Linked by robojerk on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I have often wondered why there wasn't a flood of Android portable media players - now the WSJ Reports: "With the move, Samsung will round out a series of Galaxy-named gadgets that matches product for product with Apple Inc.'s line of iPods, iPad and iPhone. Samsung will have the Galaxy Player, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy smartphone. All use a variation of Google Inc.'s Android operating system and work with apps developed for it."
Order by: Score:
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:38 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't want to sound like a cynic but every time I hear about an iPod competitor I'm always let down because of three factors:

1) Its Windows only with MSC when it available is entirely useless when you have a large collection thus the indexing with each reboot taking ages.

2) Fails to support AAC audio -its an open standard for goodness sake!

3) The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.

PS. Don't mention Archos because I'll throttle you one; if there was ever an example of a company who makes a product only to abandon it after a few moths they would be it. If there was ever a company who make it impossible to replace the hard disk (in the case of their tablet device) then they would be it. Archos is like Apple on steroids when it comes to providing products that they fail to support for the long term and lock down so it is next to impossible to use their device for anything other than they deem as 'acceptable'.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by dakohli on Thu 30th Dec 2010 04:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
dakohli Member since:
2010-12-30

As it happens I used to own an iPhone, and have a touch, but now use a Galaxy Phone, and while I agree about Archos, I have to say that some of your critical points may be a little off here:

1. Mass Storage Class - I'm not completely familiar with this one. I use drag and drop to put media on the phone. I use winamp, which I understand will sync over wifi/usb without any issues. Also Double Twist is available. So there are lots of choices here.

2. AAC - supported along with:

Media support

The Galaxy S comes with support for many multimedia file formats, including audio codecs (FLAC, WAV, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, AAC+, eAAC+, WMA, AMR-NB, AMR-WB, MID, AC3, XMF), video codecs (mpeg4, H.264, H.263, Sorenson codec, DivX HD/ XviD, VC-1) and video formats (3GP (MPEG-4), WMV (Advanced Systems Format), AVI (divx), MKV, FLV).<P>
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S#Media_support



3. Size and Price - This will be the killer. Although, we know that the Galaxy device will be expandable through micro-SD cards. The 16 Gb Phone is listed at $550 (no Term) from Rogers.ca Considering that the 16G iPhone 4 runs at $660 (apple.ca), and the 32G iTouch is $310, I think we would be estimating a cost of about $300 give or take.

So, I think we would see something very close to the Apple price point. The key here is that with android, the sky is the limit. You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it. The real question here is, can Samsung get out of the box approval to run the Google Android Market. If this is the case, then I think Apple will have a fight on its hands.

For your consideration.

Dave

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As it happens I used to own an iPhone, and have a touch, but now use a Galaxy Phone, and while I agree about Archos, I have to say that some of your critical points may be a little off here:

1. Mass Storage Class - I'm not completely familiar with this one. I use drag and drop to put media on the phone. I use winamp, which I understand will sync over wifi/usb without any issues. Also Double Twist is available. So there are lots of choices here.


MSC means dragging and dropping like you do - as soon as you transfer more than say around 20gb worth of music the reboot and subsequent indexing takes for ages and due to the inefficient way the indexing managed the whole device slows to a crawl because the whole thing is loaded into the physical memory. I've yet to see a company develop a device that doesn't have all the draw backs of MSC - it is simple but it is only useful for people who quite frankly have bugger all music and stuff to sync with it.

Now if they said, "ok lets go MTP" then I'll be happy, as long as they work with the libmtp and Songbird developers to make synchronisation happen both on Mac OS X and Windows without any problems.

2. AAC - supported along with:

Media support

The Galaxy S comes with support for many multimedia file formats, including audio codecs (FLAC, WAV, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, AAC+, eAAC+, WMA, AMR-NB, AMR-WB, MID, AC3, XMF), video codecs (mpeg4, H.264, H.263, Sorenson codec, DivX HD/ XviD, VC-1) and video formats (3GP (MPEG-4), WMV (Advanced Systems Format), AVI (divx), MKV, FLV).
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S#Media_support


Good to see they support AAC, so that is already putting them in a good position as a replacement for my iPod Classic.

3. Size and Price - This will be the killer. Although, we know that the Galaxy device will be expandable through micro-SD cards. The 16 Gb Phone is listed at $550 (no Term) from Rogers.ca Considering that the 16G iPhone 4 runs at $660 (apple.ca), and the 32G iTouch is $310, I think we would be estimating a cost of about $300 give or take.

So, I think we would see something very close to the Apple price point. The key here is that with android, the sky is the limit. You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it. The real question here is, can Samsung get out of the box approval to run the Google Android Market. If this is the case, then I think Apple will have a fight on its hands.


But will it be abandoned within 6 months? Android 2.3 is released and no update provided only to be told you've got to upgrade your hardware, then 3.0 is just around the corner, will Galaxy sit in obscurity as Samsung tells its customers of a few months that they should throw away their old devices because they can't be bothered providing firmware upgrades? We've already seen the racket being run by phone vendors who refuse to provide updates even though they can well and truly run Android 2.2. Sorry but when you compare the situation in the Android market on phones to the Apple world - at least when you purchase an Apple i-device 1 year ago you're at least assured you're going to receive a iOS update compared to all the Android vendors who have told their customers to go fuck themselves when it comes to Android 2.2/2.3 upgrades.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 30th Dec 2010 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, the abandonment issue is pretty misleading.

There are two different issues with abandonment:

OS updates:

It runs android, an open source operating system for mobile devices. There are third party providers of updates that can be installed in the most popular devices to keep them up to date. Relying on the carrier or manufacturer of the devices for updates is not always necessary.


Applications:

You can write your own! No third party approval. If switching to a third party OS is too much for you, you can improve the device itself through writing apps for it, or finding apps online and installing them. Screw the App store review!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the abandonment issue is pretty misleading.

There are two different issues with abandonment:

OS updates:

It runs android, an open source operating system for mobile devices. There are third party providers of updates that can be installed in the most popular devices to keep them up to date. Relying on the carrier or manufacturer of the devices for updates is not always necessary.


I have a Vodafone 845 - I suggest you look at the 'third party roms' that require one to jump through several flaming hoops just to get upgraded and if things go wrong then your forfeit your warranty. Sorry I expect the hardware vendor to provide updates for at least 3 years. If Microsoft can support their products for more than 5 years, and Apple can keep providing iOS upgrades to devices over 2 years old then I think at the very least the Android vendors should at least match Apple.

You can write your own! No third party approval. If switching to a third party OS is too much for you, you can improve the device itself through writing apps for it, or finding apps online and installing them. Screw the App store review!


Too bad if the phone or pad is locked down and requiring a hack to get around the restrictions. The existence of Android on a device doesn't preclude vendor lock in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 31st Dec 2010 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You complained about the lack of support for the devices. I was just trying to figure out what the heck that really meant in practice : OS updates and Application updates. If thats not what you meant, please feel free to specify what you did mean. Because it still seems like Android devices have huge advantages in the area I thought you were complaining about.



I can never modify IOS on any apple device, ever.

Plus, there is zero chance for me to install anything other than what Apple wants on their devices without voiding the warrenty/EULA, regardless of carrier.


Simply put, if you care about those things, you don't buy an IOS device.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You complained about the lack of support for the devices. I was just trying to figure out what the heck that really meant in practice : OS updates and Application updates. If thats not what you meant, please feel free to specify what you did mean. Because it still seems like Android devices have huge advantages in the area I thought you were complaining about.


There is no advantage because you're just as dependent upon the device vendor for operating system updates as you as if you were for an iOS device from Apple - at least in the case of iOS however you're not going to be left high and dry in a years time when a new version is released. I never raised anything about applications, the complete focus has been on the operating system itself - stop diverting the discussion to peripheral matters.

I can never modify IOS on any apple device, ever.


And you can't do that with Android unless you install a hack/work around which is a risky operation that quite frankly I'm not going to do.

Plus, there is zero chance for me to install anything other than what Apple wants on their devices without voiding the warrenty/EULA, regardless of carrier.


Amazing enough that is the same situation with Android but at least with Apple you know the device that you bought a year ago will receive an iOS update when the next version comes out.

Simply put, if you care about those things, you don't buy an IOS device.


Which is a diversion from the fact that android devices are crap - devices being sold to consumers only to be told in a years time that if they want the next version of Android they're going have to throw away their old device and buy a new one. Sorry, but that is just plain fucking stupid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 31st Dec 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I still don't understand why you want OS updates. I was guessing it had something to do with providing new functionality ( system features and/or enabling apps with new abilities).

And you can't do that with Android unless you install a hack/work around which is a risky operation that quite frankly I'm not going to do.


I agree. All I was saying, and you seem to agree is this:

Modifying OS

IOS => IMPOSSIBLE, with any effort.
Android => POSSIBLE, with some effort.



Amazing enough that is the same situation with Android but at least with Apple you know the device that you bought a year ago will receive an iOS update when the next version comes out.


Let's do another chart to clarify.


Non store Application instalation:


*IOS (with all carriers) => POSSIBLE with some carrier and device manufacturer disapproved effort (Jail breaking).

*Android (with some carriers)=> POSSIBLE, with some carrier and device manufacturer disapproved effort (Jail breaking).

*Android (with other carriers) => POSSIBLE, out of the box with no hacks necessary


Which is a diversion from the fact that android devices are crap - devices being sold to consumers only to be told in a years time that if they want the next version of Android they're going have to throw away their old device and buy a new one. Sorry, but that is just plain f--king stupid.


Whoah. Calm down fellow. Its just technology. People are allowed to buy devices they prefer. Just because you don't like a product, that doesn't make it crap to everyone else. There may not be a "BEST" device for everyone, and its clear we have our own priorities when it comes to getting a phone/ media player.

There are some of us here, who would call ourselves "hackers". We like writing operating systems and applications. We are going to want a device that allows us to do that.

Edited 2010-12-31 17:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by dakohli on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
dakohli Member since:
2010-12-30

Abandonment - In this case the music player will not be connected with a particular service provider. This will make it very easy for Samsung to provide updates. My guess is, that as long as the Hardware can support it, the updates will come. Of course the other thing is that with Android, there is an awful lot of functionality that can be added by third party apps. There are no restrictions like Apple has, so in the end, large updates may not be as big a player as they might be otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by viton on Fri 31st Dec 2010 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You can write your own! No third party approval. If switching to a third party OS is too much for you, you can improve the device itself through writing apps for it, or finding apps online and installing them. Screw the App store review!

So what is wrong with App Store?
I don't need to wander through web for some obscure apps. In AppStore I can easily buy/download what I need with one click. And I need to enter my credit card in one trusted place to buy software. On PC it is Steam. Too bad they don't distribute other software than games through it.
AppStore prices are very low. For a price of typical PC-shareware game you can buy a few blockbuster titles on iPhone.
If someone is just asking $1 for a nice app or game, only fcking morons will pirate.

Edited 2010-12-31 15:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 31st Dec 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I can't decide in the middle of the night that I really need an app write it and install it. It has to meet Apple's guidelines. Of course you can jail break to, the guy I was responding to doesn't apparently like doing anything the carrier or device manufacturer doesn't want you to do. So that wouldn't work for him, but it would for me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by JAlexoid on Fri 31st Dec 2010 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple i-device 1 year ago you're at least assured you're going to receive a iOS update compared to all the Android vendors who have told their customers to go f--k themselves when it comes to Android 2.2/2.3 upgrades.


Yeah... So since you actually need an iPod Classic, why would you care for iOS updates?
This BTW sounds like the top-of-the-line device, witch usually do get updates.

And those updates is not as big an issue as some claim it to be.

Edited 2010-12-31 02:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah... So since you actually need an iPod Classic, why would you care for iOS updates?
This BTW sounds like the top-of-the-line device, witch usually do get updates.

And those updates is not as big an issue as some claim it to be.


I'm looking at getting an iPod Touch in the future hence I do a comparison between the iPod Touch and what else is out there hence accessibility to operating system upgrades and updates tells me how long the usefulness of the device will be. Android devices have a shelf life of 6 months where by after that you might as well smash it up with a hammer and throw away where as with iOS devices on average there is a shelf life of at least 2-3 years.

Imagine if I told you that if you wanted to upgrade your operating system every 6 months you had to buy a computer - what would you say in response? you'd probably ask why can't it be provided on your current device. Peoples love for Android and hatred for Apple seems to have blinded them to the fact that they're being ripped off - that the whole idea of 'open source' is a load of crap based on the reality that I unable to simply go, download the source, untar it, compile it and then copy it to my android device then click 'firmware upgrade'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by JAlexoid on Sun 2nd Jan 2011 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Android devices have a shelf life of 6 months where by after that you might as well smash it up with a hammer and throw away where as with iOS devices on average there is a shelf life of at least 2-3 years.

You have a strange concept of usefulness. Just because it doesn't have the latest OS doesn't make it obsolete. I have a first gen iPod Touch, I don't care that it will not run iOS4. It plays music, browses web, has access to youtube, noting else and that's the whole point of the device.

Imagine if I told you that if you wanted to upgrade your operating system every 6 months you had to buy a computer - what would you say in response?


Well... If the main feature that you care about is the version of the OS running then just don't bother with Android.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You have a strange concept of usefulness. Just because it doesn't have the latest OS doesn't make it obsolete. I have a first gen iPod Touch, I don't care that it will not run iOS4. It plays music, browses web, has access to youtube, noting else and that's the whole point of the device.


It is obsolete because it isn't just features but security updates - you're connected to the internet. We only need to look at the security implications of old version of Android out in the wild and the spate of worms in China as one example of how obsolete OS's are a problem.

Well... If the main feature that you care about is the version of the OS running then just don't bother with Android.


Then obviously you're too bloody lazy to read what I've posted; it has NOTHING to do with the so-called 'version' and everything to do with an operating system not being updated and maintained. Sorry, you might like an OS which is swiss cheese on the internet but I'd like to know when I'm checking my account balance using one of these devices I'm not going to get the crap hacked out of me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by viton on Fri 31st Dec 2010 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it.
What is the point of buying the OS you didn't like?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Thu 30th Dec 2010 08:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

1) Its Windows only with MSC when it available is entirely useless when you have a large collection thus the indexing with each reboot taking ages.

I agree, though if they're wishing to clone the iPod they must not work properly with alternative operating systems other than that of their manufacturer ;)

2) Fails to support AAC audio -its an open standard for goodness sake!

Open standard, you say ?
Like everything coming from MPEG, AAC is a patented format. Implementing AAC requires a license fee.
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx
This is why media players vendors won't support it : unlike MP3 and WMA, it's not even a de facto standard, so it's not worth the cost.

Now, if only they could support Vorbis, which is a *true* open standard...

3) The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.

That's logical. Apple manufactures large amounts of iPods, so they can pay less. Newcomers don't have this chance.

This is why, in my opinion, trying to clone the iPod without introducing some major innovation is pointless. But some keep trying...

Edited 2010-12-30 08:48 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, though if they're wishing to clone the iPod they must not work properly with alternative operating systems other than that of their manufacturer ;)


I don't want the iPod to be cloned, I want a better player - something Apples competitors seem to be inept at doing.

Open standard, you say ?
Like everything coming from MPEG, AAC is a patented format. Implementing AAC requires a license fee.
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx
This is why media players vendors won't support it : unlike MP3 and WMA, it's not even a de facto standard, so it's not worth the cost.

Now, if only they could support Vorbis, which is a *true* open standard...


Open standard does not automatically lead to royalty and patent free.

That's logical. Apple manufactures large amounts of iPods, so they can pay less. Newcomers don't have this chance.

This is why, in my opinion, trying to clone the iPod without introducing some major innovation is pointless. But some keep trying...


Why the heck should I there for buy an inferior product at a higher price simply to 'stick it to the man'?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Open standard does not automatically lead to royalty and patent free.

Then how is it open ? In that the spec is publicly known ? Everyone knows how MP3 works, too...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Then how is it open ? In that the spec is publicly known ? Everyone knows how MP3 works, too...


AAC specification is full provided and open. FAAC/FAAD are open source implementations, they lack the attention required but it most certainly can be implemented. h264 is an open standard which again is being implemented without too many problems. Sure AAC is a pain in the backside to implement, yes it is more complex but there is nothing stopping someone with enough time and man power to actually implement a high quality AAC encoder to the same quality that exists in the MP3 world in the case of LAME.

Edited 2010-12-31 07:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

AAC specification is full provided and open. FAAC/FAAD are open source implementations, they lack the attention required but it most certainly can be implemented. h264 is an open standard which again is being implemented without too many problems. Sure AAC is a pain in the backside to implement, yes it is more complex but there is nothing stopping someone with enough time and man power to actually implement a high quality AAC encoder to the same quality that exists in the MP3 world in the case of LAME.

But why would someone do that ? MP3 has proven to be good enough as a de facto standard, so why would someone spend time to implement another patented format, paying another license fee or restricting himself from exporting his product in the US in order to do that ? Wouldn't we be better off waiting for the MP3 patents to expire ?

Is the quality increase so that, say, you can get the same quality as MP3 CBR 128KBps (above which most people don't hear the difference) in twice less space ?

Edited 2010-12-31 07:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But why would someone do that ? MP3 has proven to be good enough as a de facto standard, so why would someone spend time to implement another patented format, paying another license fee or restricting himself from exporting his product in the US in order to do that ? Is the quality increase so that, say, you can get the same quality as MP3 CBR 192KB (above which most people don't hear the difference) in twice less space?


Because I have 200GB of music and I don't feel inclined to re-encode all my music again simply to 'stick it to the man'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Because I have 200GB of music and I don't feel inclined to re-encode all my music again simply to 'stick it to the man'.

Alright, but is there a sufficient number of people in this situation for it being worth implementing AAC on the manufacturer's side ?

I mean, Vorbis costs them only development time and it's already too much. As you said yourself, AAC costs even more development time, and as a bonus caveat you've got to pay for it.

If I'm not misunderstood, most people who own lots of AAC files are iTunes Store users, meaning the part of iPod customers which would be the hardest to convince of switching to another media player.

Edited 2010-12-31 11:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by JAlexoid on Thu 30th Dec 2010 10:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.


Really? The only reason I bought a Grundig MP3 player 2gb was because the damn thing is exactly 2 times cheaper than iPod shuffle 2gb.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Really? The only reason I bought a Grundig MP3 player 2gb was because the damn thing is exactly 2 times cheaper than iPod shuffle 2gb.


Too bad you can't purchase it where I live - 2GB though would be entirely useless for me anyway given that I compress mind in 'true VBR' which ~320K which means I need the space.

I've yet for someone to show me where I can get a 160GB mp3 player that is the same or cheaper price than the iPod Classic. Ok, lets take the Cowon J3 for example which I can pick up NZ for NZ$462 for the 32GB model, or I can pay $38 more and get a mp3 player that has an operating system with access to a huge array of applications can be easily purchased from any high street retail store plus up to 3 years of operating system updates when compared to the 'lets abandon our customers after 6 months' mentality that Archos and Cowon seem to be happy to do.

Edited 2010-12-30 12:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Thu 30th Dec 2010 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Don't know about archos, but are you sure that Cowon does that ? Their support seems rather long-lived, looking at the time during which they sold the M3, X5, and S9.

I still am pissed off by the D2, where they didn't took the time to test the firmware seriously before releasing it (It came with a buggy implementation of IDtags... Come on !). But I must admit that they took the time to fix it. Contrast with all those iPod nano 2G owners who never got an update to fix its persistent lock-ups.

Edited 2010-12-30 13:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't know about archos, but are you sure that Cowon does that ? Their support seems rather long-lived, looking at the time during which they sold the M3, X5, and S9.

I still am pissed off by the D2, where they didn't took the time to test the firmware seriously before releasing it (It came with a buggy implementation of IDtags... Come on !). But I must admit that they took the time to fix it. Contrast with all those iPod nano 2G owners who never got an update to fix its persistent lock-ups.


I'm waiting for the Cowon X7 to come to New Zealand which apparently will be some time next year. If all is working out right it appears to be a good replacement for the iPod I have - lets hope that by that time things are working smoothly on the firmware front.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I'm waiting for the Cowon X7 to come to New Zealand which apparently will be some time next year. If all is working out right it appears to be a good replacement for the iPod I have - lets hope that by that time things are working smoothly on the firmware front.

Yes, if you're not willing to buy abroad, Cowon devices are hard to find. In France, there is exactly one Cowon reseller who accepts cash, Pixmania, and he's not exactly well-known to the public.

Edited 2010-12-31 07:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, if you're not willing to buy abroad, Cowon devices are hard to find. In France, there is exactly one Cowon reseller who accepts cash, Pixmania, and he's not exactly well-known to the public.


NZ is in a good situation that we allow parallel importing (with much protesting by the United States) so there is an online store that the distributor sells Cowon through. I'd purchase Cowon from an overseas company but then there is the issue of warranty and the fact that most refuse to export products overseas (remailers are expensive to use). Amazon being the chief of all assholes who refuse to sell stuff overseas hence my refusal to purchase anything off them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by sc3252 on Fri 31st Dec 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
sc3252 Member since:
2005-09-06

iriver was the best from what I remember, at least while I used it. It was freaking sweat, it was hard drive based 20GB and had OGG support, yeah that free shit we like. Of course I have no clue if it supported anything like acc, but I remember really liking its ogg support. That was back in 2003 when there were lots of ipod competitors and most offered crap software to go along with their crap players, while irvier used drag and drop(like a removable hard drive).

Reply Score: 3

Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:40 UTC
neticspace
Member since:
2009-06-09

Android, Android, Android and.......... Android! It's an Android world here in South Korea. Since Google is not gaining any substantial share in the internet search and advertisement fields in the South Korean market, this company is instead promoting Android and the Chrome web-browser.

Let's hope Samsung and Google are smart enough to overcome the whole ActiveX shenangigans.

Reply Score: 5

Good move
by nt_jerkface on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:44 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

I think the ipod touch is a big part of the iphone's success. It allows consumers to try the platform without signing a 2 year contract.

Hopefully it won't be a piece of crap like the galaxy tab.

Edited 2010-12-30 00:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good move
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 01:05 UTC in reply to "Good move"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the ipod touch is a big part of the iphone's success. It allows consumers to try the platform without signing a 2 year contract.

Hopefully it won't be a piece of crap like the galaxy tab.


Who said you had to purchase an iPhone with a 2 year contract? there is the option, if you want, to buy the phone out right without a contract. Sure, it'll set you back probably NZ$800-NZ$1000 but the option is right there for you to take advantage of.

I always purchase all my phones outright because the last thing I want to be beholden to is a carrier who has me by the short 'n curlies then demand a massive payment simply to get out of the contract.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good move
by OSGuy on Thu 30th Dec 2010 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Good move"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I always purchase all my phones outright because the last thing I want to be beholden to is a carrier who has me by the short 'n curlies then demand a massive payment simply to get out of the contract.

Well, the way I see it, we are primarily paying off the cost of the actual phone when you cancel the contract and may be a little bit extra for the actual contract and processing fees etc. Either way, I have never been on a phone contract and have no intention to get into one either. I always buy my phones outright. Nearly everyone complains *after* they sign up.

Edited 2010-12-30 03:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good move
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good move"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I always purchase all my phones outright because the last thing I want to be beholden to is a carrier who has me by the short 'n curlies then demand a massive payment simply to get out of the contract.

Well, the way I see it, we are primarily paying off the cost of the actual phone when you cancel the contract and may be a little bit extra for the actual contract and processing fees etc. Either way, I have never been on a phone contract and have no intention to get into one either. I always buy my phones outright. Nearly everyone complains *after* they sign up.


The amount they charge effectively you're better off getting a personal loan through a finance company on an interest free or low interest deal, purchasing it out right then playing the carriers off against each other. In the case of NZ where I live if I had an iPhone I can use it on XT Network, 2 Degrees or Vodafone - and now there is number portability it makes life even easier. The 'leave fee' covers the subsidy but if one is simply purchasing a phone on contract simply to get the cheaper 'up front cost' but you really don't need a contract that extensive then you're no better off given you're going to under utilise the contract you've signed up for.

Edited 2010-12-30 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good move
by nt_jerkface on Thu 30th Dec 2010 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Good move"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

They aren't selling them in stores which is what matters.

People can ask for a touch for Christmas and then later get an iphone. The touch is also popular with teens and kids as a gaming device. Samsung is making a good move here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good move
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good move"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They aren't selling them in stores which is what matters.

People can ask for a touch for Christmas and then later get an iphone. The touch is also popular with teens and kids as a gaming device. Samsung is making a good move here.


I don't know about the US where everything seems to be 30 years behind New Zealand but I can buy it straight from Apple online, Magnummac, Noel Leeming, Bond & Bond, JB Hi-Fi, Dick Smiths and, Vodafone online store and 'bricks and mortar' shop all full price and without a contract. I can then take that phone and run it on XT Network, Vodafone or 2 Degrees if I so wish. Maybe the complaint should be about the antiquated way in which the US mobile phone market operates instead of using the US as the 'example' or 'litmus test' as to how the rest of the world operates.

Edit: I hope my post didn't come off as overly aggressive but one has to take into account the US experience cannot be replicated globally.

Edit 2: I'm surprised you're singing the praise of it given that apparently the 'Galaxy Tab has turned me off of tablets':

http://www.binplay.com/2010/12/galaxy-tab-has-turned-me-off-of-tabl...

Edited 2010-12-30 06:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good move
by nt_jerkface on Thu 30th Dec 2010 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good move"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The US cell system is more like a laboratory for the rest of the world. Be glad your country can trade wool sweaters and mutton for the all the neat gadgets that are invented and tested here.

Oh look I can take cheap shots too.

As for the Galaxy tab I consider it unusable but I'm willing to give future Samsung products a fair try and an Android alternative to the ipod touch is a great idea. The ipod touch is the #2 mp3 player at Amazon, so why shouldn't they try to enter that market?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Good move
by Yanni Depp on Thu 30th Dec 2010 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good move"
Yanni Depp Member since:
2010-02-17

So you have a 'laboratory' of half-baked networks running on different standards, making it difficult or impossible to take your phone from one provider to another, and little or no international roaming (and no iPhone) if you use CDMA.

I have five networks based on the same international standard (GSM), that cover my entire country, and I can run my phone on any of them without any difficulty.

Sounds like your precious country needs to try a lot harder. The 1980s called and they want their 'laboratory' back.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Good move
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 30th Dec 2010 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good move"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Not defending the cheap shots that jerkface lobbed, but CDMA does seem to work better in the US than GSM. I would agree that the US is a lab.

And there are many people who love working and playing in labs: we call them scientists.

Unfortunately there are even more people that just want things to f-ing work: we call them consumers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Good move
by JAlexoid on Thu 30th Dec 2010 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good move"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The US cell system is more like a laboratory for the rest of the world.


Oh, you mean the antiquated laboratory that scientists sometimes visit to remember how "good it was years ago"?

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Good move
by nt_jerkface on Fri 31st Dec 2010 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good move"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The difference is a lack of legal enforcement of a single technology, not a technical deficiency.

Countries like NZ have been able to pick and choose from technologies developed and tested in the US. Given the layout of the current cell infrastructure of the US requiring a single system would be costly. If the US only needed to cover an area the size of NZ changing the existing system would be much easier.

Cell phone companies have been able to compete with landlines that operate on cost as public trusts so I'm not convinced consumers are at a significant disadvantage with the current system. Last I checked cell bills in the US are comparable to France and Norway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good move
by JAlexoid on Fri 31st Dec 2010 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good move"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The difference is a lack of legal enforcement of a single technology, not a technical deficiency.

Countries like NZ have been able to pick and choose from technologies developed and tested in the US. Given the layout of the current cell infrastructure of the US requiring a single system would be costly. If the US only needed to cover an area the size of NZ changing the existing system would be much easier.

Cell phone companies have been able to compete with landlines that operate on cost as public trusts so I'm not convinced consumers are at a significant disadvantage with the current system. Last I checked cell bills in the US are comparable to France and Norway.


Yeah... But for that $$$ we actually get much, much more.

As far as I'm aware, the first rollouts of W-CDMA, HSPA, WiMAX and LTE were performed and "tested" in Europe.
Because that's the best market to upgrade infrastructure and we pay for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Good move
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good move"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The difference is a lack of legal enforcement of a single technology, not a technical deficiency.

Countries like NZ have been able to pick and choose from technologies developed and tested in the US. Given the layout of the current cell infrastructure of the US requiring a single system would be costly. If the US only needed to cover an area the size of NZ changing the existing system would be much easier.

Cell phone companies have been able to compete with landlines that operate on cost as public trusts so I'm not convinced consumers are at a significant disadvantage with the current system. Last I checked cell bills in the US are comparable to France and Norway.


Then you're obviously clueless about the NZ terrane because it isn't as simple as throwing up a few towers and away you go. Telecom New Zealand went form the old analogue system to CDMA2000 in a hope of piggy backing off deals with Sprint to get cheap handsets into New Zealand to then undercut the market leader Vodafone/BellSouth which uses GSM. Unlike Verizon, Telecom recognised a system that was dead and made the change to W-CDMA instead of procrastinating as with the case of Verizon.

As for 'much bigger country' - come on, the US is a $14trillion dollar economy that is by far a lot richer than New Zealand could ever of dream becoming. On resources alone to be able to dedicate to such a switch over should make the US the market leader when it comes to deployment of technologies in a timely manner.

As for the 'bills' please, this is the country that charges the sender AND receiver of texts and mobile phone calls! if there was ever a system more screwed up I've yet to see it!

Edited 2010-12-31 07:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

All use a variation...
by mrhasbean on Thu 30th Dec 2010 04:26 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

For the sake of non-technical users who'd actually like to get OS updates every now and then, wirelessly and automatically as Android is capable of, one would hope that it's the same or a very similar "variation" for all devices.

Reply Score: 2

This is a good thing, but.....
by polaris20 on Thu 30th Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really dig a lot of things about Android, and this is a good thing for people that just want a regular phone, but want a media player/pocket computer for wifi only use. My wife actually does this now with a regular flip-phone and an iPod touch.

What bugs me about Android (in the US) is the carrier and OEM-imposed fragmentation.

Samsung, HTC, and Motorola all have different UI's. Motorola is on 2.2 on most of its devices, but as far as I know, Samsung is still on 2.1. Wifi hotspot capability is apart of 2.2, however Motorola locks it out of the Droid entirely, and charges $25 extra for it on the X.

The only way to go, IMO, is the Nexus S, which is as Google intended, not some bastardized, crippled version of Android.

Reply Score: 4

RE: This is a good thing, but.....
by viton on Fri 31st Dec 2010 17:19 UTC in reply to "This is a good thing, but....."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Samsung, HTC, and Motorola all have different UI's

Android is a new WM. Lot of different (and custom, handmade) OS versions. Someone (too smart) is trying to be not like zillion of clones and stuff some UI and custom software on top. This only leads to confusion.

Well, I don't really understand the current situation, where almost everyone is producing identical devices with the same hardware and software. In the old times we had unique devices what incorporate some neat ideas, vision.

I do not support clones anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 30th Dec 2010 19:40 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

"I have often wondered why there wasn't a flood of Android portable media players"
Yep same here, but Archos has some now, and looks like Samsung is getting into the foray.

Reply Score: 1