Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Transcoding Video For iPad
Stoobalou sounds another death knell for Flash video. He says "Another heavy user of Adobe's video streaming software Flash is now pandering to the all-powerful iPad. Everybody's favourite waste of time, social notworking monster Facebook, is now streaming user videos to Apple's second coming of the portable computer with no sign of Flash in sight."
"Death gong?" "No sign of Flash in sight?" I don't quite see how this news equates to any such hyperbole.
I just checked videos my friend put of me drunk out of my mind "singing" karaoke Killers songs (no, I will not provide a link) and sure enough they're in Flash player 10 through my Firefox browser. Since it's allegedly transcoding this real time from Flash to MP4 when it detects the mobile Safari browser, I would claim that Flash is not only very much in sight but it is the default encoding on Facebook -- keeping it very much alive. At least that's what I gather from my experience in my browser.
The decision to keep Flash off of some Apple mobile products was Apple's decision and Apple's alone. Do you think Facebook enjoys this overhead transcoding cost of its videos? I highly doubt it. I think this is a case of Facebook trying to building a unified cross platform experience for users (and I don't often speak kindly of Facebook) not their agreement to obsolete Flash video. I impatiently await HTML5 and more open video and audio codecs in all senses of the word 'open.'
My work here is dung.
The Flash video used on Facebook is already H.264 video and AAC audio, just in a FLV container. All they really need to do with these is remux everything. I'm assuming they'll just remux into an MP4 or MOV container.
we would still be using floppy disks and parallel ports. Even if you don't like their products, or don't recognize this as progress, I see no reason to be so snide about it.
Agreed. I'm no Apple fanboy (only product I have is a five year old iPod) but I've been rather amazed by the depth and breadth of content free emotional invective we've seen surrounding the iPad launch.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
So you don't like Facebook. We get it. But would it have been so hard to write an unbiased summary? Some of us use Facebook and we a) actually don't mind it so much, and b) wouldn't really call it a "waste of time". Even if it does break sometimes :-)
I just have to laugh at "the all-powerful iPad"
LMAO!
it takes Facebook, Apple & Google.
MAYBE. Don't hold your breath.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
What's up with this nasty summary? "Social notworking site"? I have no interest in Facebook, but why do we get these unprofessional summaries in this news aggregator? Oh right. Slashdot. Never mind.
I only recently purchased an iPhone (for overseas travel)--and am completely sick and tired of the Apple bashing, primarily for reasons that it doesn't work "for me" and therefore must not be good for anyone else.
I'd also note that if it wasn't for Apple, there would be a lot less pressure on Motorola, Nokia and Samsung to produce phones with a better user experience.
Apple is not the end-all, be-all of technology--but I personally have much to be grateful for.
Um..... please explain how Apple is responsible for the progression from floppies to hard drives, or from parallel ports to USB ports. The former seems a natural event since programs/OSes could no longer fit on floppies. The second is a result of the USB Consortium. To give Apple credit for this seems disingenuous, (especially since Apple would have preferred to kill USB in favor of Firewire).
I'll give Apple credit for bringing GUIs to the home user in 1984, and a user-friendly alternative to the MS-DOS/windows from 1984 to 95, plus making MP3 players "cool" with the iPod, but that's about it. They don't deserve credit for killing floppies or parallel ports.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm still trying to figure out why a bunch of people who obviously loath Apple products spend so much time discussing them.
Apple is responsible for ALL progress in PC's. Whether it is the Intel CPU, the Windows logo, or the Linux kernel. Apple invented them all.
LOL, oh noes! 15 whole floppies! Do you remember what it was like to try and install the Lotus suite back then? Or even Office when it first came out?
IIRC, the Lotus Suite had something like 64 disks.
Sent from your iPad.
The whole hype about the fucking iPad. And about Flash. And about Facebook. C'mon. Get a life, cmdrTaco !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If it makes you happier, I don't own any of those phones. So you won't be hearing any "Nokia is better than Apple" bashing from me because I just don't care. A phone is a phone is a phone.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
then I'll start to believe that Flash might die.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
This article summary is full of flamebait language. I could start getting into the flamewar but honestly I'd just rather point it out.
By the way, I find it amusing that everyone thinks Flash is God's child now. I thought we all hated flash? Isn't HTML 5 better?
They don't deserve credit for killing floppies
I'm pretty sure the early Macs generated enough of a magnetic field to do just that.
I'll give Apple credit for bringing GUIs to the home user in 1984, and a user-friendly alternative to the MS-DOS/windows from 1984 to 95, plus making MP3 players "cool" with the iPod, but that's about it. They don't deserve credit for killing floppies or parallel ports.
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability? I will gladly give them credit for better user interfaces in 1984 and in regards to specific products at specific times. But to claim that today we would still be stuck using floppy disks and parallel ports just because Apple aided in the successors to those many years ago is really quite laughable. In computers, everything transitions forward at some point. You'll need a lot of proof for me to agree that no one would have moved us to a better home computing UI at some point between 1984 and today had Apple not given the home user what it did.
You can argue they've done specific things net positively but there are flaws in most of what they've done -- as with any solution.
My work here is dung.
Simple. The iMac shipped with USB everything. No floppy disk. No legacy ports (ADB, RS232, etc). Hell, I don't think the original ones came with a CD burner!
Back then yes you had USB. But you had two measly ports that pretty much sat empty because all the peripherals you could get were cheaper and easier to get in other connection formats. A keyboard and mouse were PS/2 because you could get both cheaply (a cheapass USB one would run you $50, a PS2 version of same for $20 or less). Printers used the parallel port. Modems either plugged into a serial port or inside your PC. And hard drives you had to install 'em yourself. You could get external Zips and Jaz drives, but unless you used SCSI, you put up with parallel ports. You transferred data via sneakernet.
And hell, USB had been around for 3+ years and peripherals were hard to come by. They were expensive and no one wanted them. OS support was iffy, too. Windows 95 OSR2 had basic keyboard/mouse support. Windows 98 same, but you could get drivers for mass storage. Basically non-existent until Windows 2000.
The Apple releases the iMac and gets you USB only. All of a sudden, a flood of peripherals started coming out for USB, and prices plunged. USB floppies, USB printers, keyboards and mice under $10. USB didn't mean overpriced anymore. And I scoffed at USB devices because they were overpriced - the USB versions were always much more expensive.
And Apple did like Firewire, because well, you could stick a hard disk on it and not have ot wait all day to transfer files like USB. (Remember, the iPod used Firewire purely because USB 1.1 was pathetically slow, and USB2.0 was on the horizon but would take a few more years to become popular and standard on every PC)
A website implemented some UI changes to accommodate a popular mobile device. Stop the presses!
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I'll bite: I have owned precisely two Mac computers, both during the period between 1987 and 1993. And, the next time I've purchased an Apple product was a used iPhone from my friend about three months ago. I'm hardly what you'd call a loyal customer.
That said, I'm going to hazard a suspicion as to why we're crediting Apple for hard drives and use of USB: it'd be early adoption in the consumer market. Yes, hard drives have been around for a very very long time, but Apple likely deserves a lot of credit for packaging and integrating in a way that it had broad appeal.
Please keep in mind that this was in an era where some outfit named IBM questioned the need for a personal computer.
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability?
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
Why is Facebook's technique not called HTML5? I guess they're not serving it up to everybody, but when they detect an iPad, are they purposely avoiding the video tag and using the object tag instead?
Sure, all the peripheral makers jumped on USB because they were afraid to lose that 5% market share that many had been ignoring for years.
USB everything. No keyboard port, no mouse port. No serial ports. No slots. No floppy drive. It didn't even have Firewire, which Apple invented!
It just had USB, ethernet and audio out.
So suddenly peripheral makers started actually making USB peripherals. Serial ports, keyboards, floppy drives, mice, printers and a lot more.
Meanwhile over on the PC, PCs had USB but you didn't actually use it for anything. USB mice and keyboards didn't even work correctly in Windows 95 or 2000 (the keyboard didn't start working until late in boot so if you had a problem that required you to hit a key to type a path to find a driver you couldn't do it). Printers came after a while (parallel port connectors must have been expensive), widespread adoption of mice came a lot later and keyboards a long time after that.
Intel did invent USB, but its use on PCs was limited until after Apple had jumped in with both feet on the Mac side.
Apple was huge in pushing the floppy drive out the door, but it was really the USB memory stick that killed it if you ask me.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
Um, well, I didn't say "no modicum of respect" ... I said they should be given credit for specific products at specific times.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity,"
So you're comparing the iPad and Apple products with the "discovery" of gravity or the theory of general relativity? I recognize innovation and I recognize science ... while there's some crossover there, I fail to see you analogy but let's run with it. Something about Newton really annoys me and that's the crediting of solely him with infinitesimal calculus. Why am I annoyed? No one ever talks about Leibniz who, by most accounts, deserves at least partial credits for this work. Why, just last night I read of Emil Post's slightly earlier paper on what are essentially Turing Machines than Turing's own 1936 paper (although Turing's was peer reviewed before Post's). Should not Post deserve some credit or recognition? Could there have been Posts during Apple's UI revolution?
That's all I'm asking. Your analogy falls apart, of course, when we consider that Apple was the first to proliferate such a UI (not necessarily invent it) at which point we move further apart from science and into the denigrating worlds of marketing and business.
Congratulations on pushing my point to the extreme though so it was easily defeated, especially when I called for respect of Apple's specific products at the time of their release.
My work here is dung.
Um..... please explain how Apple is responsible for the progression from floppies to hard drives, or from parallel ports to USB ports.
Well, Apple did play a role in both these technologies, although I think the previous poster overstates the case. Apple was probably the first major PC maker to stop including floppy drives by default on their machines. As such, they helped kill the floppy drive. Hard drives had long since been deployed widely at this point by everyone though, so they had little to do with the switch to hard drives. I suppose you could make an argument about the Mac classic being one of the first popular PC's with a hard drive, alongside their introduction of the GUI to the mainstream.
As for USB, well there's a lot more of a case for them. in 1998 USB existed, but the average user had never heard of it. Mice and keyboards all connected via parallel ports (or serial ports or ADB). USB was included on a few computers, but pretty much only for use with early webcams, and not many of them. The industry described USB adoption as a catch-22, in that peripheral makers could always reach a much larger market by using the old connectors and computer makers couldn't stop including them because they were needed for mice and keyboards.
In came Apple, who switched all external peripheral connectors to USB. It was the only option. Suddenly there was a guaranteed market for USB peripherals. This is why pretty much all the oldest USB peripherals you can find were in blue and clear plastic, to match the colors of the original iMac. Apple was the early adopter that was able to drive adoption of a standard that had stagnated and was being ignored.
The second is a result of the USB Consortium. To give Apple credit for this seems disingenuous, (especially since Apple would have preferred to kill USB in favor of Firewire).
Apple has never tried to kill USB. They have always pushed it as the best way to connect low power peripherals like keyboards and mice. They deploy it in parallel with Firewire which they think is the best way to connect hard drives, video cameras, etc. I happen to agree with them too. Some companies, however, wanted a cheaper alternative to Firewire and did not mind losing some of the capabilities, so they reworked USB to try to be an inferior clone of Firewire as well. Apple has been less than supportive of this, since they already have Firewire for that purpose and don't like to downgrade to inferior technologies until all the rest of the industry has done so and they have no real choice.
There was this computer you might have heard of, it was called the iMac.
When it came out, USB was around but there were very few peripherals and people were still using floppies rather than CDs for everything.
The use of floppies for software distribution was already on the decline (though in most cases you still needed a rescue floppy for a windows machine) the iMac certainly helped speed that up and showed that a computer could be successful without a floppy (many laptops still came with a drive at that time).
As for USB though, the iMac caused a huge increase in the number of USB peripherals and had a significant impact on the market. You may hate apple but thats no reason to ignore the impact they had on the industry.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
My cell phone runs the same operating system and software that my computer does. Does that mean that my computer is just a phone too?
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
The problem with nonsense like the iPad and MS-DOS before it is that few people understand the
broader implications of their particular tiny self-centered decision. That fact that Apple tries
to lock you out of much of the web, or lock your content to it's platform is nothing to be
trivially glossed over.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It's simply ensuring informed consent.
As a recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Apple bashing comes from Apple users being on their high-horse about their Apple products that they use... i.e., "you're still using windoze? why don't you just see the light and get a mac?"
"the iPad is going to be the biggest innovation of the decade!!1"
... and other examples of that sort of mentality. The iPad isn't particularly innovative, IMO; it's just likely well designed, well manufactured, well marketed, and has an extremely famous brand associated with it. Brand is an incredible motivator... and I think that is primarily what Apple-bashers dislike; brand loyalty. This or that is cool because it's Apple and this or that is not as cool because it's not Apple.
That said, most of the Apple-bashing that takes place is just as silly as the Apple-user mindset that it criticizes. So is most of the Microsoft bashing. And Google bashing. The main issue? People decide to bash the users rather than logically work through the mindset. I use Microsoft products, but that doesn't make me a shill. I use Google products, that doesn't mean I support the One Google Government... etc.
At some point some hardware company had to make the plunge, and in these cases it happened to be Apple.
Rather than it just "happened to be Apple", it was Apple for some very good reasons. Apple has a more loyal customer base for their PC's than other vendors because Apple has more differentiation, using a different OS. As such they can make more radical and major changes without losing as many customers to rival companies. Apple also spends more in R&D than most rivals PC makers because part of their business plan is to be more "cutting edge" and because they have the freedom to do so because they control more of the components of the systems they sell. In the long term this has developed a culture at Apple that pushes for these things. So being early adopters of GUI, mice, hard drives, USB, firewire, ethernet, etc. is not so much happenstance as business plan.
I've heard people say that accessories for Apple products tend to be a bit more expensive than no-name accessories, or that more
There are three causes for this belief. First, historically this idea took root because Apple accessories used different interfaces (first ADB then USB) from the standard and devices produced in lower quantity for a small market subset tend to cost more. The perception has persisted even when it is largely no longer true. Second, some peripherals require OS specific drivers and some manufacturers like to segregate their markets and sell the same hardware with different drivers at different prices which brings us to.. Third, retailers target markets with prices they think will make them the most money. The market for Apple users tends to be in the more affluent segment of society so some retailers target their premium (or premium branded) products as peripherals for Apple products.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool
Actually, Apple was responsible for the Newton as well, and it was hella cool, as any aging 1990's-era fanboy will tell you.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/21/its-coming-farmville-heading-to-iphone-and-ipad/
Ring Ring.
- Vincit qui patitur.
That AND because Microsoft had mandated back in 1996 that Firewire/USB/PCI was the future, and eliminate the old legacy busses. In a strange twist, it wasn't Apple that was innovating. It was Bill Gates. (Of course being Gates would could say he was actually "ordering" compliance.....)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
You highly overestimate your similarity to "most people". Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones. You think of this as "turning back the clock" because the things being given up along the way to a more usable device are things that are (presumably) important to you, but these things are meaningless to most people when compared to the benefit of being something they will more fully enjoy using. The counter to this is that the few people like yourself are in the opposite camp, and the things being gained do not make up for the things lost.
But above all you are in the minority. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is somethings wrong with mistaking your viewpoint with the viewpoint of others.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care, and in fact they gain far more than they lose in the bargain.
For those for whom this is important, they already know this. So, no, it doesn't need to be repeatedly brought to light. It's just a bunch of nerd rage that annoys everyone.
As a recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
This is the part that should be the biggest clue to you that I'm right. The fact that there is so much excitement indicates that people really do like Apple products. That you cant see such excitement as warranted means that you don't like them, but the disparity should clue you into the fact that your opinion is in the minority, not that there's something out of whack between the excitement and the reality of the situation.
In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Burden to a few, benefit to most.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people. The only ones really complaining, ironically, are those that prefer to adapt themselves to technology. It's those like you that seek to pose an imposition upon most people.
That adaption you make to conform yourself to technology feels so natural, and you find so enjoyable, that it's extremely difficult for you to understand how people can feel otherwise, unless they are either old or stupid. But the fact is that most people do feel the opposite of how you do on the matter, and it's not because they are old or stupid. They are people, and they have different interests than you do.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology, but most people overwhelmingly choose automatic transmissions because the loss in control and power is far outweighed for them by the increased ease of use, and more natural interface, of not having to deal with a third petal, keeping track of gears, and the constant focus dealing with all that implies.
"This post is written in English. Would you like to translate it into RDF?"
Ever heard of post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Apple was first to deploy USB, but they didn't develop it, Intel did (primarily). Do you imagine the latter would have bothered if the Mac was the only target market? Apple wasn't even a member of the original USB consortium. Beyond keyboards and mice, Apple was far more interested in Firewire (which they developed) in any case, and for good reason.
You certainly have a whitewashed view of history... Windows 98 had full USB support for any device built out of the box. First usb header (not even a port) I ever saw was on an ASUS motherboard in the mid 90's long before apple was using them.
Most PC companies are about gradual change - have both options on a board, then one option after the parts arrive - which is what Apple did until the iMac g3. One could easily argue what they did was a bit premature.
Interesting you mention floppies - I recall a lot of mac users being rather upset (this is long before CD-RW, or usb thumb drives were all that common). Many 3rd party companies made a lot of money selling after market USB floppy drives.
Apple did force the issue, but like I said - iMac came out in 1998 (there first all usb machine - no ADB) - by then Windows 98 had full USB support built into the OS. Microsoft's famous bluescreen error while plugging in a USB scanner was demoing Windows 98, and yes that feature worked when it shipped. 95 OS-R2 had the same USB support via a patch, and no it wasn't just keyboard/mice.
In other words - by 1998 - USB was here probably because both Microsoft and Apple promoted it actively, but you have to remember Apple derided USB (even when 2.0 came out) as being too primative for anything hdd/camera/scanner related (yes there were firewire scanners made for the Mac).
This news from Facebook is good to hear. I had noticed both YouTube and Facebook slowly making the switch AWAY from Flash. While Facebook may not appear to be using HTML5, the way their movies are implemented on the iPad will lead to an easier transition. Flash can go away now. Adobe DOES NOT need to be hurt by this. If they would make their Flash creation IDE compatible with HTML5 they could do many of the cool things they can now, but in an open format! On a related note, they could make Dreamweaver the best dang Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress theming engine in the world, but alas, they are closed minded and myopic. I have little sympathy for them if they choose not to do this and instead choose to complain and whine. Apple and Google are at least trying to use some open standards where Adobe is locked into the Flash model. This model can change, BUT only if Adobe wants it to. In the end, the world will move forward WITH or WITHOUT Adobe.
The iPad isn't particularly innovative, IMO; it's just likely well designed, well manufactured, well marketed, and has an extremely famous brand associated with it.
I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't own an iPad, but your analysis doesn't seem exactly fair. The iPad isn't purely a product of slick design and branding (though that sure hasn't hurt.) Remember that when the iPhone interface came out it revolutionized the mobile phone UI world. Since then nearly all of the major manufacturers have completely reworked their UIs to mimic the touch-based interface-- Microsoft even scrapped their existing Mobile OS and completely replaced it. Palm is about to go out of business. The idea of a capacitive, multi-touch based interface with software designed from the ground up may not have been strictly novel (i.e., the component pieces were all out there), but Apple's method of integrating them all was really was a huge advance.
Now it may seem reasonable to say that the iPad is just an iPhone scaled up to tablet size, so while the iPhone might count, the iPad is not a huge innovation. What this overlooks is that the iPad is just the second incarnation of the iPhone UI --- i.e., it's mostly the same innovation, but it's one that hasn't fully run its course. Taking that very successful UI approach up to tablet size may be an obvious step, but it's a worthy step that no competitors have been able to do convincingly. The tablet market was very close to zero right pre-iPad, and that's not all due to bad branding on the part of the existing tabletmakers. Mostly it's because the previous generation of tablets were very different animals and nobody wanted them (outside of a handful of specific fields). I'm guessing that if the iPad takes off (and a slew of Android/MS competitors succeed in its footsteps) it's not going to be due to good design and branding.
Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans
(rolling my eyes)
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything. They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology. There was a point when the features of the iPhone made it somewhat unique. That moment has passed. Now it is one of a handful of well-designed phones that all do, essentially, the same thing.
Apple's brilliance is in marketing. They are able to market their products in such a way as to convince people, like you, that they have some magical powers that other companies don't have. The iPhone is still coasting on its reputation. The iPad is well on its way to doing the same thing (although the niche it fills is infinitesimal).
Exhibit A is this whole conversation. Apple has been able to spin the fact that its products are inferior (they don't play flash) into some kind of asset. FYI iPhone users really do want to watch video on their devices, just like they do on a regular computer. That the iPhone can't is a design flaw and a weakness of the phone. It's explicitly forcing users to conform to technology.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
like anything you buy, the competing products have various strengths and weaknesses. but they're all comparable and none is clearly superior to the rest.
google informs me that I am not the only one who thinks so
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/devices/htc-incredible-vs-apple-iphone-3gs/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/194464/droid_vs_iphone_3gs_an_update.html
http://www.ifixit.com/Misc/nexus_vs_iphone.html
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
Um, that's not the question he asked.
You seem to be frequently prone to using straw men to make your point. I suggest you heed Brannon's second sentence. The man speaks the truth.
Influential now, perhaps, but not so much back then.