Verizon's Challenge To the iPhone Confirmed

misnohmer writes "Verizon has just launched a new set of ads confirming the rumors of its upcoming iPhone competitor: 'Unlike previous Android phones, the Droid is rumored to be powered by the TI OMAP3430, the same core that the iPhone and Palm Pre use, and which significantly outperforms Qualcomm 528MHz ARM11-based Android phones that exist today. Droid will also be running v.2.0 of Android, with a significantly upgraded user interface. The Droid poses a different and more significant challenge to the iPhone than any other phone to date. The Palm Pre could have been that challenger, but it lacked the Verizon network, and users were unimpressed with the hardware. According to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint. When you combine that with the Verizon network, you've got something that is most definitely a challenger to the Jesus phone.'"

Comments

Advert for the verizon network?

[jpate]

The summary reads more like an advertisement for Verizon than anything else...

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[biryokumaru]

A good ad would better emphasize the competition to the "Jesus Phone" idea.

They should call it the "Muhammad phone."

*ducks*

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[cbope]

Exactly. Since when does a US carrier "add value" in any sense of the word? All the US carriers do is cripple the phone hardware (disabling tethering, MMS, etc) and lock-in their customers. Glad I live in Europe where I'm free to choose the phone hardware and service independently, and the phones are not crippled. And I pay a reasonable amount when roaming in other countries and calls rarely get dropped. Oh yeah... that's called service.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[TheRaven64]

Also, the Samsung Moment coming out in 2 weeks for Sprint has an 800MHz ARM-based CPU, where the one powering the Droid is apparently only 600MHz (I'm assuming that since the design is similar, the clock speed is a valid way to compare the performance of the CPUs; could be wrong on this).

Not exactly. The Moment, apparently, is going to have an ARM11 core, while the OMAP3 is a Cortex A8. The ARM11 core is an older design and gets slightly fewer instructions per clock (I think) as well as not supporting a number of the newer extensions to the architecture, like NEON (SIMD instructions) or Thumb-2 (16-bit instruction set for better cache usage).

Even that doesn't tell the whole story, because none of these chips are pure CPUs, they're systems-on-chip (SoCs) and so have a load of extra stuff. The OMAP3, for example, has an OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU core from PowerVR, a C64x DSP core from TI, and a few other specialist things. The C64x can handle things like MP3 playback in about 15mW, and can also be used for offloading various other things, like crypto functions. The GPU supports shaders, and so can be used for a wide variety of things. An OMAP3430 can decode 720p quite easily, because it has some hardware off the ARM core that's optimised for this. An 800MHz ARM11 almost certainly can't, but it may also be on a SoC that can.

Oh, and even within the same family you can't even compare clock-for-clock with ARM cores. The cheap licenses just let you stamp the core onto your die and connect it to your value-added cores, but the expensive ones let you tweak the design. The Snapdragon from Qualcomm is a Cortex A8, but they tweaked it quite a lot and it's a little bit faster than other people's versions per clock.

In short, comparing ARM SoCs based solely on clock speed is even more misleading than comparing x86 processors solely on clock speed.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[neonleonb]

Plus, it takes 3 days to reboot!

The problem was never with their network

[UnknowingFool]

The problem I had with Verizon was never with their network or their phones but the management decisions that were made to cripple those phones to charge customers more money.

Re:The problem was never with their network

[itsenrique]

Ditto on that, I have a curve 8330. Not a very new smartphone by any measures, but it does what i need and i like the interface enough. GPS locked down by vzw, even though its just a sattelite receiver chip, they want $9 a month to use it, and you have to use their ridiculous vzw navigator program or bb maps. No google maps gps (it will only use cell tower triangulation). Android phones are supposed to be about open functionality, lets just hope verizon doesn't muck it up with their brand of squeeze-em-dry tactics.

Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah

[Fished]

No, the iPhone was/is popular because it enables me to do useful things that I could not (and cannot) do as well with any other phone currently available. That simple.

Cut and paste? It's been out for months now, never used it. MMS? Never used it. MP3/AAC ringtones? Always supported, (you have to change the file extension is all), but actually never used them. Video recording? Never used it (and yes I have a 3gs.) I could go on, but literally all the features you bitch about are things that I don't want/never would use. Maybe you really do need them, but frankly I could give a crap less.

What I do use is an application for tracking my blood sugar. And another application for tracking my weight-training log. And another app that functions as a pedometer when I go walking/running. And another app that tracks my weight. Oh yeah, and an app that lets me do Go problems on my phone. And Kindle for iPhone. And... the list could go on ad infinitem, but the point is that your little checklist doesn't begin to encapsulate what makes this the best possible device for me.

Before iPhone, I had a Treo, I had a Blackberry, I had Windows Mobile. I hated them and never used even the features that came with them. With iPhone I use everything that comes with it and then some because the iPhone makes it easy. Could I figure out how to do this stuff on, say, my Blackberry? Yes. Was it fun? Hell no. Was it easy to find apps? No. Did the apps cost $1.99 each? No.

So, sorry, but the iPhone is not popular just because it's from Apple. It's popular because it works.

Re:Just Don't Get It

[Reality Master 101]

No, you're missing the point. The reason the iPhone caught on was not because it had zillions of whiz-bang features, it's because they took the time to get the features that it has *right*.

The reason I bought an iPhone was primarily because (finally) they got browsing right. I've always wanted a portable Internet device that happened to have a phone, and Apple delivered. For the record, I *despise* Apple-the-company, but the iPhone simply was that good. And that goes for a lot of the other features that the iPhone has. They don't have every feature, they just get the features they have to work in a smooth, elegant way.

Another case in point was the video camera. They didn't include video until they could do it "right" with the 3GS, and the video is damn good. The video you could get on the older phones through jailbreaking sucked balls.

And I want to emphasize this: I bought an iPhone *despite* Apple's marketing, which I can't tell you how much I hate. And despite Apple's slavish followers, which I also hate. The phone is just that good.

verizon network, no thanks

[zhevek]

I had Verizon for near 10 years. However, this last summer I switched to AT&T because verizon's network was dropping my calls in my apartment half the time or more. And this is just 2 miles outside of downtown Portland, Or. Haven't had a dropped call on my iPhone on AT&T yet.

So just remember that strength of network is not "national", because most people don't move around all the time. Find the network that is best in your area first, then pick a phone.

Re:Just Don't Get It

[TheRaven64]

It isn't the RDF that makes people like the iPhone, it's the fact that the UI only sucks slightly. It's the same reason people like Macs. For post people, any reasonably modern phone or computer does far more than they need. With an iPhone, they only spend a little bit of time fighting the UI. With something like a Series 60 phone, they spend most of the time fighting the UI. Same with the iPod. The UI had a lot of flaws - I filed a number of usability bug reports - but it was nowhere near as bad as most of the competitors available when it launched.

Once someone's switched, it's easier to keep them, because mentally they aren't comparing their current iPod/iPhone/Mac to what Apple's competition has available now, they're comparing it to what they switched from. Fortunately for the handset manufacturers, Apple still has a tiny share of the mobile phone market, so you can do very well without making people switch; you don't have to be better than the iPhone, you just have to be better than what they have now (which is easy) and cheaper than the iPhone (also not hard). The personal music player market is different, because Apple has over 70% of that already, although stand-alone media players are becoming rare now even cheap phones can store 8GB of music.