Nexus One: The iPhone Killer

2 01 2010

With its thin design and large touch screen, The Google Nexus One is definitely a physical iPhone killer. The Nexus One is fast and responsive and…Forget it; I’m tired of all this “iPhone Killer” crap. The Nexus One is a great phone from what’s been released about it. My problem here is everyone is jumping in saying “oh this is the phone to finally dethrone the iPhone” No its not. It wasn’t designed to be. While the phone is a great alternative to the iPhone, I doubt it was ever intended to put its competitor into the dark ages. 2 things made the iPhone what it is today. The first is the innovation with the apps. Even though Google does it better with their market, Apple did it first and most people feel if what I have now is working right, why try something else I’m not so sure of? The second is Fanboy/Brand Loyalty/”The Thing”. Because this phone has an apple on the back of it, people flock to it for one of 3 reasons. 1) They’re a “Fan Boy” that person who you’re sure that if you used the bathroom in their house you would find Apple branded toilet paper. 2) Those who find loyalty to a brand. They have an iMac or a Mac Book and are really happy with the product they have there and expect that Apple will do the same with their phone. 3) The people who need to be socially accepted. Right now the iPhone is the socially accepted phone. Those people who are really concerned about what everyone else thinks about them definitely have an iPhone (and I’m Willing to bet money that they left a better service plan to get it).

To make a true iPhone killer, Google would have to follow in the way of Apple. When apple started off with the iPhone, they had no ties what so ever to the phone industry. If this product failed it wasn’t really a big deal, just lost some money off of our Mac enterprise.  Google would have to take a chunk out of its search pockets (and we all know how deep those pockets are) and develop a phone similar to the Nexus one (from what I’ve seen of this phone, its powerful and capable of just about anything any other phone on the market can do) but implement every feature on the iPhone (at least all the ones it could offer without violating copyrights, then finding ways to offer something similar) On top of that it would have to be unlocked so as it could work on any companies network. Google would also have to offer a CDMA version for those who are on Sprint and Verizon. The problem with this is it would alienate Google’s Android partners. Because of these ties, I say, at least for now, stop looking to Google for an iPhone killer.

Advertisements




Possible 4G iPhone

30 11 2009

Normally I would not make a post speculating the existence of a phone and normally I wouldn’t write an article about the iPhone, but this is the exception. When you browse a site, your browser tends to tell the server what type of browser you’re using. This way, if the server has multiple versions of the page you want to view it can display the one that is most compatible with your browser (the best example of this is the difference between desktop browsing and mobile browsing). Apparently some apps used by the iPhone check the version of the phone to make sure you have the best version of the app based on your phone version. Lately in the San Francisco area the version 3,1 has been popping up. In history, the 1,1 version of the iPhone turned out to be the 2G version of the iPhone. the 2,1 version showed up about a  year later turning out to be the 3G version. This speculation matches with the supposed leak of the 4G midboard from China.  The fact that the testing is taking place in San Fran also helps out because San Fran is where Verizon is testing their 4G LTE service.





AT&T Video Share

17 11 2009

I hate leaving a time based article at the top of the page, so I’ve been pushing for the past few days for something to write about that was worth the time and interesting enough to me that I wouldn’t start drooling on the keyboard trying to put the article together. So today I bring you a feature advertised on my Samsung Solstice, the Video Share feature. This feature (which costs $0.35 a minute to use) is designed to allow me to do a live video stream from my video share capable phone to any other video share capable phone in the AT&T 3G network (you can also stream pre-recorded video). Being that me and my cousin (for lack of a better name at the moment we will call him Dred) have the same cell phone and happen to work at the same place which happens to be in a 3G area, I decided to give this feature a run calling him and sacrificing 35 cents so my loyal followers (or you reading this article) could know a little more about this hardly advertised feature. Quickly I found out why this feature is hardly advertised. After about half an hours work of adjusting phone settings, moving around the office and adjusting billing options, I came to the conclusion that its easier to get the Playboy® Centerfold (not sure if this even exists just know it would be hard to do) through the Apple® approval process. After many adjustments to my bill, I finally got it to attempt to connect a call with Dred so we could do this service so I could write my review on it. Finally it calls Dred and I get the response that Dred’s phone does not support Video Share. Here is where I have to throw up a big Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? Dred is sporting the exact same phone as I am, so as far as device ability goes, its there. As for service, I was sure to change his when I changed mine just in case that was what was holding me back, so once again exact replica. Finishing off with the last variable, 3G/signal strength, Dred’s phone was literally all of 2 feet from mine, don’t think there’s that much difference in strength and 3G zone in that little of distance. While this feature sounds freaking sweet, I got to say it’s pretty hard to get going. Maybe if we’re outside it’ll work better. I guess I’ll be doing a follow up on this later. So far, not worth letting it be a decision maker.





Triple Article Wednesday

4 11 2009

I wanted to be sure to get an article in today about something, especially since I was really urging to post yesterday but nothing really crossed my desk that I felt was worthy of sharing with all my loyal readers. Today, when I first checked my sources, I found two topics that just popped right off that I had to write about. The third came not too long ago while re-checking my sources and what have you. So without further ado, I give you, Triple Article Wednesday.

 

            RIAA and the Performance “tax”

This story actually was brought to me by a radio ad telling me I need to know more about the “performance tax”. After some light research on the subject (yeah like I’m really gonna research hard core. Just the facts Ma’am) I found that this bill? (I’m not sure what to call it, its up for discussion on capital hill so in honor of the song… I’ll call it a bill) is to get radio stations to pay a tax, or royalty, or fee for playing copyrighted music. (Writers note: I just spent hours looking deeper into this and ended up writing my rep and senators so pace may change here). This idea is Ludicrous (haha like that, how I used a recording artists name to get my point across). The only thing that this would do aside bring even more money to the RIAA is reduce either the amount of music we hear on the radio (i.e. some radio stations may stop playing music all together) or reduce the amount of other things we hear about (i.e. traffic, sports) to get the most for their money. I myself like to know that I’m about to roll up on the biggest wreck ever known to man so I can make that attempt to avoid that nightmare. Its worked so long for 80 years, why change it now?

 

Artist’s side/argument: http://musicfirstcoalition.org/

Radio’s side/argument: http://www.noperformancetax.org/

 

            ATT Sues Verizon

My next story is about the lawsuit that ATT has on Verizon. The “There’s a map for that” commercial seems to have burnt ATT so hard that they felt they need to take it to court to get the ad pulled from the airwaves. ATT argues that this commercial leads to the false impression that outside of the blue area on ATT’s map, there is no coverage what so ever.

  theresamapforthat 

 

 

Based on what I see.. and the fact that it states 3G coverage.. and they are using the brands color to blot the map.. I would assume that the white areas are non 3G coverage. I mean come on, I’m not going to go on an ad frenzy to show off a map that shows I got areas that don’t have coverage regardless of if its less then the other map or not. Be the judge for yourself though.

 

            Verizon Early Termination Fees

In my final story, we turn right back to Verizon, who, for contracts beginning or after November 15th 2009, will be charging up to $350 per line for early contract termination fees on “advanced devices”. Verizon does pro rate the ETF by $10 per month, but if you stay on your contract for 23 months that’s still $120 left to pay (that’s only $55 difference from the previous full charge). All I can say is I’m glad I stopped doing business with this company, even though I’m sure that everyone else is going to follow suit until the FCC steps in.