-experience, especially if he was accustomed to the iPad.

It seems from this blog post, his tweets, and comments on the review, that he's suffering from fanboyitis.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
danramos

	danramos	2010-11-05 , 22:09
	Posts: 4,672 \| Thanked: 5,455 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA	#976

Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt

When I read things like this....

... it's hard to take the review seriously. Who gives a flying **** about the 'identity' of the device?! Should we start judging our devices based on their market positioning? This paragraph alone is enough to make me ignore the review.

I also question the authority of such a statement. Who is he to define what a tablet is? What specific criteria does a tablet have that a smartphone does not and vice versa? Is it the size of the device? If so, wouldn't that effectively make the Internet Tablet a misnomer in the case of the 770/N8x0's and the Archos Internet Tablets? Is is that the device has a cellular radio? If so, wouldn't that effectively discredit every iPad with a cellular radio and every netbook or laptop with a cellular radio? What, pray tell me, is the difference between a tablet and a cellphone?

Me, personally: I always figured that a "cellphone" was a function of a device's firmware or software to let you make calls. The form factor of a cell phone could be a physical phone-like device, or it could be a piece of software that you run on a tablet, laptop or anything else--much like we treat VOIP. Because, as far as I'm concerned, cellular phone *IS* not far removed from basically a VOIP service. Why can't the Samsung Tab, then, be a TABLET form factor.. with CELL PHONE services?

In my opinion, the writer is obviously a little confused about these technical and logical subjects and should stick to writing children's books where there are far fewer technical arguments to get mired in.

GOOD DAY!

__________________
Nokia's slogan shouldn't be the pedo-palmgrabbing image with the slogan, "Connecting People"... It should be one hand open pleadingly with another hand giving the middle finger and the more apt slogan, "Potential Unrealized." --DR

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt, Snoshrk

	danramos	2010-11-05 , 22:15
	Posts: 4,672 \| Thanked: 5,455 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA	#977

I wish I could have posted my previous comment to this thread to the comment section of his article but they don't allow any reader to comment--only the ones with accounts. Just as well, it's not worth getting an account there given the plethora of reviews that conflict with his observations. Some were merit-worthy observations but far too many were clearly iFan inspired blatherings of opinion.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 22:23
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#978

Originally Posted by danramos

I also question the authority of such a statement. Who is he to define what a tablet is? What specific criteria does a tablet have that a smartphone does not and vice versa? Is it the size of the device? If so, wouldn't that effectively make the Internet Tablet a misnomer in the case of the 770/N8x0's and the Archos Internet Tablets? Is is that the device has a cellular radio? If so, wouldn't that effectively discredit every iPad with a cellular radio and every netbook or laptop with a cellular radio? What, pray tell me, is the difference between a tablet and a cellphone?

Me, personally: I always figured that a "cellphone" was a function of a device's firmware or software to let you make calls. The form factor of a cell phone could be a physical phone-like device, or it could be a piece of software that you run on a tablet, laptop or anything else--much like we treat VOIP. Because, as far as I'm concerned, cellular phone *IS* not far removed from basically a VOIP service. Why can't the Samsung Tab, then, be a TABLET form factor.. with CELL PHONE services?

In my opinion, the writer is obviously a little confused about these technical and logical subjects and should stick to writing children's books where there are far fewer technical arguments to get mired in.

GOOD DAY!

Well said. I was just about to write the same thing in my post!

I agree 100%. With a handful of devices on the market there is no agreed upon dictum of what constitutes a 'tablet'. And what does classificaiton matter -- I mean really? If it does the job, it does the job. Were we rating a conglomerates marketing efforts, this argument would have some weight, but in a device review, it's miles off-topic.

Last edited by Capt'n Corrupt; 2010-11-05 at 22:26.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
danramos

	danramos	2010-11-05 , 22:38
	Posts: 4,672 \| Thanked: 5,455 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA	#979

Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt

Well said. I was just about to write the same thing in my post!

Yes, but would the cut of your jibe have been so sharp? I re-read what I wrote earlier and I could almost see the crimson dripping from between the sharp lines of my criticism. I can't help feeling as if, even without reading what I'd said, somewhere out there the author of that article probably felt it.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt

I agree 100%. With a handful of devices on the market there is no agreed upon dictum of what constitutes a 'tablet'. And what does classificaiton matter -- I mean really? If it does the job, it does the job. Were we rating a conglomerates marketing efforts, this argument would have some weight, but in a device review, it's miles off-topic.

Wellllll... I don't know about that. As I'd pointed out, I think a tablet is a generally accepted idea of a flat "tablet-like" form factor that you use a stylus or finger on. I would argue that everything from the old Newtons and Palm computers (referred to as PDA's) were still "tablets" in the classic and technical sense.

The main point of argument that I have is that he said it isn't a tablet, not so much that he called it a cellphone. Had he argued that the Palm Tungsten Tx is not a tablet, it's a PDA, I would have made a similar argument of, "What disqualifies this device as a tablet? Why can't a tablet be a PDA?"

It just seems to me that he's disqualifying an apple as food. You can clearly and successfully argue that all apples are food, but you can't successfully argue that all food are apples. Also, Android is eating Apple's lunch and I get the feeling that he doesn't like that.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt

	Capt'n Corrupt	2010-11-05 , 23:27
	Posts: 3,524 \| Thanked: 2,958 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant	#980

Originally Posted by danramos

Wellllll... I don't know about that. As I'd pointed out, I think a tablet is a generally accepted idea of a flat "tablet-like" form factor that you use a stylus or finger on. I would argue that everything from the old Newtons and Palm computers (referred to as PDA's) were still "tablets" in the classic and technical sense.

Sadly 'what constitutes a tablet' seems to be the heart of many a debate these days. It's eerily reminiscent of the great netbook debate of 2008. Eventually an extremely confining definition will be agreed upon by the gregs, but many would be quick to argue with your current definition of a tablet. What makes a PDA a PDA, or a tablet a tablet, afterall, if they contain the same parts/interface/software? My point is: if you ask anybody they'll likely argue that a tablet is something more specific.

I remember the debates that raged in these golden forums about the N900 not being a NIT, but a phone -- largely due to the cellular radio and smaller screen. Why couldn't it be both?

But I too agree with your definition and acceptance that this title can easily be inclusive to many other devices. I suppose what I was trying to convey is the inanity of excessive classification and how little bearing it has is general upon anything other than debates of definition.