• iPhone 5S and 5C announced at Apple event
    248 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Scot;42147366]I love how Apple were saying "oh we are gonna do something different nobody else thought to do this" when they talked about enlarging the image sensor while keeping the pixel count the same. It's like they've never even heard of the One. They were also acting like burst mode was something new.[/QUOTE] Apple did the same thing with the iPhone 4's rear facing camera, predates the one a bit.
Something worth noting is that the 5S stores fingerprint information in the processor, encrypts it and also doesn't allow any apps (even apple's) access to it.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;42146639]App: [url]http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/subCategoryHome?msegid=2&catid=4546&scatid=18069[/url] Host device: [IMG]http://basshead.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/cck_1-e1277391512412.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Those adapters are still pretty expensive compared to being able to just plug a device in. Apple propriety connectors are such shit if you want extensions or adapters.
[QUOTE=Scot;42147366]I love how Apple were saying "oh we are gonna do something different nobody else thought to do this" when they talked about enlarging the image sensor while keeping the pixel count the same. It's like they've never even heard of the One. They were also acting like burst mode was something new.[/QUOTE] I don't understand your logic. Of course they're going go flaunt their new features. They aren't going to be like, "oh, well, HTC beat us to this, and I guess burst mode has existed for awhile. " everyone else does it in their own advertising regardless of what is available from the competition.
i gotta have both
[QUOTE=Protocol7;42147866]I don't understand your logic. Of course they're going go flaunt their new features. They aren't going to be like, "oh, well, HTC beat us to this, and I guess burst mode has existed for awhile. " everyone else does it in their own advertising regardless of what is available from the competition.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between marketing and lying. wait no there isnt nevermind
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42147697]Those adapters are still pretty expensive compared to being able to just plug a device in. Apple propriety connectors are such shit if you want extensions or adapters.[/QUOTE] It's only 30 dollars for both, dealextreme sells them for like 5, its really not too bad.
[QUOTE=Scot;42148288]There's a difference between marketing and lying. wait no there isnt nevermind[/QUOTE] But everyone does it, that's my point. Everyone despises Apple for doing the same shit everyone has done. Hell, I don't see anyone complaining about Microsoft's dirty tactics with the Windows RT versus iOS ads.
apple adaptor prices are a reason to learn soldering. 30 pin was at least able to be manufactured 3rd party reliably.
Considering I've had the IPhone 4 (no S) since it was released - I think it's finally time for an upgrade.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;42146639]App: [url]http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/subCategoryHome?msegid=2&catid=4546&scatid=18069[/url] Host device: [IMG]http://basshead.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/cck_1-e1277391512412.jpg[/IMG] [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] That only works for the Canon 6D by the look of it and doesn't use that adapter at all, it uses Wi-Fi. The problem with that is most of the high end shit won't have Wi-Fi by default and will only include it as an expansion (mainly because IIRC Wi-Fi adds a lot of regulatory problems on a country by country basis). So no, the iPhone cannot do what you say it can do without spending $300. This is a limitation of it being a shitty tied down operating system more than anything else; these kind of powerful utilities will likely never come to the iPhone etc unless Apple really changed its mind about things. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;42148292]It's only 30 dollars for both, dealextreme sells them for like 5, its really not too bad.[/QUOTE] It is bad because they cannot be made generic; Apple insists on using proprietary connectors for its phones and this is the end cost to the customer: having to fork out extra money for adapters. When the USB host stuff for android came out, I ordered like 5 of them (I like having spares) for less than $30. All of them worked great too.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;42147310]Never mind the completely redesigned mac pro, or the way they're expanding their foothold in television, or their supposedly large product line-up for 2014. 2013 has been somewhat of a transitory period. They're still moving out from the way the company worked in the past and designing new products for 2014. They've said this multiple times. But you're right. Apple didn't make their phone with a 7 inch screen, 12 cores and eye tracking so they can't innovate anymore.[/QUOTE] Mac Pro still isn't out and by the time it is out there will be already faster processors from Intel; just yesterday I believe Intel announced some 12 core server-grade processors. It still has impressive specs--but from everything I read will probably be priced at $5000 USD and won't really be made in a format that can accept the majority of traditional upgrades (proprietary form factors are great aren't they). Other companies have already been expanding into the TV world for a long time now. Apple has never really been able to innovate; most of their computers and devices just use shit that is already on the market. One thing they do excel at is marketing; things like the retina display are great examples of their marketing. But not much of what they release could really be considered 'technology'. Samsung releasing a super fast SSD or new type of flash memory is technology, some new wireless standard is a technology, the GTX Titan is technology; a Mac Pro is just components that other companies manufacture that have been readily available for a long time and putting them in a circular box where the airflow is vertical. This is my PC case from a few years back: [IMG]http://www.silverstonetek.com/images/memo/5970_in_RV02.jpg[/IMG] They rotated the motherboard by 90 degrees so the cards run vertically, and air flows from top to bottom; totally groundbreaking isn't it? The fact that they refuse to change screen size on their portable devices shows they are probably going to keep trying to ride on the success of the iPhone rather than introduce anything game changing. This shows more than anything that they cannot innovate.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;42147009]Apple stock falling. Looks like they can't rely on silly gimmicks any more.[/QUOTE] and the samsung gear, s pen, octo core, looking away from your phone and having it pause isn't a gimmick? [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=nigerianprince;42150984] Apple has never really been able to innovate; most of their computers and devices just use shit that is already on the market. One thing they do excel at is marketing; things like the retina display are great examples of their marketing. But not much of what they release could really be considered 'technology'. The fact that they refuse to change screen size on their portable devices shows they are probably going to keep trying to ride on the success of the iPhone rather than introduce anything game changing. This shows more than anything that they cannot innovate.[/QUOTE] yeah, apple has never innovated anything. except for the imac. and the ipod. and the iphone. and the ipad. and then the iphone again. and then the macbook air. and then the macbook pro. shit, you really showed crapple who's the boss lol xD [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=nigerianprince;42149203] So no, the iPhone cannot do what you say it can do without spending $300. This is a limitation of it being a shitty tied down operating system more than anything else; these kind of powerful utilities will likely never come to the iPhone etc unless Apple really changed its mind about things. [/QUOTE] if you're a photographer, $300 is a drop in the bucket.
[QUOTE=meppers;42144380]steve jobs would have never allowed the 5c to exist[/QUOTE] Or the rainbow color pallete + gold. Which I wouldn't blame him for. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Pawnstick;42151009]if you're a photographer, $300 is a drop in the bucket.[/QUOTE] Haha, no. They pay shitloads of dosh for expensive camera equipment because it's [B]VITAL[/B] to their job.
[QUOTE=Pawnstick;42151009]and the samsung gear, s pen, octo core, looking away from your phone and having it pause isn't a gimmick? [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] yeah, apple has never innovated anything. except for the imac. and the ipod. and the iphone. and the ipad. and then the iphone again. and then the macbook air. and then the macbook pro. shit, you really showed crapple who's the boss lol xD [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] if you're a photographer, $300 is a drop in the bucket.[/QUOTE] None of those were innovative; perhaps some of Apple's earliest products were back when computers were beige. There were smart phones before the iPhone. There were iRivers before the iPod. There were all in one computers before the iMac. There were super lightweight laptops before the air. There were high performance laptops before the macbook pro. Sure some of their products pushed the envelope with technical advancements, and sure some look nice, but are they really groundbreaking or 'innovative' when they all run a hugely restricted operating system on a hugely tied down hardware platform? No. I still hear people telling me how high end Apple's gear is and how amazing and groundbreaking the iPod is; its really not. There are better portable media players out there that cost a lot more than an iPod. A $300 adapter doesn't excuse Apple of making a poor, locked down operating system on its mobile products. I own a lot more than $300 worth of photography gear, and I'd never spend $300 on what is basically an adapter; just because it doesn't cost anywhere near as much as a good lens it doesn't excuse Apple from making a very restricted operating system. Its funny that almost any operating system can connect to these cameras (I don't think they make software for linux however), and even an Android can with no rooting and nothing but a fairly common USB adapter, but an iPhone cannot and you're trying to excuse that with a $300 adapter that basically facilitates the lack of USB host ability on Apple's prodcuts? When an iPhone can't do something that everything else can unless you fork out $300, how on earth how exactly do you propose that that is somehow excusable? Its the same thing as Sony; everyone trying to explain how amazing Sony is because of the PS4; if you look at Sony's recent history they haven't released anything innovative in years (when was the last time Sony made the next walkman?). Most other companies can produce products that Sony was once renowned for at a cheaper price to the customer, with a far greater pool of options. Sony is actually similar in some ways to Apple in how they tried hard to tie down the products they released with proprietary formats and other methods. In the end it didn't work out for them.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42150984] Apple has never really been able to innovate; most of their computers and devices just use shit that is already on the market. One thing they do excel at is marketing; things like the retina display are great examples of their marketing. But not much of what they release could really be considered 'technology'. The fact that they refuse to change screen size on their portable devices shows they are probably going to keep trying to ride on the success of the iPhone rather than introduce anything game changing. This shows more than anything that they cannot innovate.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because GUIs were a thing before the Mac. And high-capacity music players were around [I]long[/I] before the iPod. And there were just so many touch screen mobile computer phones before the iPhone. The sheer amount of selection we had before 2007 really just boggles my mind. And has technology really gotten to such a sad point where an extra inch of screen size on a phone is considered a game changer? Apple aren't sticking to the current size because they're "riding on the success" of it. They're doing it because the size is in general far more pleasing to the eye and far easier to use for people who don't have ridiculously large hands.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;42151202]Yeah, because GUIs were a thing before the Mac. And high-capacity music players were around [I]long[/I] before the iPod. And there were just so many touch screen mobile computer phones before the iPhone. The sheer amount of selection we had before 2007 really just boggles my mind. And has technology really gotten to such a sad point where an extra inch of screen size on a phone is considered a game changer? Apple aren't sticking to the current size because they're "riding on the success" of it. They're doing it because the size is in general far more pleasing to the eye and far easier to use for people who don't have ridiculously large hands.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/2009/03/xerox-8010-star.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://mikeschinkel.com/images/creative-technology.nomad-jukebox.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Palmpilot5000_eu.png/220px-Palmpilot5000_eu.png[/IMG] They are riding on the success of the iPhone. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42151217][IMG]http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/2009/03/xerox-8010-star.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://mikeschinkel.com/images/creative-technology.nomad-jukebox.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Palmpilot5000_eu.png/220px-Palmpilot5000_eu.png[/IMG] They are riding on the success of the iPhone. I don't think there is any doubt about that.[/QUOTE] Please stop posting images from my "the worst products ever made" folder.
[QUOTE=Pawnstick;42151237]Please stop posting images from my "the worst products ever made" folder.[/QUOTE] So you're basically saying you cannot contest the fact that all these products existed before Apple's "groundbreaking" [I]designed by Apple in California™[/I] products? The Creative Nomad was a great product for its time; sure it only had 6GB of space, but that was mass storage in those days. As was most of the stuff Palm made; sure it doesn't compete to anything made in the last 10 years, but for that point in time they were groundbreaking products.
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;42143761]iOS has always been bloated. Android devices with the equivalent specs of an iPod touch 2G could run a homescreen wallpaper perfectly well, yet the iPod touch 2G itself seems to have a framerate of about 10fps.[/QUOTE] Are you trolling? Android is bloated, iOS is relatively lightweight Of course Android by itself is very lightweight compared to stock iOS but doesn't change the fact that manufacturers like to put their penisware into your phone Aside from that, the gold color and fingerprint scanners were fresh, but the new case designs are mediocre
[QUOTE=Xmeagol;42147098]I've had to make do with an Omnia 7 with no SDslot, only 8GB, and i was perfectly happy at the time with all the music, movies and heavy shit i had on the device. If i, and countless others can work with 8GB, why in the fuck can't you work with 80GB's of storage?! ON A PHONE. Fucking ridiculous mate.[/QUOTE] way to misread what I said, I'm perfectly fine with this space because I have everything I need and want. I only said that I would buy a 64gb iPhone if I would ever get one, and he said I should buy a HTC one x instead. I am in no way complaining of lack of space or anything.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42151244]So you're basically saying you cannot contest the fact that all these products existed before Apple's "groundbreaking" [I]designed by Apple in California™[/I] products? The Creative Nomad was a great product for its time; sure it only had 6GB of space, but that was mass storage in those days. As was most of the stuff Palm made; sure it doesn't compete to anything made in the last 10 years, but for that point in time they were groundbreaking products.[/QUOTE] By using older products with similar features that newer apple devices have to justify that apple is "not innovative", you are disregarding the clear fact that design is also innovation and you misunderstand half the reasons why consumers chose the iPod over other media players. The Creative Nomad was way too expensive to justify its pitiful 6 gigabytes and terrible controls and shape. When the iPod came out in 2001 for a similar price with nearly double that amount of space, plus a nicer and easier to use design, its clear how badly Creative failed with their early adoption. Please stop saying that improving existing ideas "is not innovation", because that's so untrue, however I do agree with you that recently Apple has been lacking in the iPhone creativity department. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] Its not to do whether if something is "ground-breaking" or not, its to do with if the market has demand for something that you make and people want it because its both useful and looks shiny. Apple, in it's early days, recognized this more than most.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42151244]So you're basically saying you cannot contest the fact that all these products existed before Apple's "groundbreaking" [I]designed by Apple in California™[/I] products? The Creative Nomad was a great product for its time; sure it only had 6GB of space, but that was mass storage in those days. As was most of the stuff Palm made; sure it doesn't compete to anything made in the last 10 years, but for that point in time they were groundbreaking products.[/QUOTE] From reading your posts, I think I need to sit down next to you and slowly explain how things work. I'm not next to you though, so you'll just have to [I]read this very slowly:[/I] Do you know what the word [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation"]innovation [/URL]means? Don't answer that question - it was rhetorical! From your posts, the answer is clear. Apple engineers are innovative in that they have taken existing technology and ideas, and improved upon them. Ok, we get it, those 3 images you've posted were early innovators. They're all really crappy as well. No one remembers them and no one wants to. You have to [I]want[/I] to learn more about the Creative Nomad to even find that image from the depths of the internet. The products that you posted may be older than Apple's products, but they [B]suck[/B]. [I]That reminds me of the world's very first photograph... ...oh yeah, it was terrible[/I]
[QUOTE=usa;42151350]By using older products with similar features that newer apple devices have to justify that apple is "not innovative", you are disregarding the clear fact that design is also innovation and you misunderstand half the reasons why consumers chose the iPod over other media players. The Creative Nomad was way too expensive to justify its pitiful 6 gigabytes and terrible controls and shape. When the iPod came out in 2001 for a similar price with nearly double that amount of space, plus a nicer and easier to use design, its clear how badly Creative failed with their early adoption. Please stop saying that improving existing ideas "is not innovation", because that's so untrue, however I do agree with you that recently Apple has been lacking in the iPhone creativity department. [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] Its not to do whether if something is "ground-breaking" or not, its to do with if the market has demand for something that you make and people want it because its both useful and looks shiny. Apple, in it's early days, recognized this more than most.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the history lesson grandpa. I had both a 1st generation iPod and a Creative Nomad so I am familiar with both systems. The reason the Creative Nomad was so expensive was just because of hard disk technology more than anything else. When that came out it was a real marvel to hold that much storage in your hand to even be able to play music. The iPod did come in a smoother package, for that period in time it looked damn nice. IIRC it also had a longer battery life--but it also didn't have a user changeable or serviceable battery. iRiver also produced products before the iPod. So yeah, Apple succeeded in making a more refined mass storage music player. But it didn't come first. But I think the fact remains, that all of these 'innovations' are just natural progressions; obviously music progressed into mp3 format before these devices came about and spurned their popularity. Sticking a small processor and some storage space and a headphone socket onto a circuit board is hardly some sort of groundbreaking invention. Claiming that a touchscreen mobile phone (when touchscreen is used everywhere from PoS systems, to ATMs to everywhere else is 'groundbreaking' and more innovative (as the person I was replying to seemed to try implying) flatly isn't true. Apple doesn't deserve a prize for making things 'first' either, because most of their products didn't come first. Its also sad that Apple gets so much praise for basically rehashing the same iPod design with just a few changes year on year. IMHO this is what a well designed media player looks like: [IMG]http://www.iriver.com/down/file/Product/2012102614303995137.jpg[/IMG] [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Performula;42151396]From reading your posts, I think I need to sit down next to you and slowly explain how things work. I'm not next to you though, so you'll just have to [I]read this very slowly:[/I] Do you know what the word [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation"]innovation [/URL]means? Don't answer that question - it was rhetorical! From your posts, the answer is clear. Apple engineers are innovative in that they have taken existing technology and ideas, and improved upon them. Ok, we get it, those 3 images you've posted were early innovators. They're all really crappy as well. No one remembers them and no one wants to. You have to [I]want[/I] to learn more about the Creative Nomad to even find that image from the depths of the internet. The products that you posted may be older than Apple's products, but they [B]suck[/B]. [I]That reminds me of the world's very first photograph... ...oh yeah, it was terrible[/I][/QUOTE] Are you seriously trying to claim that Palm produced crappy products for that period of time? Sure they are nothing in comparison to something produced today, and the company was run by idiots who didn't get with the times--but their products at that time [I]were[/I] groundbreaking and were used by a great number of people. The creative nomad was also an [B]amazing[/B] product for its time. Creative is a pretty shitty company nowadays, which is why no one remember most of their early products. There were a lot of Apple's products and those of other companies that were shit and forgettable too. I don't think that discounts them from being innovative (i'm sure no one remembers such great technological failures like the Nintendo Virtual Boy or the Pippin or the 3DO either)
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42151433]Thanks for the history lesson grandpa. I had both a 1st generation iPod and a Creative Nomad so I am familiar with both systems. The reason the Creative Nomad was so expensive was just because of hard disk technology more than anything else. When that came out it was a real marvel to hold that much storage in your hand to even be able to play music. The iPod did come in a smoother package, for that period in time it looked damn nice. IIRC it also had a longer battery life--but it also didn't have a user changeable or serviceable battery. iRiver also produced products before the iPod. So yeah, Apple succeeded in making a more refined mass storage music player. But it didn't come first. But I think the fact remains, that all of these 'innovations' are just natural progressions; obviously music progressed into mp3 format before these devices came about and spurned their popularity. Sticking a small processor and some storage space and a headphone socket onto a circuit board is hardly some sort of groundbreaking invention. Claiming that a touchscreen mobile phone (when touchscreen is used everywhere from PoS systems, to ATMs to everywhere else is 'groundbreaking' and more innovative (as the person I was replying to seemed to try implying) flatly isn't true. Apple doesn't deserve a prize for making things 'first' either, because most of their products didn't come first. Its also sad that Apple gets so much praise for basically rehashing the same iPod design with just a few changes year on year. IMHO this is what a well designed media player looks like: [IMG]http://www.iriver.com/down/file/Product/2012102614303995137.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Once again, making successful and useful products isn't about "coming first", its true maybe they don't deserve praise, but that's simply your opinion. As is your "well designed media player". Lets take a quick look at what your media player offers in terms of "well designed" IMHO: Pros: Simple interface, nice modern brushed metal, appears to be unibody, color screen and smooth controls. Cons: People need to understand where the buttons are and how the controls work before they can user them, knob on the side looks out of place, completely pointless blank part where more screen could be, or the controls. You also seem to be convinced that Apple simply just "adds a few bits an peices onto an almost ideal competitors product", how high are you? There was a reason that the iPhone was so successful, it was because of how they took elements and implemented them in a more usable and intuitive fasion than competitors, while still maintaining a good design standard. You need to get off your high horse about Apple in general. Many other companies were originally successful from this format, not just them. As for me, i'm clearly wasting my time trying to compete with blind rage of the tyranny of apple getting praised for successful products! Nobody is going to change your opinion and you refuse to respect others when you cant change theirs.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;42151247]Are you trolling? Android is bloated, iOS is relatively lightweight Of course Android by itself is very lightweight compared to stock iOS but doesn't change the fact that manufacturers like to put their penisware into your phone Aside from that, the gold color and fingerprint scanners were fresh, but the new case designs are mediocre[/QUOTE] Android is as bloated as the manufacturer bloats it.
[QUOTE=Coffee;42151530]Android is as bloated as the manufacturer bloats it.[/QUOTE] Google really needs some sort of "premium manufacturer program" for companies that don't fuck up Android on the devices they manufacture. Think Nexus, except without following google guidelines of no sd-card.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42151611]Google really needs some sort of "premium manufacturer program" for companies that don't fuck up Android on the devices they manufacture. Think Nexus, except without following google guidelines of no sd-card.[/QUOTE] There's not much point in buying from anyone but Google until they get that sorted out. HTC seem to have a reasonably good set of software but the One is the only good phone they've made in a while and It's the same as the Nexus 4.
[QUOTE=usa;42151496]Once again, making successful and useful products isn't about "coming first", its true maybe they don't deserve praise, but that's simply your opinion. As is your "well designed media player". Lets take a quick look at what your media player offers in terms of "well designed" IMHO: Pros: Simple interface, nice modern brushed metal, appears to be unibody, color screen and smooth controls. Cons: People need to understand where the buttons are and how the controls work before they can user them, knob on the side looks out of place, completely pointless blank part where more screen could be, or the controls. You also seem to be convinced that Apple simply just "adds a few bits an peices onto an almost ideal competitors product", how high are you? There was a reason that the iPhone was so successful, it was because of how they took elements and implemented them in a more usable and intuitive fasion than competitors, while still maintaining a good design standard. You need to get off your high horse about Apple in general. Many other companies were originally successful from this format, not just them. As for me, i'm clearly wasting my time trying to compete with blind rage of the tyranny of apple getting praised for successful products! Nobody is going to change your opinion and you refuse to respect others when you cant change theirs.[/QUOTE] I don't argue that they have done things better in some forms than their competitors, and I don't think they are blind rip off artists. Most companies that make similar devices have just been gradually putting more into a smaller box and selling it for less. A lot of it has just been natural progression. I also enjoy the fact that you tried to make this point(?): [QUOTE]You also seem to be convinced that Apple simply just "adds a few bits an peices onto an almost ideal competitors product", how high are you?[/QUOTE] Its like you completely glossed over this paragraph I wrote: [QUOTE]So yeah, [B]Apple [U]succeeded[/U] in making a more refined mass storage music player[/B]. But it didn't come first.[/QUOTE] I'd enjoy knowing where you think I somehow implied just "adds a few bits and pieces onto an almost ideal competitors product"? I clearly said they "succeeded in making a more refined mass storage music player". I also do not appreciate your implications that I am under the influence of narcotics while writing these posts; especially as you seem to have glossed over a great deal of things I have said. My reply with the picture of the nomad was to someone who was trying to flatly argue that Apple had basically single-handedly invented the GUI, mass storage music players and touchscreen mobile phones--none of those claims are either accurate or true. Apple may have [I]refined[/I] things that were out there, but they didn't 'invent' these things; I think there is a keen distinction between these things. I think you also seem to have somehow misconstrued what I was trying to say when I said this: [QUOTE] Sticking a small processor and some storage space and a headphone socket onto a circuit board is hardly some sort of groundbreaking invention.[/QUOTE] I wrote that because [I]Apple didn't invent that concept[/I]; I very clearly said it was something that I believe was just a natural progression. As far as I'm concerned Creative probably invented the concept or was the first company to bring it to market.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42151611]Google really needs some sort of "premium manufacturer program" for companies that don't fuck up Android on the devices they manufacture. Think Nexus, except without following google guidelines of no sd-card.[/QUOTE] That will never happen. I am sorry but you will have to run xXx WEEDGOKU420 xXx's custom ROM if you want the real Android experience on your phone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.