iPhone 5

[kajata]

And it's faster than any Android phone currently on the market

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-a6-benchmarks-show-iphone-5-faster-than-any-android-device

 

[The Dark Lord]

Nah. Now it's just like every other smartphone and just has shatterprone glass on the front.

That's good. Having glass on the back is freaking stupid.

And it's faster than any Android phone currently on the market

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-a6-benchmarks-show-iphone-5-faster-than-any-android-device

By a couple percentage points on one benchmark. Means nothing.

 

[This is The End]

Except it depends on your definition of use, as I pointed out. Given the sales and the web browsing statistics that we see, there seems to be a substantial portion of smartphone users who aren't smartphone users.

Who are you to decide what someone does with their smartphone?

If they only use it for Angry Birds they are just as much a smart phone user as the most hardcore user.

To suggest that it means anything if iPhone users do more with their smart phones, or that it makes them more "smart" as you put it, is ridiculous.

I can think of many, many reasons for that discrepancy. See, browsing the web isn't that much fun on such small displays.

Exactly. It could just mean iPhone owners are less likely to have a real computer. Or it could mean any number of things. And that's even if we buy into this meaning anything in the first place. Which it doesn't.

How large was this "internet traffic" study anyway?

 

[chulbert]

Who are you to decide what someone does with their smartphone?

I'm not deciding anything. However, if you're a company looking to develop and app then unit share may not matter as much as web-browsing, downloading, app-buying share.

To suggest that it means anything if iPhone users do more with their smart phones, or that it makes them more "smart" as you put it, is ridiculous.

I said no such thing. I used the term "smart" as synonymous with "non-phone smartphone features."

Exactly. It could just mean iPhone owners are less likely to have a real computer. Or it could mean any number of things. And that's even if we buy into this meaning anything in the first place. Which it doesn't.

That's an extraordinary claim and it would be remarkable if iPhone users were demographically significant in that way.

 

[This is The End]

I'm not deciding anything. However, if you're a company looking to develop and app then unit share may not matter as much as web-browsing, downloading, app-buying share.

I suppose you missed the post where Christian Klippel explained exactly why it matters?

 

[Christian Klippel]

iOS and Android both claim approximately 600,000 apps in their stores.

[...]

Seems like the "Androids use apps" myth is debunked.

Is that so? Why don't you mention the fact that the iPhone was already around for a year when Google brought Android live? What does it tell you when the one who started later catched up so quickly?

Of course!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jun/10/apple-developer-wwdc-schmidt-android
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/.../why_do_developers_choose_ios_first31?lang=en

About that first link:

Analytics firm Distimo, which tracks the various app stores, reckons that in the first four months of 2012 more than 100,000 apps were added to the Google Play store, versus 63,000 for Apple's App Store.

Then they refer to Flurry, which i think is problematic sometimes, so i don't trust their numbers much.

Funny tidbit:

Android developers are significantly more productive than Apple’s. The average publisher on Android has placed more than 6 applications in the Market since launch, compared to just over 4 apps on average that have been published by iOS developers.

The problem with all the stats is that we don't really know how the numbers are produced. Look at two different sources and you get two different numbers. The inly thing so far that can be said with quite some certainty is that there are about 4 times as many Android smartphones than there are iOS smartphones. To figure out what the people actually do with them is rather close to using a crystal ball.

It get's even worse if people try to use the profits that Apple and Google make with their appstores due to app sales, since those are simply non-comparable. Apple retains a much higher amount of the app's price than Google does. So if both would sell an app for the same price to the user, Apple would have made more profit from it, so it doesn't really say anything except that Apple is milking their dev-base much more.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Aidoneus]

It get's even worse if people try to use the profits that Apple and Google make with their appstores due to app sales, since those are simply non-comparable. Apple retains a much higher amount of the app's price than Google does. So if both would sell an app for the same price to the user, Apple would have made more profit from it, so it doesn't really say anything except that Apple is milking their dev-base much more.

Greetings,

Chris

Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I can tell, Google and Apple operate the same 70/30 split.

 

[kajata]

By a couple percentage points on one benchmark. Means nothing.

True. We should concentrate on what material the back of the previous iPhone was made of instead of performance statistics of the current one compared to the competition.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I can tell, Google and Apple operate the same 70/30 split.

While it is the same split, from what i know that 30% are handled differently. In case of iOS apps, it goes to Apple. In case of Android apps, Google gets nothing from that but instead these 30% are split between the carrier and operating fees.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: And then there are these Freemium apps for Android, how are these counted? After all, they are free and the user can then later decide if he wants to pay to get the full featuers or not. What about in-app purchases, in-app advertisement, etc? How do these statistics take such things into account?

 

[Darat]

Nah. Now it's just like every other smartphone and just has shatterprone glass on the front.

Typical Apple copying everyone else....

 

[Darat]

And it's faster than any Android phone currently on the market

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-a6-benchmarks-show-iphone-5-faster-than-any-android-device

I'm I reading the links wrong as I see the iPhone 5 as having a score of 1601 and the Samsung Galaxy S III as 1628 and the Nexus 7 as 1604?

 

[a_unique_person]

True. We should concentrate on what material the back of the previous iPhone was made of instead of performance statistics of the current one compared to the competition.

It's not something magical. Apple is just buying an off the shelf processor, so will it's competition.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm I reading the links wrong as I see the iPhone 5 as having a score of 1601 and the Samsung Galaxy S III as 1628 and the Nexus 7 as 1604?

That chart says it's user submitted results so they are not verified. For the Samsung, there are significant differences between the North American and international versions. The S III will be significantly faster on the benchmark once the latest OS is officially released for it (some say over 1700).

 

[kajata]

It's not something magical. Apple is just buying an off the shelf processor, so will it's competition.

Apple A6 Processor is a Custom Apple Design.

 

[chulbert]

Is that so? Why don't you mention the fact that the iPhone was already around for a year when Google brought Android live? What does it tell you when the one who started later catched up so quickly?

I didn't mention it because Google Play's growth rate is not relevant to your statements. You claimed that Android's lower development costs and process might result in more apps for Android users, which in turn would displace web usages and explain the massive discrepancy.

Clearly, since Google Play has fewer (but comparable) apps to the App Store that's not the case.

The problem with all the stats is that we don't really know how the numbers are produced. Look at two different sources and you get two different numbers. The inly thing so far that can be said with quite some certainty is that there are about 4 times as many Android smartphones than there are iOS smartphones. To figure out what the people actually do with them is rather close to using a crystal ball.

Except it isn't and we have to clear data points: iPhone users browse the web more than Android users by a factor of 6 and spend more on apps by a factor of 4. That kind of information is vitally important for anyone trying to determine where to invest their development resources. And it's an amusing addition to any discussion of which platform is "winning."

It get's even worse if people try to use the profits that Apple and Google make with their appstores due to app sales, since those are simply non-comparable. Apple retains a much higher amount of the app's price than Google does. So if both would sell an app for the same price to the user, Apple would have made more profit from it, so it doesn't really say anything except that Apple is milking their dev-base much more.

Who ever said anything about profit from app sales? How is that even relevant to the discussion we're having?

 

[The Dark Lord]

True. We should concentrate on what material the back of the previous iPhone was made of instead of performance statistics of the current one compared to the competition.

Well, not having shatter prone glass on the back will mean many people won't shatter their phones.

One benchmark showing that the iPhone 5 slightly beat the GSIII doesn't mean anything besides that they are probably in the same league. You can have that much variation doing the benchmark on the exact same device.

And if it turns out that the iPhone 5 is actually is 2% faster than the GSIII, color me unimpressed.

 

[thenigotoffthebus]

Apparently the various articles out today claiming the iphone 5 geekbench marks beat the GS3 are pretty misleading. The S3 rating used in the comparison was an average of many user tests that will have included many phones with powersaving/powersaving apps enabled. Anecdotal evidence from various tech forums seems to point to ICS stock version of the S3 beating the iphone 5 score by a fair margin and the JB versions beating it significantly.

I guess we wont have long to wait before we see the proper tests & comparisons.

 

[WildCat]

I'm I reading the links wrong as I see the iPhone 5 as having a score of 1601 and the Samsung Galaxy S III as 1628 and the Nexus 7 as 1604?

It has the quad-core Euro-version S3 at 1723 here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks

eta: that's the same site that rated the iPhone 5 at 1601.

So the 5 is slightly below the quad-core S3 and probably very similar to the dual-core version.

 

[This is The End]

Here's some new links:

iPhone 5 review. Lots of good info in this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/19/iphone-5-review?newsfeed=true

An article about how Apple is overwhelmed by the demand:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57515556-37/iphone-5-preorder-delivery-pushed-back-3-to-4-weeks/

I happened to be in an AT&T store 2 days ago and people were bombarding the employees with questions about camping out to get an iPhone just in hopes than someone else cancels their pre-order!!

 

[kajata]

What is it about cell phone reviews (cell phones for chrissake) that cause the readers' comment sections to be more hostile and tribalistic than posts about politics or football (soccer)?!