Nexus S Beats iPhone 4 In 'Real World' Web Browsing Tests

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nexus S Beats iPhone 4 In 'Real World' Web Browsing Tests

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 17, 2011 @07:08AM from the yeah-but-those-are-only-real-world-results dept.

bongey writes "In a series of measured real-world web load tests, the Android-based Nexus S phone spanked the iPhone 4. The Android phone and iPhone 4 median load times were 2.144s and 3.254s respectively. The sample size was 45,000 page loads, across 1000 web sites. It also follows rumors that Apple is intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable."

260 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Or... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-17 07:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
1. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Someone is surprised that a phone that's just being released is faster than a phone developed over a year ago and released 9 Months ago?
2. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Someone is surprised that a phone that's just being released is faster than a phone developed over a year ago and released 9 Months ago?
  By "just being released", you really mean released nearly 3 months ago, right? By saying "9 months ago" when there was really a 5-month differential between release dates shows your bias.
3. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Using your brain shows your bias against iPhone users.
4. Re:Or... by ackthpt · 2011-03-17 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
  The correct holding method is to be standing in queue at the Returns counter.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Or... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 08:15 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
  Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
6. Re:Or... by s73v3r · 2011-03-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  How does it show bias? The iPhone was released 9 months ago.
7. Re:Or... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-17 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.
  It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)
8. Re:Or... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.
  It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)
  Sorry, the 'Insightful' mod broke your punchline.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
9. Re:Or... by Dragonslicer · 2011-03-17 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
  The correct holding method is to be standing in queue at the Returns counter.
  I would have thought that the Apple-approved holding method is to be standing in the queue to purchase the next iteration.
10. Re:Or... by scot4875 · 2011-03-17 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, you just couldn't take it because you're a humorless Apple fanboi.
  If you want to read positive Apple news, go over to CNN -- the entire tech section seems to be dedicated to how great Apple products are, and how every one of their competitors is lacking in some way.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
11. Re:Or... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, you just couldn't take it because you're a humorless Apple fanboi.
  Heh. And..... you didn't see the humor in my post. Woopsie!
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
12. Re:Or... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)
  Sorry, the 'Insightful' mod broke your punchline.
  I'll try to leave that out next time.
13. Re:Or... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't blaming you, I was saying the tone of your post was altered by a dippy with a mod point.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
14. Re:Or... by GooberToo · 2011-03-17 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Android is still heavily in development and Apple has a huge advantage in that their browser is encumbered by Dalkvik. The fact that any test is close is actually shameful for Apple. When Google's fairly new technology actually stomps on Apple like that, well, its nothing but shamefully embarrassing for Apple.
15. Re:Or... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-17 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't blaming you, I was saying the tone of your post was altered by a dippy with a mod point.
  Actually that was meant as a joke as well, but I got an 'Overrated" as well. So I guess it all balances out in the end.
  Your sig. is hilarious btw.
16. Re:Or... by beelsebob · 2011-03-17 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Worse, the tests are biased, they're using an app linked against an old version of WebKit rather than safari, which benchmarks faster than the android device.
17. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  His sig actually is informative, but is also missing "Steve Jobs'" inbetween.
18. Re:Or... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-17 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Android is still heavily in development and Apple has a huge advantage in that their browser is encumbered by Dalkvik.
  What do you mean by "encumbered by Dalvik"? Actual browser code - you know, rendering HTML/CSS, executing JS - is native on both platforms (it's not like Google has ported WebKit to Java).
19. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  How does it show bias? The iPhone was released 9 months ago.
  And the Nexus S was released 3 months ago, but instead of saying that he decided to go with 'just being released', implying there is 9 months between them, which there isn't.
20. Re:Or... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Android is still heavily in development and Apple has a huge advantage in that their browser is encumbered by Dalkvik.
  
  Are you telling us that Android (development started in 2003) is still not out of (non-Google-sense) beta?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

They were using a custom app. Not the default browser. So what they are saying is that their app runs faster on the Nexus S. Not that the Nexus S is faster then the iPhone.
1. Re:Bogus by DurendalMac · 2011-03-17 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  THIS. Bad test is bad. If you want a good measure of performance, use the native browser on each as that's what the vast majority of users are going to use.
2. Re:Bogus by coldfarnorth · 2011-03-17 07:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  First, read the article written by the folks who did the test: http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/
  Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference. Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
  
  --
  Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
3. Re:Bogus by molnarcs · 2011-03-17 07:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, before buying my NEXUS ONE, I looked up quite a few comparison's on youtube. They were pretty much matched, but it some tests the Nexus was faster. In one particular test, by the time the iPhone4 loaded the homepage of the review sites, on the Nexus it was already loaded and a flash video playing. The difference still was just around 1 second, which is not the end of the world of course, but noticeable enough. I concluded that for web browsing, the Nexus is as good or slightly better as the iPhone. And remember, I'm talking about the Nexus One that came out 4 months before the iPhone4. So I do believe there might be something to this... and yeah, I've been a very happy Nexus owner since then. It's longevity is superb - still can't find anything that tops it. I mean yeah, there are better and faster phones out there right now, but I couldn't find a single compelling feature that would prompt me to buy a new phone for the foreseeable future.
4. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Since then iOS 4.3 has dramatically improved the iPhone 4's rendering speed.
  In any case I'm pretty much content with the way modern smartphones render pages. On to 3d performance, please!
5. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  First, read the article written by the folks who did the test: http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/
  Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference.
  Nothing in your link supports this. Their update (http://www.blaze.io/business/embeded-browser-vs-native-browser/) basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
  
  Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
  JavaScript is not the only difference between safari and an embedded web renderer. Safari has different caching and multithreading as well.
6. Re:Bogus by oh_my_080980980 · 2011-03-17 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except that was not the point of the comparison. The test was comparing web page load time.
  
  Epic fail criticism. Not too mention app developers would have access to the update engine. Good grief.
7. Re:Bogus by jbezorg · 2011-03-17 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  They were using a custom app. Not the default browser. So what they are saying is that their app runs faster on the Nexus S. Not that the Nexus S is faster then the iPhone.
  That's a bold assumption AC. How do you know it didn't run slower on the android phones? Have you bench marked each application?
  Still, what do you expect them to do to get accurate results? Use the actual browsers and sit there with a stopwatch?
  How would you approach the problem of getting accurate times?
  Primary Source:
  http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/
  The measurement itself was done using the custom apps, which use the platform’s embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone. Manual verification showed that page load performance of the embedded browsers, when properly configured, is effectively identical to the stand-alone browsers. The load times are calculated using the “Document Complete” callback from the browser, which is a standard way of measuring a web page’s load time. As mentioned above, the agents are now a part of a free service available at http://blaze.io/mobile/, and we encourage you to try it out.
  Methodology
  http://www.blaze.io/mobile/methodology/
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
8. Re:Bogus by iluvcapra · 2011-03-17 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference.
  To go to the trouble of testing the thing with their own app, then testing Safari, publishing the numbers for their own app and not publishing the benchmark for Safari seems obtuse in the extreme. Just tell us the numbers you got for the browser.
  
  Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use,
  
  A web browser renders content and loads it as well as executing stuff; javascript is only one part of the whole operation and only pertains to certain use cases.
  
  they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
  Why estimate when they can just run a benchmark on the actual browser, instead of handwaving?
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
9. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Read between the lines. Apple fanbois are crying that the test is flawed when what the test ACTUALLY reveals is so much more interesting than what they set out to show in the first place.
10. Re:Bogus by PopeRatzo · 2011-03-17 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, "Nunh-UNH!"
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
11. Re:Bogus by PopeRatzo · 2011-03-17 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  They were using a custom app.
  
  Maybe the point is that on the Nexus you can actually install a custom app.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:Bogus by bigNuns · 2011-03-17 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  What they were saying is developing apps with html rendering gives you a much faster rendering in Android when compared to the iPhone. This is kind of a big deal if you ask me... a lot of apps I use clearly are rendering HTML with what I assume are these very rendering engines that were tested.
  
  --
  .................... ...mmm farm fresh...
13. Re:Bogus by coldfarnorth · 2011-03-17 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Aaaaannnnd in other news, if you read the link I posted, it contains the answers you seek . . .
  One more thing: Is it just me or is your second comment a restatement of what I said in the line above it?
  
  --
  Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
14. Re:Bogus by gilesjuk · 2011-03-17 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Which given the iPhone and Android use different languages proves nothing. Maybe if they were running the exact same code on both.
  It proves that they can code well for Android but might not be able to code well for iOS?
  Objective C is quite an alien world for the beginner. It's quite a departure from Java and C++ syntactically.
  Also, did they test the battery life? which phone would die first?
15. Re:Bogus by MoeDrippins · 2011-03-17 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  > Also, did they test the battery life? which phone would die first?
  No. Nor did they test weight, color, specific gravity, reflectivity, touchscreen sensitivity, resistance to solar flares, ability to pass through a bovine's intestinal tract unscathed, nor bullet-proof-ness.
  
  --
  Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
16. Re:Bogus by iluvcapra · 2011-03-17 09:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think you don't understand the problem. The headline is "Android's browser is faster than iPhone's browser," but all they ever tested was:
  
  The measurement itself was done using the custom apps, which use the platform’s embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone.
  UIWebView is not Safari, and neither WebView nor UIWebView are "browsers."
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
17. Re:Bogus by AK+Marc · 2011-03-17 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  What if, the built-in version proxies requests and doesn't actually serve what you ask for? How do you know what's happening in the browser?
  
  The only reasonable solution to that is to load up an independent app optimized for each of the two platforms. Otherwise, how do you know what the browsers are really doing? If I were building a browser for a phone, I'd do what other mini apps already do and cheat. Not to slow down other apps, like people are hinting Apple may be doing, but to proxy and compress between the telco and the handset to not serve the entirety of the pages, but to the point where the person looking at it on the tiny screen wouldn't notice. And if that's the case, comparing "web browsing" in the sense of pages loading with the default app is not valid unless we know what the default app does.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:Bogus by jbezorg · 2011-03-17 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, "Nunh-UNH!"
  Are you referring to my post?. If so, more along the lines of: Why don't you actually look into the methodology and other information as opposed to AC's "Oh yeah! Well your test was stupid!"
  Kinda like this.
  “regards the tests as flawed because Blaze used its own proprietary application that doesn’t take advantage of Apple Safari browser’s Web-performance optimization” - Stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman Apple.
  source: http://www.blaze.io/business/embeded-browser-vs-native-browser/
  If AC had included this to support their statement they would have has some sort of basis for their claim. They'd still be wrong though. Apple admits that the Safari browser runs faster than the engine used as opposed to AC's claim that Blaze's application ran slower. What difference does that distinction make? Consider being a iOS developer wanting to using that engine for your application while competing against a similar application on Android.
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
19. Re:Bogus by iluvcapra · 2011-03-17 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Consider being a iOS developer wanting to using that engine for your application while competing against a similar application on Android.
  Aren't you moving the goalposts there? First it was 'real world' web browsing on a Nexus S, and now it's load times (and not even that, just the timing of the callback) in a UI widget.
  
  Still, what do you expect them to do to get accurate results? Use the actual browsers and sit there with a stopwatch?
  I'd expect them to only make comments on things they know about, instead of asserting that fact A is proof of proposition B. These people are playing for media attention and using Android fanboyism to get their URL on as many pages as possible. Behold the birth of a profiteer's meme.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
20. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Because there was flash on the page.... You have to exclude all pages with flash calls from a benchmark, because different sites will handle no flash in different ways.
21. Re:Bogus by bongey · 2011-03-17 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  No fuck, they never claimed the web browser was faster. You just assumed they meant web browser, got back to the saying about assumptions.
22. Re:Bogus by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I highly doubt that anything remotely like this is happening, and for one simple reason: The proxying you describe (I'm assuming you're talking about Skyfire/Opera Mini type server-side compression?) is dog-slow because it increases the ping-time by a ton. My Desire (old 1st-gen Snapdragon device with a decent helping of RAM) loads sites FASTER without any form of server-side caching and/or compression (I've tried this with Opera Mobile, Opera Mini, Skyfire, Miren Browser...), simply because the response time is horrible with the compression service. When latency already accounts for 25% of the time I need to load Slashdot's full desktop version, upping the latency by a factor of 4 or 5 doesn't help much in making pages load faster ;)
  For saving bandwidth? Sure, compress and proxy all you want.
  For speed on a device where the rendering speed doesn't improve by cutting down the entire page to a few kilobytes in size, the connection is sufficiently high-throughput that the compression doesn't make a difference in transfer time anyway, and latency is the biggest/most noticable problem...? No.
23. Re:Bogus by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  Rendering, OK, but panning content-heavy and complex pages still needs to be improved. Android stutters/gums up and iOS checkerboards like crazy...
  I'll take a full GB (or preferably 1.5 or even 2GB) of RAM for my next device please...
24. Re:Bogus by Draek · 2011-03-17 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can do it on the iPhone as well, you just need to pay your $99/year fee and hope the Apple employee who reviews it isn't having a bad day and rejects your app "just because".
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
25. Re:Bogus by tlhIngan · 2011-03-17 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, before buying my NEXUS ONE, I looked up quite a few comparison's on youtube. They were pretty much matched, but it some tests the Nexus was faster. In one particular test, by the time the iPhone4 loaded the homepage of the review sites, on the Nexus it was already loaded and a flash video playing. The difference still was just around 1 second, which is not the end of the world of course, but noticeable enough. I concluded that for web browsing, the Nexus is as good or slightly better as the iPhone. And remember, I'm talking about the Nexus One that came out 4 months before the iPhone4. So I do believe there might be something to this... and yeah, I've been a very happy Nexus owner since then. It's longevity is superb - still can't find anything that tops it. I mean yeah, there are better and faster phones out there right now, but I couldn't find a single compelling feature that would prompt me to buy a new phone for the foreseeable future.
  No big surprise really. The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz). The iPhone hardware has always been underpowered compared the Android.
26. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-17 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have to disagree with Eric Zeman... this is exactly the kind of stuff that's important. If you write an app that relies on the rendering engines as available to a custom app, you would want to know if you're being hog-tied.
  But that's not what's being claimed here.
  
  Basically, Apple is gaming the benchmarks and deliberately slowing down stuff when it's for 3rd party developers. It's no different that that old quake3/quack3 trick, and the old tricks Microsoft did to guarantee Office ran faster on Windows than competing productivity suites.
  Where do you get the idea that this is being done to deliberately slow down third party apps?
27. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Read between the lines. Apple fanbois are crying that the test is flawed
  The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
  
  when what the test ACTUALLY reveals is so much more interesting than what they set out to show in the first place.
  In other words, the test was flawed. Does that make you an "Apple fanboi"?
  And, this "much more interesting thing" that they showed was already well known.
28. Re:Bogus by TemporalBeing · 2011-03-17 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the fact that outside of the Flash Drive, the Nexus S is superior to iPhone4 in every technical way: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html http://www.google.com/phone/detail/nexus-s
  
  Heck, even the Nexus One was superior to the iPhone in every way except the Flash Drive, Dual Camera, and a couple millimeters in dimensions. The Nexus S fixes the Dual Camera issue, and seriously closes the gap on the Flash Drive.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
29. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-17 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
  And that's the best way to run a test. You run a set of well-defined tests and make precise measurements, then you just "estimate" what the real results of a proper test would be...
  There's no way around the fact that this test is flawed. "Estimating" and guessing at the results of a proper test is nonsense. Any Slashdotter who has any respect for scientific methodology should be ashamed to be playing so loose here in order to make their favorite product look better than some other. There's a word for this that gets thrown at anyone who says nice things about Apple. You know the one.
30. Re:Bogus by jbezorg · 2011-03-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't you moving the goalposts there?
  Not my goalpost and it burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. I took issue with the knee-jerk reaction of "their app runs faster on Android" with nothing to back it up.
  But it also doesn't make what was discovered any less important. Does it? That and iOS application developer shouldn't be concerned?
  
  I'd expect them to only make comments on things they know about, instead of asserting that fact A is proof of proposition B. These people are playing for media attention and using Android fanboyism to get their URL on as many pages as possible. Behold the birth of a profiteer's meme.
  Android fanboyism or iPhone fanboyism? I can't really tell who was foaming at the mouth more.
  "No Luke. Android is faster"
  "That's not true! That's Impossible!"
  "Read the blaze.io article. You know it to be true."
  "Noooooooooooo........!"
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
31. Re:Bogus by AK+Marc · 2011-03-17 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are wrong. With Opera, you are proxying your connection with a 3rd party that requires longer latency. A service provider could have multiple proxies at every POP so that there would be no increase in latency. Having deployed a number of proxies and accelerators over satellite, I've never seen a proper deployment that made it appear slower. But yes, when you have a third party system that's not in the regular data path, you can't help but make it longer.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
32. Re:Bogus by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  So how would you ensure that all iPhones get your proxied, compressed versions of the sites without going through a third party server? Especially if they're on some other unusual network (just think of all the home and public WiFi out there)...
  Not saying it isn't possible in certain scenarios, but speeding up any and all iPhones with server side caching and/or compression over any and all connections? Very unlikely.
33. Re:Bogus by Draek · 2011-03-17 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  They don't blame Apple for optimizing its standalone browser, they blame Apple for NOT optimizing their embedded one, as well as not saying anything about it until now.
  So the conclusion from the test is different, but still damning: if you're writing mobile apps designed around an embedded browser, your users will have a much smoother experience on an Android device over an iPhone.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
34. Re:Bogus by Draek · 2011-03-17 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that an iPhone4 user would *still* be waiting for that Flash video to load ;)
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
35. Re:Bogus by AK+Marc · 2011-03-17 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  So how would you ensure that all iPhones get your proxied, compressed versions of the sites without going through a third party server?
  There are only two providers of iPhones in the US, and the first one had quite a long period where they were the only provider. If I were Apple, I'd sell it to AT&T as something that would save bandwidth on their network, while also knowing that the speed increase will give them a competitive advantage. They already have iPhone specific services for them, like the visual voice mail, so a proxy too isn't a big leap.
  
  Especially if they're on some other unusual network (just think of all the home and public WiFi out there)...
  I'd let those go. They'll have faster bandwidth in the first place with better latency, or at least one would hope...
  
  Not saying it isn't possible in certain scenarios, but speeding up any and all iPhones with server side caching and/or compression over any and all connections? Very unlikely.
  Simply impossible. But it's a phone. Speed up the phone network. Also, there's no reason they couldn't prefetch on a proxy and display whatever server is a faster responder, and if the proxy is first, it'll serve "optimized" content. Given the ubiquity of AT&T, spreading those servers around and with prodigious prefetch, one could get an improvement, even over WiFi, both in latency and bandwidth reduction for a variety of content.
  
  Remember, just because you haven't thought of it is not a valid argument against it. And no, I'm not saying that's what they did. I'm giving an example of what could be done to help improve performance, even over WiFi.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
36. Re:Bogus by beelsebob · 2011-03-17 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The real irony in this is that WebView is not based on chrome, and UIWebView is not based on safari.
  Instead, both WebView and UIWebView are based on WebKit... the only question is "who put the most recent version in their latest OS release".
37. Re:Bogus by beelsebob · 2011-03-17 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  No big surprise really. The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz). The iPhone hardware has always been underpowered compared the Android.
  Not at all true –this is one of the first devices to have a more powerful CPU, and the iPhone's GPU is *only just* being beaten by the most recent releases now. Notably, apple is busy replacing that CPU and GPU combination with a CPU and GPU that benchmark about 4 times faster. The iPhone actually has generally had a significant hardware *advantage* compared to android –this is one of many reasons why my company doesn't consider developing games for android –you can't rely on fast hardware like you can on the iPhone.
38. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
  It's not flawed at all, it's that morons are coming to stupid conclusions like 'browsing is faster on X than Y'. Read the first paragraph of the article:
  The iPhone 4 was slower than Google’s Nexus S smartphone 84 percent of the time when accessing the Web through the browser that operates applications like Twitter and Facebook, according to Ottawa-based Blaze Software Inc. Blaze was unable to compare the Apple Safari and Google Chrome browsers that users access directly from the phone’s home screen.
  
  So as you can see the test is NOT flawed, and they are quite clear on what was and was not being tested. It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
39. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
  No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
40. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz).
  Math fail.
41. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:09 · Score: 2
  
  The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz).
  Math fail.
  reading comprehension fail.
42. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Which given the iPhone and Android use different languages proves nothing.
  It would prove that one language/runtime is faster in that instance.
  
  It proves that they can code well for Android but might not be able to code well for iOS?
  Or they can code well for both and one is just slower. Maybe the antenna on the iphone4 was fine and users were just holding it wrong.
  
  Objective C is quite an alien world for the beginner. It's quite a departure from Java and C++ syntactically.
  And if your syntax is wrong it won't build, if you're calling the wrong functions it won't work, what's your point?
43. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
  No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
  Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
44. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use,
  A web browser renders content and loads it as well as executing stuff; javascript is only one part of the whole operation and only pertains to certain use cases.
  Suuuuuure. Even though Slashdot is no Fortune 100 company, page loading times most certainly depend on JavaScript performance. And if it isn't JavaScript, it's Flash they use - which makes the test even more dubious, because nowhere do they mention exactly how they tested pages with Flash.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
45. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
  No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
  Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
  Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
46. Re:Bogus by bongey · 2011-03-17 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Objective C is quite an alien world for the beginner. It's quite a departure from Java and C++ syntactically.
  All three are derivatives of C, and the syntax is quite similar . Now Pascal and Ada are completely different.
47. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-17 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android, which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as. Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
  But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
  
  It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
  No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
48. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android
  No, they are flawed as a way to measure performance between Safari and Chrome. But - and if you read the test it's pretty obvious - that isn't what they were doing.
  
  which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as.
  those who comment before bothering to read.
  
  Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
  I don't agree with that and obviously they don't supply data to support that but the fact that they explicitly say that makes it obvious that they weren't testing safari at all.
  
  But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
  to those who drew conclusions without looking at the test, yes.
  
  No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
  you seem to be thinking that 'web browsing' on the iphone is wholly limited to safari, it is not.
49. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't you moving the goalposts there?
  Not my goalpost and it burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. I took issue with the knee-jerk reaction of "their app runs faster on Android" with nothing to back it up.
  Nothing but their report, which comes down to exactly that. Your knee jerk reaction that what the AC meant was that the app was written to be faster on Android is duly noted.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
50. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
  Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
  Suuuuuuure. Even so they kept talking about "browsers", they actually meant "embedded browsers" but never actually said it because obviously everybody would know what they were talking about - or they didn't know what the hell they were talking. Looking at their claims in both their little blurbs, I still think its #2.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
51. Re:Bogus by BasilBrush · 2011-03-17 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fail for you perhaps. His math is correct.
52. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
  Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
  Suuuuuuure. Even so they kept talking about "browsers", they actually meant "embedded browsers" but never actually said it because obviously everybody would know what they were talking about - or they didn't know what the hell they were talking. Looking at their claims in both their little blurbs, I still think its #2.
  It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
53. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  You too.
54. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-17 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
  Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be. Even the testers themselves have extended their claims beyond what they can reasonably be applied to. The chain of blame starts with them, and when they had the chance to correct the course of the direction their article has gone on the web, they instead *bolstered* it.
  It seems a bit much to blame people who are working on third-hand information when even the people with first-hand information are making similarly unfounded claims.
55. Re:Bogus by iinlane · 2011-03-17 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  The browser might be faster but I hate the way android changes page layout during zooming.
56. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-17 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
  Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
  
  Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be.
  The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
57. Re:Bogus by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why would this only give the iPhone an edge, and not all the phones on that carrier? If AT&T and Verizon were precaching content somewhere (I'm sure they might be), wouldn't all devices on their networks benefit? I'd assume so... And anyway, I didn't RTFA, but who the hell does speed tests on different networks? I'd assume they used WiFi or at least the same network for both devices.
  You're going off on a conspiracy theory tangent here without even the slightest hint of a hint at it being true, or even likely. I like to make fun of iPhone users as much as the next techie, but this is a bit over the top ;)
58. Re:Bogus by BasilBrush · 2011-03-18 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you talking about? Right now you're just making yourself look stupid.
59. Re:Bogus by jbezorg · 2011-03-18 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  CheerfulMacFanboy? Really?
  Not when Apple themselves say otherwise. They themselves point out that Safari has optimizations not available to the Engine. i.e.
  “regards the tests as flawed because Blaze used its own proprietary application that doesn’t take advantage of Apple Safari browser’s Web-performance optimization” - Stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman Apple.
  So it wasn't written to be faster. It was written to access a HTML rendering engine on the Android device and access a HTML rendering engine on an iOS device and benchmark response time as stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman Apple.
  If you have and issue with that, if you think that is incorrect, take it up with Natalie Kerris.
  Press Contacts:
  Natalie Kerris
  Apple
  (408) 974-6877
  nat@apple.com
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
60. Re:Bogus by node+3 · 2011-03-18 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
  I would if the original authors hadn't made the claim that this did apply to mobile Safari itself.
  
  The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
  I don't really disagree with this, but it's not feasible to read the source of every story one reads. That's the whole point of having news organizations in the first place.
61. Re:Bogus by Carewolf · 2011-03-18 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, more: Who isn't intentionally crippling apps to be slower than the approved native browser.
62. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-18 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
  It's quite clear in the original text (if you dig a little deeper) - but lets ignore that it is not clear in the article linked in the submission or in any of the other mainstream media reports because they kept talking about "the browsers".
  But even so it is clear to you and me I seriously doubt is was clear to them - why else would they be so defensive? And that is the fucking point. They tested embedded browsers, but didn't even knew that there was a difference, and thought they were testing the actual browser apps.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
63. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-18 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  CheerfulMacFanboy? Really?
  No, not seriously. But a hateboy like you can't understand irony, and certainly not the reference.
  
  Not when Apple themselves say otherwise. They themselves point out that Safari has optimizations not available to the Engine. i.e.
  “regards the tests as flawed because Blaze used its own proprietary application that doesn’t take advantage of Apple Safari browser’s Web-performance optimization” - Stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman Apple.
  So it wasn't written to be faster. It was written to access a HTML rendering engine on the Android device and access a HTML rendering engine on an iOS device and benchmark response time as stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman Apple.
  If you have and issue with that, if you think that is incorrect, take it up with Natalie Kerris.
  Press Contacts: Natalie Kerris Apple (408) 974-6877 nat@apple.com
  Whoa - that moves the goal post to a different continent. Congratulations, you are a master at your craft - of being a stupid troll.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
64. Re:Bogus by jbezorg · 2011-03-18 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, not seriously. But a hateboy like you can't understand irony, and certainly not the reference.
  http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/11/14/0115255/Android-Holes-Allow-Secret-Installation-of-Apps?
  
  Whoa - that moves the goal post to a different continent. Congratulations, you are a master at your craft - of being a stupid troll.
  I find it amazing how the goal post keeps moving back when I essentially keep repeating the same thing over and over. The same quote from Apple over and over. Yet another idiot steps in when another leaves to pick up the banner and presses forward.
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
65. Re:Bogus by smash · 2011-03-18 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  What if, the built-in version proxies requests and doesn't actually serve what you ask for? How do you know what's happening in the browser?
  If it means that the end user experience of browsing the web on their phone (which is the point) is better then I don't give a fuck what its doing in the background (privacy issues aside for a second). Which brings up the next point: who's browser phones home to google more?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
66. Re:Bogus by smash · 2011-03-18 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Iphones have different codes on the mobile service. Without these codes in AU for example, you can't take a normal telstra internet enabled sim, place into an iphone and have it work without adding the iphone codes to it (free change, but it modifies your service somehow).
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
67. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-18 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, "their own app" was simply an app that put a "Safari" or "browser" window. And they did that with both phones. To get a benchmark, you need to programmatically control the browser. Apple only sprang the claim that *embedded* window is different than a regular window after the fact. Normally, they're essentially the same. It's as if when I start a browser from a batch file it would be slower than when I start normally. Whether Apple's claims are true or not, their behavior is rather sleazy.
68. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-18 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
  It's quite clear in the original text (if you dig a little deeper) - but lets ignore that it is not clear in the article linked in the submission or in any of the other mainstream media reports because they kept talking about "the browsers".
  But even so it is clear to you and me I seriously doubt is was clear to them - why else would they be so defensive? And that is the fucking point. They tested embedded browsers, but didn't even knew that there was a difference, and thought they were testing the actual browser apps.
  It doesn't matter, after reading the test article there is no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not Safari or Chrome.
69. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-18 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Relax, you're getting a little worked up there buddy, it's ok i can explain it to you if it's not clear. i just linked you to the post - that you failed to read - that indicated i read it backwards, of course you don't seem to have read that in the context of the comment thread so 'reading comprehension fail' all round ;)
  There's no need to get so worked up, it's just an online forum post ;P
70. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-19 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter, after reading the test article there is no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not Safari or Chrome.
  It doesn't matter, because they wanted to test Safari and Chrome, and not the embedded browsers. You know how you can tell (apart from all their talk that doesn't make much sense if they wanted to test embedded browsers which is already a dead giveaway for anyone but the most obtuse)? Look at what content they used for the tests: The websites of the Fortune 1000 companies - not web apps.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
71. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-19 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think you fail to realise you just said that having no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not safari or chrome 'doesn't matter' wrt to what they were testing. And if you're testing embedded browsers you don't have to test web apps any more than if you weren't testing embedded browsers.
72. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-20 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think you fail to realise you just said that having no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not safari or chrome 'doesn't matter' wrt to what they were testing. And if you're testing embedded browsers you don't have to test web apps any more than if you weren't testing embedded browsers.
  God, are you obtuse. They wanted to test A, and tested B, which was obvious to most anyone but them. Now they say they wanted to test B. They were wrong. And so are you, you fucking moron. Why the hell would you test "general browsing" when you want to test "special browsing"? Or are you now claiming that they actually wanted to test the speed of alternative browsers?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
73. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-20 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  So after you get called out on that statement you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the argument, real mature. There is no such thing as 'special browsing' that's a term you just invented for your argument.
74. Re:Bogus by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  So now you want to blame me that you just can't realize facts.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
75. Re:Bogus by exomondo · 2011-03-20 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  no, i didn't 'blame you' for anything.
Not surprised by cytoman · 2011-03-17 07:14 · Score: 1

When it comes to working efficiently, I've always seen that my Nexus S was better than the iPhones that my friends have. This study is just a more methodological and quantitative observation of what I and other Android users already know.
1. Re:Not surprised by node+3 · 2011-03-17 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, it does demonstrate something we already know. That people will use flawed "tests" to confirm their biases. This test did not use Safari on the iPhone, which makes it highly flawed.
  Your personal "less methodical and quantitative observation" is rather silly. You are more efficient at using your Nexus S than your friends appear to you when using their iPhones? You're telling me a geek feels superior to those around him? Wow, I've never heard of such a thing!
  But back to your initial claim, "when it comes to working efficiently", that doesn't even make any sense here. Even if Mobile Safari (which was not tested, and has been shown to be notably improved by other third party tests) was much slower than a browser on Android, that would not be sufficient to back your claim.
Meh by MrHanky · 2011-03-17 07:15 · Score: 1

Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life? I don't think this has anything to do with strangling web apps, just different design goals.
1. Re:Meh by wsanders · 2011-03-17 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, trade off 110 msec of my life wasted each time I restart an app vs. 3 days standby time with Wifi and Bluetooth on. Touch choice.
  
  --
  Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
2. Re:Meh by wsanders · 2011-03-17 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Oops meant 1110. That's more serious. Considering it takes me an average of 7865.349 msec to plug in my charger, still a fair trade..
  
  --
  Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
3. Re:Meh by SwabTheDeck · 2011-03-17 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life? I don't think this has anything to do with strangling web apps, just different design goals.
  The iPhone 4 is 777 MHz while the Nexus S is 1 GHz. Both are based on the ARM Corext-A8 and both have 512 MB of RAM. Given the difference in CPU speed, the results of the page load tests don't seem far departed from what would be expected. While the Nexus S is still proportionally a little faster, it isn't so wildly so that it can't be attributed to some minor tweaks in the OS or browser software. Using the term "spanked" seems a bit sensationalist in this instance.
4. Re:Meh by ColdWetDog · 2011-03-17 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Considering it takes me an average of 7865.349 msec to plug in my charger, still a fair trade..
  Really? You timed this to millisecond precision? And you wonder about wasting time restarting an app?
  
  I bow to you, Master of Misplaced Priorities and Decimal Points.
  
  One hundred thousand Internets - you will need them.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:Meh by just_another_sean · 2011-03-17 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Touch choice
  Pun intended? :-)
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
6. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  > Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life?
  Better battery life? If iPhones were designed to have a shorter lifespan, customers would be forced to buy new products sooner.
  - This is why batteries were designed to be hard to replaceable. They even designed a new screw to make it harder to open it: http://www.ifixit.com/blog/blog/2011/01/20/apples-diabolical-plan-to-screw-your-iphone/
  - "The battery life of early models of the iPhone has been criticized by several technology journalists as insufficient and less than Apple's claims": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#Battery
  - "satisfaction survey, which gave the "battery aspects" of the iPhone 3G its lowest rating of 2 out of 5 stars": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#Battery
  If you think that batteries suck because they had to use cheap parts to keep the price low, think again: "iPhone has a market share of barely 4% of all cellphones, but Apple still pulls in more than 50% of the total profit that global cellphone sales generate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone
7. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Woosh
  You might want to save some of the internets for yourself.
8. Re:Meh by MoeDrippins · 2011-03-17 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  > > Considering it takes me an average of 7865.349 msec to plug in my charger, still a fair trade..
  > Really? You timed this to millisecond precision?
  He listed it as an average, so he could have done it 1000 times and only tested to the second.
  
  --
  Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
9. Re:Meh by Draek · 2011-03-17 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  It'd still be bad science, though.
  Most likely however is that it was just hyperbole and not an actual experimental result, however flawed it may have been.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
10. Re:Meh by Drakino · 2011-03-17 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  One big hole in your argument, any Apple Store can replace batteries inside these devices without user replaceable ones.
  The sealed in battery is there for one reason. It provides a higher capacity power source then a phone of identical size with a removable battery. Removable batteries require space for easily pluggable connections, space in the case to allow for clips to hold a battery door on, and must have a thicker case to survive impacts from objects to avoid punctures if the battery is outside the device. A built in battery that is not user replaceable doesn't have to have as large of a connector, and a much thinner case since the entire phone body becomes the battery puncture protection.
  In general, iPhones have had longer run times compared to similar smart phones on the market. It's a combination of many factors, including the sealed in battery. Many users new to smartphones do rank the battery as poor initially, as they are used to non smart phones with much longer run times. This applies to the entire industry, and isn't a complaint unique to an iPhone. It's just the price we pay for carrying around so much computing power in a handheld device.
11. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  err, reference please? Most of their stuff published says 1GHz, so where are you getting 777 from? Las Vegas?
12. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  You've missed the point entire, sir. This is a phone geek pissing match. The Android camp has launched a salvo! iPhone guys take cover and retaliate.
  iPhone has a bigger display. Nexus S antenna works. iPhone battery lasts longer. Nexus S CPU is faster. Nexus S doesn't need to be jail broken. Apple's apps store is better. On and on. People grow up eventually and they stop it. There is no way to accelerate that process.
  Trolling the boys is fun though. Here's my play:
  iPhone 4 looks kinda dated with its right angles and chrome bumpers. If the US Army needed an infantry smart phone it would look just like that. Hey Apple; 2008 called; they want their phone back!
  Some schmuck just looked at their phone and actually felt their self esteem shrivel up. In a few days they'll haunt some other forum and complain that Apple needs to hurry up with the iPhone 5.
  Meanwhile China is building a blue-water navy using the proceeds.
13. Re:Meh by narcc · 2011-03-18 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  People grow up eventually and they stop it.
  That's where your wrong!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
Really? by Overzeetop · 2011-03-17 07:15 · Score: 2

Page load speed, that's their metric? And 50% faster is spanked? We're talking about computers, not 100m dash times - I expect an order of magnitude difference. How is the actual browsing experience - how easy is it to read and navigate on a 4" device?
I will go so far as to quote from TFA:
"Users don’t always notice the speed gap because websites are sometimes tailored to mobile phones, Blaze said. The difference will become more obvious as users demand richer experiences and move to tablet computers with larger screens.
So the metric their using to judge the devices isn't very noticeable, and probably won't matter on a device this size ever. Great. Guess if you have to break out a ruler to feel good about yourself...

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:Really? by DurendalMac · 2011-03-17 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention that they didn't even use the native browser on each platform, but a custom app, which makes this test even more irrelevant. If you want to measure browser performance, then use the bundled browser that the vast majority of users will be using.
2. Re:Really? by dgatwood · 2011-03-17 07:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Especially since if last week's story about slower JavaScript performance in apps that embed WebKit is correct, that means there's a good chance that the native browser in iOS would spank the Android browser despite being on a slower CPU.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
3. Re:Really? by Gadget_Guy · 2011-03-17 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. Unless you are going to run two phones side by side, people will not notice the difference.
  My bigger concern is that Safari on the iPhone makes for a poor user experience (at least compared to Opera on my old Nokia Communicator). Opera did some nice reflowing of HTML elements to fit web pages on a small screen. The iPhone makes the virtual screen size default to 920px across and relies on zooming in and out to be able to read things properly. It is particularly bad when reading text on a page that does not fix the screen size and just flows to the native page width. It is ridiculous that you should have to scroll horizontally to be able to read text that should just wrap to the screen width.
  And unlike Opera, there were no configuration settings to change the way it works.
  It gets worse when filling in forms (like I am doing now) because when the huge keyboard is on screen, the zoom level resets to a stupidly large size. This means that you cannot see full field as you type.
  As a web developer, I can change the way the zooming works, but this relies on changing the HTML just to suit one browser. I had hoped that we saw the end of that madness with the demise if IE6!
4. Re:Really? by DrgnDancer · 2011-03-17 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Now see, I actually like that about the iPhone (and I believe also the default Android) web browser. The way Opera and the default web browser on my Treo both did it was to try to wrap everything to the screen size. It made most sites look awful and poor attempts to wrap around (undersized to the point of near invisibility) graphics often made things hard to read besides. Render the site the way it's meant to be rendered and I'll zoom in and scroll. If I want to look at the graphics I can zoom them trivially too. Different strokes I guess. I've fount both the default Android and iPhone browsers both make me much happier. I do agree about the zoom on forms, it's one of my few annoyances with iOS Safari.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Over 1 second faster is huge in terms of user experience and mobile browsers. You misunderstand what the guy is saying. Or, it appears you do. He's saying that on sites with mobile versions that the speed difference is less noticeable. However, not all sites have mobile versions.
  
  The custom app criticism is valid, but you're crazy if you think 1+s of time is insignificant.
6. Re:Really? by shadowrat · 2011-03-17 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  HA! the test is used as evidence on how different devices will behave in an imaginary future where everyone demands rich web apps on future tablets. Extrapolating from this that an android tablet would "spank" the ipad is pure speculation. You don't even need the pretense of science to say you think android tablets in the future could be way faster at everything than an ipad. It's possible, but in that hypothetical future, i'll take the slightly slower ipad that lets me hop on it like the silver surfer's surfboard and fly around.
7. Re:Really? by Brian+Feldman · 2011-03-17 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I read your idle speculation and left a more informed individual. Thank you.
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  While that is possibly true, lots of apps do use the Safari rendering engine just like the test suite did and they would exhibit the same comparative slowness as was found in the story. It isn't a matter of "only the actual browser is used for HTML". Apps use it too and they use the platform provided engine to do it.
9. Re:Really? by Moderator · 2011-03-17 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Render the site the way it's meant to be rendered and I'll zoom in and scroll. If I want to look at the graphics I can zoom them trivially too. Different strokes I guess
  Weird, my antiquated S40 based phone running Opera Mini does exactly this. And it is running an older 4.x version of the browser. I have not seen a browser run the way the GP stated since 2003.
  
  --
  The World is Yours.
10. Re:Really? by Gadget_Guy · 2011-03-17 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  You would have been using the crappy Opera Mini, which ran on Java. The one on my Nokia was Opera Mobile (I think that was the name) and it was 1000% better than the one you can download from Opera's site as it had a nice mix of a slight zoom and an intelligent reflow that could fit a site in using the same layout that you see on a PC. It helped that the Nokia was a clamshell design that had an internal screen that was 480px wide.
  There was no way of getting the better version except to have it preinstalled by the phone manufacturer. When I went to Opera's page for my model of phone, it only showed Mini to be available (which was bizarre to read on the phone via Opera Mobile).
  Finally, speaking of annoyances about Safari, my biggest one is that it can't hold many pages in memory at the same time. With my old phone, I could load up 10 Slashdot articles (showing all comments) and the go on a plane and read them all. With Safari, I can only load 7 pages, but it can really only hold 1 or 2 large pages without trying to reload them again as you switch between them. I have lost a number of Slashdot posts in the past when I quickly look up a site in another page only to have the posting form reload when I switch back, losing everything I have typed. Very frustrating!
11. Re:Really? by Overzeetop · 2011-03-17 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have a poor frame of reference for this. Before getting an iPhone (3gs last spring, then 4 last summer) I had a Win Mobile phone ( HTC TouchPro). Compared to the browser on win mobile, the ability to double tap any frame and have it expand to fill the screen width for reading is a killer feature. I rarely have to pinch-zoom because of it. The transitions are smooth and the response to pan/zoom/fill frame vs tap-to-follow-link are generally very accurate, which means fewer page loads - which at 100-500kbps can be pretty fucking slow and frustrating, and that's independent of processor speed.
  I haven't played with Android enough to really assess the UI feel, though the few times I have I've been a bit disappointed. It would take a little while for me to set up an Android phone the way I liked it, probably not too different from my old WinMo phone.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
12. Re:Really? by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  And 50% faster is spanked? We're talking about computers, not 100m dash times - I expect an order of magnitude difference.
  Yeah come on apple, your dual core a5 is pathetic, we're talking about computers, i expect an order of magnitude difference.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:15 · Score: 0

I realize Android hasn't garnered much favor here lately, so I'm sure fanbois on both sides of the fence will show up in force ...
... but does anyone, truly, care that much about browsing performance on their phone? I know when I bought my G1, Nexus One, and DroidX the last thing I was concerned about was how fast it rendered webpages.
Maybe you feel differently. So let the flaming commence :P.
1. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by Sj0 · 2011-03-17 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're pretty much bang on.
  I just bought an Android after a year as an Apple guy, and I don't really care how quick it is, I care about the fact that my favourite websites work(lots of flash). An extra tenth of a second isn't going to make or break it.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
2. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Performance of the browser is a critical feature.
3. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by Locke2005 · 2011-03-17 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  Amen brother! What good is a smart phone if I can't use it to view porn videos while driving???
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
4. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  But when browsing performance is 'good enough' between both competing mobile products it's like comparing the microsecond difference of the JavaScript interpreters between Chrome/FF4/IE9. If you just browse webpages casually you probably won't care less about browser benchmarks.,
  Now if it can push twice the amount of polygons using native OpenGL that's an impressive benchmark (if you care about graphics)...
5. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by blair1q · 2011-03-17 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Browser performance is never "good enough" on degraded platforms like smartphones. On my desktop I'm used to neural-rate browsing. When there's a hitch I send email to ISPs that their routers are fucking up. But on my phone I see every little gear grinding on every badly-constructed javascript botch. One phone that unties the knots 20% faster than another is significantly different from a quality perspective.
  If two phones can handle their native apps without breaking, then the one with the best network/rendering performance wins. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the quality of cardboard in the box it comes in.
6. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  I might care about a 20% page time difference if I used the browser for more than 1/10th the phone's workload. Give me a 200% increase and I might consider the browser more important than hardware specs and capabilities. My 1.2GHz phone is nearly instantaneous at rendering - the small 4.3" screen size is a much more vexing issue.
7. Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this by gordo3000 · 2011-03-17 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  wasn't the difference over 1 second? so it's like clicking and being done and clicking, and tapping your foot a few times and then getting the page.
But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:17 · Score: 0

But..But.. But.. If you don't have an iPhone - you do not have an iPhone! Eat this Android fanboys!
Nexus S is a "developer phone" by bigsexyjoe · 2011-03-17 07:17 · Score: 0

It would be more interesting to compare the iPhone to high end Android phones that have their own tv commercials.

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
1. Re:Nexus S is a "developer phone" by brobins8 · 2011-03-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Anything more recent than a Galaxy S should have similar or better performance when running 2.3. The Nexus S has the same CPU core and GPU as the rest of the Galaxy S devices.
Android/iPhone UI performance by MobyDisk · 2011-03-17 07:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

From personal observations, I have noticed that transitions are much smoother on iPhones than on comparable Android phones. For example, if I am browsing photos on an iPhone and I swipe left, I see the image smoothly (60fps or more?) move to the left and the new image smoothly move on. By comparison, every Android phone I have seen implements the same effect, but I see artifacts like tearing or skipping of frames. It looks like it goes at 60fps, then drops down to 5, then back up to 60. I tend to be more sensitive to this type of thing than most people (I see CRT refreshes and tend to get motion sick playing games that bob up and down)
IMHO, this is something Apple has done right all the way back to the original macs, and many other developers don't seem to have a grasp on. Most people don't notice the artifacts directly, but they "feel" it subtly. It makes people just like the iPhone UI more, and they may not be able to put their finger on exactly why.
1. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Digicaf · 2011-03-17 07:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This has a lot to do with hardware acceleration in the GUI, which for the most part isn't there in any Android below 2.3. I bought my Droid 2 last september and noticed exactly what you mention. In 2.3, that's no longer true. It feels MUCH smoother. In fact, my wife went out a month ago and picked up a low end device (with 2.3) that has a much better response rate and feel despite having a processor only half as fast.
2. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by peragrin · 2011-03-17 07:31 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  That's generally it too.
  the IOS UI feels and responds better even under load than android does. think about it, a first generation iphone does smoothly what android needs gigerbread and twice the processor to accomplish.
  Sure the newer phone loads websites better, but the UI is so under performing that it causes all that "saved" time to be wasted again.
  the Ipad(first) and the Xoom is the same way. Sure the Xoom is loads faster at individual tasks, however, the interface lags such that it doesn't seem that way. It is really noticable on a galaxy tab, however that is running far outdated(and never to be updated) software anyways.
  of course that is because apple can tweak the software to run better on a given set of hardware, than anyone else too. Allowing Apple to do more with less.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
3. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  i agree 100%. I'm an android "fanboi" but I'll admit that I'm really jealous of how smooth the screens swipe on iOS. Then again, on the higher end Android phones, the hiccup is not nearly as noticible either. On the sub $150USD models, the animation is atrocious.
4. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by codepunk · 2011-03-17 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  There is a very simple reason... "native code exection" . The java fanbois can claim what they want when it comes to app performance iPhone smokes any android device. This has little to do with the hardware as the iPhone is usually at a disadvantage but native code execution means the hardware can be pushed to it's limits without burning cycles on a jvm.
  Some idiot will undoubtedly bring up the NDK and yes it exists but it is a nasty hack at best. If Android was such a hot development platform their would be a sea of quality games for it but that is not the case now is it?
  As for the browser being slower I could care less, just means I sell more apps in itunes. I might use the browser on my phone at the most once a month, apps on the other hand all day long.
  
  --
  
  Got Code?
5. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Sparr0 · 2011-03-17 07:53 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  There are only so many CPU cycles to go around. By showing you that nice smooth 60FPS scrolling animation, they are slowing down something else that probably has some actual productive function. Would you rather have a smooth transition that takes 1 second or a jerky animation (or none at all) that takes .5 seconds? The different answers to that question are what separate "Apple Users" from the rest of us.
  This goes back to the iOS app startup "screenshot" requirement. Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.
6. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by AndrewNeo · 2011-03-17 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I absolutely hate the startup screenshot thing in iOS, because when it takes 5+ seconds to load the application I'm mashing the screen wondering when it's going to start. If it said "Loading" or at least looked like a splash screen I'd be less impatient on waiting.
7. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by coinreturn · 2011-03-17 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.
  You are misinformed or a liar. I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN. In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
8. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Skuld-Chan · 2011-03-17 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of this depends on the phone though - most of the time on my Droid X the transitions are just as smooth as my friends iPhone 4.
9. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Twon · 2011-03-17 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Does the perceived responsiveness of the device count for anything? I'll happily eat that fraction of a second longer the app will take to start up if it means I won't be wondering whether or not I tapped the wrong icon (or missed completely) and the phone can't be bothered to tell me. Similarly, the feeling I get when I see choppy (or worse, stuttery) animation isn't "I'm glad they're using these cycles to compute something more important!" It's "I could be doing this faster myself on an abacus." This is, of course, utterly subjective and irrational, but it's the squishy human factors stuff that Apple's got figured out.
10. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Since those animations aren't generally running while you are loading a web page, the reality is that they have nothing to do with each other. Despite their small size, the processors on your phones are still idle a significant amount of the time when you are browsing the web and navigating in the UI.
  What many developers don't understand is that these small things, like the screenshot and the smooth animations are what make products polished and a pleasure to use. It really does make a difference and the tiny bit of performance lost, or data stored to make things faster is not going to matter to the customer as much as the polish.
11. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  I agree and I'd never buy an Apple product. IMO the "performance trumps everything else" mentality is a detriment to today's OSes.
12. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Sparr0 · 2011-03-17 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  If the animation slows down, that's a good sign that SOMETHING else is going on behind the scenes and the CPU isn't idle. If the CPU was idle then there wouldn't be anything to slow down the animation.
13. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by idontgno · 2011-03-17 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oversensitive, much?
  From the iOS Human Interface Guidelines:
  
  iOS applications should start as quickly as possible so that people can begin using them without delay. When starting, iOS apps should:
  Display a launch image that closely resembles the first screen of the application. This practice decreases the perceived launch time of your application.
  Avoid displaying an About window or a splash screen. In general, try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately.
  Now, the "guidelines" never seem to use the word "must". But given Apple's arbitrary and non-transparent application acceptance criteria, intentionally ignoring the "strongly recommended 'should'" seems to be risky.
  The presence of your "anapp" on the store, in spite of the guidelines themselves? A sample of one. Quite possibly an aberration. "The singular of data is not anecdote."
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
14. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Timmmm · 2011-03-17 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not convinced by this. The gallery app and the app drawer are both hard-ware accelerated, and neither is as smooth as the iphone. I think it is more to do with the slowness of java/dalvik, and the garbage collector, which only recently became concurrent.
15. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by MobyDisk · 2011-03-17 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Either that, or it is a sign that the animation code isn't written well. Going back to my original post, I was talking about the effect when moving from one photograph to another in the camera roll. There is no other background task slowing the animation, and the iPhone isn't animating more slowly to make it look smoother. For whatever reason, it seems to be coded to look better. Maybe they are adding a blur effect... or maybe as someone pointed out, they customized the routine for the hardware. But it isn't a question of a trade-off between animation quality and performance. In this example, the iPhone has both.
  I for one cannot say I have compared browser performance so that may be a completely different issue.
16. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by pherthyl · 2011-03-17 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  >> I bought my Droid 2 last september and noticed exactly what you mention. In 2.3, that's no longer true
  Good to hear. The jerky UI performance on Android is what prevented me from getting an Android phone. Love my iphone4 right now, but it's definitely nice to hear that Android is catching up and I can easily switch in the future if Apple's restrictions start to bother me.
17. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by MemoryDragon · 2011-03-17 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the transitions are very smooth in the 3d gallery of stock android, to bad that most phones use their own gallery instead of the 3d one which is absolutely superior to anything else on any platform, the ios gallery is a joke compared to the android one.
18. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Drakino · 2011-03-17 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  From experience, iOS will skip frames or otherwise cut the eye candy animations if it needs to. They have never slowed down the system, as they only use otherwise idle power. It's much harder to see this happen on the newer phones, but I saw it plenty of times back on the iPhone 3G as the OS became more complex. Apple does put a lot of effort into this, complete with dedicated system frameworks to drive the eye candy. Apple's view on the eye candy is that it is there to bring attention to what is occurring when transitioning states, and helps provide that "smoother" feeling when using their devices. This applies to both the OS X and iOS sides.
  It's also why input latency and audio latency is something Apple pays a lot of attention to, more so then most of the competition. When you touch an iOS device to scroll, it feels like your moving the content on the screen with your finger. Other systems tend to have a larger time difference between touch input and display action, making the experience feel a bit disconnected. While highly technical people might not mind the lack of smoothness, the general populous is going to go with what feels better. It's not a separation between "Apple Users" and the rest of us, it's a separation between those who know and care about the little minute details behind the scenes and those who don't.
  Windows Phone 7 on the other hand did seem to put a priority on the animations, to the point they would slow down and frustrate me when trying to do basic things. IE took over two seconds to recover from an orientation switch, and every time it would always play the animation. Orientation corrections in other areas were much faster.
19. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Sparr0 · 2011-03-17 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  If the animations on the Android device always lag behind or are always jerky then you have a point, but not one related to this subthread. We are specifically discussing situations where the otherwise-smooth animation is interrupted. *Something* is causing that interruption, and that something has a higher (well, likely the same) priority as the animation, and that's how I want it to be.
  I would rather have no animations and a faster system. This is why I have "eye candy" turned off in my desktop window manager. People who like the way Apple devices handle this situation are the same people who have animations on their menus in their desktop OS. They make it appear smoother and prettier, and really just slow down every single menu operation by some fraction of a second.
20. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by coinreturn · 2011-03-17 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, talk about oversensitive! You are shown you are wrong in your use of "must," and you just can't take it. BTW, note the "try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately." That is NOT what you said in your post. They're talking about user interface responsiveness, not "tricking users into thinking the phone is faster than it is." Your hate is showing.
21. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by coinreturn · 2011-03-17 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  "The singular of data is not anecdote."
  Nor is the singular "rampant speculation, pulled out of my ass."
22. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  /RANT
  Perception is everything. No one is performing super-computing on their smartphones. So, yes... I would rather perceive performance than actually have it. If it looks and feels fast to me, then it is fast. If it looks and feels like a piece of shit, I don't care if the background task just folded a protein that cured cancer - as the user of the interface I still perceive it as a piece of shit. Everyone that has used apple's iOS devices recognizes this either subliminally or consciously. Everyone else is just bitching and moaning.
  For the record, I hate Apple for many... many things. However, credit's due where it is due.
  Compared to other systems, any given function has been implemented to extremely high standards in iOS. Combined with a flourishing, and easy to understand for users, software ecosystem - Apple just wins this one right now. Everyone else has to do DRAMATICALLY better in order to break users away from this.
  It's not going to take slightly faster website loading times. It's not going to take finally having hardware accelerated UI. It's not going to take tethering support. It's not going to take easier root capability. It's not going to take a software ecosystem just as big as Apple's. It's not just going to take a media purchase/consumption platform as good as Apples. It's gonna take something that has all of that and shoots it all the way to the fucking moon and back before Infinity Blade loads on my iPad/Phone.
  So, Android fanboys - I'm with ya. I REALLY REALLY want this shit to be awesome. But let's just calm down and realize that the mass market doesn't care as much about rooting, and open sourcing, and tethering, and changing skins, and running linux on our phones, and watching flash pr0n tubes on our android "tablets". The mass market wants a product that works and works WELL - and they already have it.
  Let me know when Apple completely revamps their flagship product pricing because another vendor just announces something so awesome that it completely shatters Steve's business plan (I'm looking at you Samsung). Until then, I'll keep reading all these apologetic posts from people that "did the research" and purchased the "superior device".
  Disclaimer: I've been using android and ios devices completely free of charge at work, at home, and on the road for the past couple of years. I also work around many people who use these devices and whom I support. So, I'm not defending any kind of purchase I made... nor am I bitter about something that I got that I now hate and wish I didn't have to deal with. I'm simply stating my opinion as a user.
23. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Sparr0 · 2011-03-17 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  A) We obviously have different priorities. I'll continue to be happy with other devices and you'll continue to be happy with Apple devices. That won't change.
  B) Your argument, as a whole, is bunk. Apple users switched to the iPod when it was, at best, a weak contender in the MP3 player market, and to the iPhone from other phones, smart or otherwise, in 2007, when there were no third party apps for the iPhone and Steve Jobs was saying there never would be, because web "apps" should be good enough. No "software ecosystem" and no sign of one. No matter how awesome the iDevices get, this sort of behavior will always remain telling of some significant driving force behind these decisions that has nothing to do with the quality of the device. Apple will never revamp their pricing due to competition, because Apple users will keep buying Apple products no matter how they compare to the competition.
24. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by exomondo · 2011-03-17 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  You are misinformed or a liar.
  He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't. You should know this if you've really got an app (unless you didn't read the guidelines i suppose).
  
  I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN.
  What app is that?
  
  In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
  Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
25. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by Drakino · 2011-03-17 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  The OS X desktop doesn't have menu animations for the exact reason you pointed it out, they slow things down. It does have animations in places where it makes sense and helps interaction. Take the minimize effect. It "sucks" the window into the new position into the dock. It's quick, and it also shows you were the window went, so you have a reference on where to go to get it back.
  About the only true "showy" eye candy I can think of in OS X is the Time Machine star field. That is a bit over the top. Beyond that, all the animations on OS X and iOS exist for a logical reason, none of which are meant to slow you down. Instead they provide you proper visual queues to help speed things up.
  The eye candy I've seen on Linux and Windows does point to it being mostly showy eye candy with little though of a practical use. Once I started studying where and why eye candy was in OS X, I came to appreciate it. It's one of those main differentiators between Apple and their competitors. Apple has a much better track record of thinking things through to their logical conclusion to build well designed, functional products.
26. Re:Android/iPhone UI performance by coinreturn · 2011-03-17 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't.
  Bullshit. It is not a trick. It is advice to better the user interface. Here's the money quote: "In general, try to avoid providing any type of startup experience that prevents people from using your application immediately."
  They want your application useable immediately, not just displaying something.
  
  What app is that?
  I'd plug it, but with all the anti-apple haters here, I see no reason to draw fire.
  
  Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
  I suppose your use of the speculative and biased "fairly arbitrary" buttresses your point in your mind.
Re:Great! by jgtg32a · 2011-03-17 07:20 · Score: 1

DIAF
Apple/Oranges by beanball75 · 2011-03-17 07:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Someone pointed out already that the way they tested is with apps that use the browser engine available to apps. As the second link says in the main story (probably, I'm too lazy to RTFA, I read others already), the iOS browser engine doesn't use the Nitro javascript engine.
I found one link that discusses it, but I'm sure there are better ones:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229301178
1. Re:Apple/Oranges by Anubis+IV · 2011-03-17 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  ^^^ This.
  Where are mod points when you need them? The methodology was flawed since they built a custom app, rather than using the actual browser. Admittedly, there is a bug in iOS at the moment, but most people don't access the web that way.
That's nice. by DWMorse · 2011-03-17 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's nice.
Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
You don't say.
Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
1. Re:That's nice. by recoiledsnake · 2011-03-17 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice.
  Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
  You don't say.
  Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
  Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
2. Re:That's nice. by DWMorse · 2011-03-17 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, right around when my contract is up. Sweet.
  Personally, I think it's a ploy, scare the consumer into being glad that Apple took mercy on them and "looked out for their interests." (Hah.) But, if not, a 32GB iPhone 4 holds value like nobodies business, so I'll recoup the cost of whatever top of the line model is available for an Android handset. If they do indeed pull it. But I'm not ready to believe they'd take such a step backwards until it's actually gone. Then, I voice my opinion with my dollars.
  
  --
  There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
3. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  That's nice.
  Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
  You don't say.
  Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
  Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
  [citation needed]
  But seriously do you have a link that proves it? I know there is a lot of speculation around these parts, but I am curious the source of this claim.
4. Re:That's nice. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  That's nice.
  Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
  You don't say.
  Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
  Software matters. We keep learning this lesson with video game consoles. For some reason, though, people keep going spec happy with tablets and phones.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
5. Re:That's nice. by DWMorse · 2011-03-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, that's my point. I can't even tie in a car analogy to make it any clearer. =P
  
  --
  There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
6. Re:That's nice. by nicholas22 · 2011-03-17 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
  You really think anyone here gives a flying fuck? Sorry to use this language but it getting irritating having to read stupid comments like parent, as if the commenter's opinion matter so damn much! Get a grip you self important armchair philosophers...
7. Re:That's nice. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-17 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think I didn't write that too clearly, I was trying to support your point. My bad, didn't mean that to sound like a rebuttal.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
8. Re:That's nice. by atomicbutterfly · 2011-03-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
  Heh. If you're like me and you live in a backwater, no-name country like, I dunno, Australia, these services doesn't even exist for us. Makes the choice to use an Android phone much more simple. :)
9. Re:That's nice. by Karlt1 · 2011-03-17 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
  Riiiight, because Apple is really going to go out of their way to piss off Netflix -- one of the only three commercial streaming apps available for the AppleTV.
10. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  That's nice.
  Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?
  You don't say.
  Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.
  The first point here go modded insightful. The second point really isn't because I think since about Android 2.x it's been highly 'functional' if not pretty slick and awesome. It has maturing to do that is true, but it is 90% there in terms of niceness. Having both platforms I have to say there's a lot that iOS gets right in refinement (and the hardware is good) but what things it does get wrong Android does better, and there are innovations that are just plain missing that Android has lead the way on (multitasking for one) that Apple has had to quietly introduce. Android has such an explosive rate of progress I find I'm using my iPhone less and less because it just can't do some things I need. Android just feels more productive to me, more personalized and doesn't get in your way.
  I logged into an Samsung Galaxy Tab recently and it automatically downloaded all my apps including paid apps form the market. Thats a killer feature. Only Apple could make consumers buy something they own twice, and Google didn't make me do it.
  Ultimately if my iPhone got dropped in a jug of beer (*cough* again), I would not buy another one. When I did something similar with my Android, I logged in and got everything back in minutes. Win.
11. Re:That's nice. by mjwx · 2011-03-17 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Software matters
  Only as far as functionality goes.
  
  Functionality matters foremost with any device, not just a phone.
  
  To quote Yoda, "do or do not". If your device falls into the 'do not" category it's going to be less useful thus less desirable then the competitors.
  
  This is what I don't get about Iphone fanboy's, they spend so much time talking up things that most people ignore, UI animations, scroll speed et al. What the user really cares about is "does it do what I want it to" and if you get a cross here, the best UI in the universe will not help you.
  
  It's not like this is untested. Windows is a bloated, buggy, slow piece of crap but everyone still uses it, why? Simple answer is because Windows does. It doesn't do anything well but it does everything that everyone wants of it.
  
  Point in short, people put up with minor deficiencies so long as they can get what they want done.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
12. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Point in short, people put up with minor deficiencies so long as they can get what they want done.
  By all rights, that should point 'iphone fanboys' into perspective, then.
How about CSS support? by Mad+Merlin · 2011-03-17 07:23 · Score: 2

Since the beginning, the iPhone has had busted CSS support for position: fixed; elements, which is terribly unfortunate as it makes Game! difficult to play. How does the Nexus S fare?

--
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
1. Re:How about CSS support? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's a Webkit mobile bug so there's no difference. Benchmarks like this are pretty silly. The difference between the browser on Android and the browser on iOS are at what revision the source code from Webkit was checked out, and the javascript engine. There really isn't much difference besides that between the two browsers.
2. Re:How about CSS support? by xouumalperxe · 2011-03-17 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there is a difference. I'm developing a webapp that should support both Android and iOS, and this was one of the first issues I stumbled upon. Position:fixed doesn't work at all in Safari, but does work, if only barely, in Chrome (it only works in Chrome if you set the flag, and even then not so well anyway). It makes sense though: position:fixed sets the position relative to the browser window, and it really isn't very clear how that should interact with the way pages zoom and pan in mobile devices.
3. Re:How about CSS support? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-18 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about "Game!", but I do know that one of the things that drove me crazy on my 3G was trying to read slashdot etc... (worked fine on my Droid which replaced it)
2.144s and 3.254s by cpu6502 · 2011-03-17 07:23 · Score: 1

That's damn fast. Even my 750k high speed line can't do that.
Can the Nexus run Opera?

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  "750k high speed line"
  Welcome to the future. Is that a real 5.25" floppy disk in your trapper-keeper?
2. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by cpu6502 · 2011-03-17 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah 750k is slower than your 20,000k line, but show me where else I can get a hulu.com-compatible line (for watching Stargate and other shows) for only $15/month. It doesn't exist.
  >>>5 1/4" floppy disk
  Fixed that for you. ;-) And no I upgraded to the new "stiffies" a long time ago.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by Macrat · 2011-03-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's damn fast. Even my 750k high speed line can't do that.
  AT&T's blazingly fast "broadband" DSL.
4. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah 750k is slower than your 20,000k line, but show me where else I can get a hulu.com-compatible line (for watching Stargate and other shows) for only $15/month. It doesn't exist.
  A 20M line? Hell, I'm out here in the boonies (central Kentucky), and I could get 50M easily if I wanted. Are you really sure you want to keep trying to prove you're anywhere near up with the times?
  And what's a "hulu.com-compatible line"? How does this differ from a normal line? You ARE aware that you can get to hulu.com from other ISPs, right? Do you even have any clue what you're talking about? Or are you just withholding vital pieces of information that would make you not sound like a moron in the hopes that revealing it afterward will make you look clever, like a troll? You're a troll, aren't you?
  
  >>>5 1/4" floppy disk
  Fixed that for you. ;-)
  Yep, you're a troll. Thank you, please drive through.
5. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by blair1q · 2011-03-17 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, my brain works in analog and digital simultaneously.
  And I think my local telco now brags about 7 mbps for $19.99. You can do 720p over that. Netflix ahoy.
  But yes, I do have the 30 mbps cable line instead. And the cable company is now my phone company. I wish the satellite company didn't have latency issues. Except for its abysmal web channel guide, DirecTV delivers the goods most days.
6. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by cpu6502 · 2011-03-17 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  >>>And what's a "hulu.com-compatible line"? ...like a troll? You're a troll, aren't you?
  Hulu.com doesn't work with lines slower than 192k (i.e. dialup or ISDN or cellular G2) mister Anonymous Coward.
  .
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
7. Re:2.144s and 3.254s by Colonel+Korn · 2011-03-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  >>>And what's a "hulu.com-compatible line"? ...like a troll? You're a troll, aren't you?
  Hulu.com doesn't work with lines slower than 192k (i.e. dialup or ISDN or cellular G2) mister Anonymous Coward. .
  And neither it nor Netflix work well below about 512 kbps. There are large chunks of the Silicon Valley that can't get above 768 kbps DSL. Isn't that weird?
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
And this is how Apple shot themselves in the foot by pyalot · 2011-03-17 07:24 · Score: 0

Because if you're going to intentionally slow down your own platform, and hence, making your own platform inferior to others using the very same browser and JS engine, what you get is a very nice opening for the competition to claim superiority over you (and by rights they shall, since you suck). Ta-da: Apple's 101 on how to shoot yourself in the foot.

--
Experiments and other stuff
funny... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:25 · Score: 0

Most of the comments here pretty much sum up my initial thoughts. Ridiculous test, different hardware, apples to androids. That being said, I don't know why an application using safari to browse would not benefit from speed increases applied to the browser as a whole. I find the 'newer platform' comment ridiculous as well.
There are more than two operating systems. by 91degrees · 2011-03-17 07:28 · Score: 2

Why not also include WP7? Has it been written off before people even try it?
1. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by ColdWetDog · 2011-03-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why not also include WP7? Has it been written off before people even try it?
  Why would you want to run Word Perfect on a cell phone?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-03-17 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Has it been written off before people even try it?
  Given that this is from the same company that gave us the Kin, I'm willing to say yes, and they work in Redmond, Washington.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
3. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  I think he meant WordPress 7. Still doesn't make any sense, however.
4. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Given that the Kin was made by a second party developer... well, you know.
5. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by anethema · 2011-03-17 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes
  
  --
  
  It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
6. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by 91degrees · 2011-03-17 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  So, the next question is "why?"
7. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Er, because it's a non multi-tasking, non copy and pasting, can't get the update to the update right unadulterated steaming pile of shit? Because the last time I had to scroll around the screen to see all of the words on something it was because the drivers on my desktop had flaked out and set the res at 800x600 while the desktop was at 1024x768. It was supremely annoying then, it is just as stupid and annoying now. Except this time, it's fucking intentional! And you wonder why the WP7 despite the 500 million dollar marketing campaign and stupid commercials was met by a collective meh... Simple. It sucks. It's the Vista of cell phone OS's. MS and their psychophants go around pretending that it is something great when actually it's just another mediocre Redmond spawned turd.
8. Re:There are more than two operating systems. by 91degrees · 2011-03-17 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Er, because it's a non multi-tasking, non copy and pasting,
  
  Overrated. The same can be said of the iPhone until quite recently. Didn't cause a lot of complaints there.
  
  [[General complaint about scrolling (sorry for the cut but it was a bit ranty)]]
  
  Is this really a requirement? Yes, that does sound like it sucks. Although it's strange that this is the first I've heard of it.
  
  And you wonder why the WP7 despite the 500 million dollar marketing campaign and stupid commercials was met by a collective meh...
  
  I thought it was mainly about Microsoft's abysmal brand image, especially in tech circles. Everyone hates Microsoft. Nobody wants their products but they're forced to use them. Given this, it's remarkably hard to be enthused about their mobile phone. That and it isn't a vast improvement over android or iPhone which means it's nothing special.
This just in... by pushing-robot · 2011-03-17 07:28 · Score: 1

Just-released gadget is faster than year-old gadget! You know It's news, because it has something to do with Apple!

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
1. Re:This just in... by pushing-robot · 2011-03-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I don't really keep up on phones... looks like it's been out a couple months already.
  Still, it's a bit silly to compare them, since in a few more months we'll be screaming "iPhone 5 beats Nexus S!", then later "Nexus 3 beats iPhone 5!"...
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
2. Re:This just in... by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  If I have money to spend on a phone today, it's relevant.
3. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Fine, ignore the Nexus S.
  Consider that the Nexus One *REPRODUCES* these results. Go google it.
  Someone actually bothered to run the tests, and *STILL* came out on top (sometimes twice as fast). Hell, a simple Flash animation was faster than both native browsers. I suppose at this point with the new OS version, it might be equal. Someone should go test that.
How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebait? by macs4all · 2011-03-17 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, this is pretty much a new low in comment-baiting for Slashdot.

This so-called "test" is so utterly and completely unscientific as to be not worth the service space it is stored on.

Period.

It's supposed to be NEWS for Nerds, and this hardly qualifies. And, not content to troll on its own, the summary has to link to ANOTHER Flamebait summary to "support" its "point".

Note to Slashdot: You can do better than this; so DO it already!
Who Cares?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:37 · Score: 0

Stupid and irrelevant test and article. Like this is going to make any difference in sales. What a waste of time.
Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:37 · Score: 1

Well, no, it can't, because they're using an iPhone to check the submissions for postworthiness, and they just don't have time to make sure they're all good.
You tell 'm, bucko! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:38 · Score: 0

Apple is done for, now that you have told them off. Or they might just continue raking in the billions by making stuff that people want to buy.
1. Re:You tell 'm, bucko! by pyalot · 2011-03-17 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, being the king of the hill is hard. So if Apple stops to deliver superiority over the competition, reality distortion field not withstanding, what point would there be to buy them?
  
  --
  Experiments and other stuff
Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai by ColdWetDog · 2011-03-17 07:38 · Score: 1

Oh stop whining. We, as usual, are ignoring both TFA and TFS. We're just happily bouncing our keyboards and gabbing about random things. I'm sure you've noticed that the comments have nothing at all to do with the subject, the article, each other or the laws of Thermodynamics. It's just about Apple and occasionally Microsoft.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you another time.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:44 · Score: 0

I think they have proven time and time again that they can't do any better.
Android and iphone differences by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:48 · Score: 0

Having used both (Android first), I noticed the following:
* The entire user interface/interaction is much much better for iphone. It knows howto act properly in many situations, simply put:
* knows how to dial a phone number if I click on an email phone number,
* the movements are MUCH smoother (Android even with a 1 GHz chip is jerky in movements),
* calendar knwos how to create events automatically from emails etc etc.
* Battery life is great too. Small voice wuality difference too i think. May be all little liktte things, but they add up. the
* UI is much more polished as well.
* Bluetooth connects much faster.
* front -facing camera. General camera quality.
Only thing I miss about the droid i the widget-based customization, and the quick bluetooth turn on-off. With the iphone batteyr life, it's not a big deal. Also, the moment apple releases an app for the power control that's done too.
No real way to measure? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-03-17 07:52 · Score: 1

They got a skeptical view counter point...
From the article:

âoeWe know thereâ(TM)s no such thing as a perfect Web page load measurement.â

My first thought was, why not have a simple page that grabs the current time, loads a page in the iframe, when the iframe triggers it's ready() event, grab the current time and compare against the start for a load time analysis? the overhead of having it in an iframe can't be *that* bad can it?

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
1. Re:No real way to measure? by rreay · 2011-03-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  why not have a simple page that grabs the current time, loads a page in the iframe, when the iframe triggers it's ready() event, grab the current time and compare against the start for a load time analysis?
  Because that may not be correct either. In their iPad 2 preview Anandtech went back to manual timing of web page loading because
  
  "It turns out that Honeycomb's browser was stopping our page load timer sooner than iOS', which resulted in some funny numbers when we got to the 4.3/Honeycomb comparison. To ensure accuracy we went back to timing by hand (each test was repeated at least 5 times and we present an average of the results)."
  While they don't talk about their method (either) they decided they couldn't trust whatever automated system they had. Obviously there are all kinds of assumptions and differences in the test bed but the basic point is you can't necessarily trust the browser to tell you when it's ready either as an embedded view or stand alone browser.
2. Re:No real way to measure? by swb · 2011-03-17 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why not have a workflow measurement? Have groups of people perform a set of standardized actions on a set of standardized web tasks and see which group on average finishes faster?
Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:52 · Score: 0

I find that excluding timothy and kdawson is a good start towards that end. Sadly, the exclusions don't work in the slashboxes, so I occasionally stumble onto this type of drivel.
I simply do not care by sjbe · 2011-03-17 07:52 · Score: 1

This is just like all those articles that say that BrowserX has a javascript engine that is 15% faster than BrowserY. As an engineer that is a tiny bit interesting (only a tiny bit mind you) but as an end user I could not possibly care less. I honestly cannot feel the difference even if it is measurable. Benchmarks hold little fascination for me and are almost always irrelevant to my choice of device. A 2 second versus a 3 second load time? Sure there is a difference but not enough for me to really notice much less care. I hope they continue to improve it but I'm not about to buy a smartphone based solely on webpage loads that are just a bit faster and neither is (almost) anyone else.
Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:55 · Score: 0

It's supposed to be NEWS for Nerds, and this hardly qualifies.
Yes, since iPhone is a toy.
Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by bongey · 2011-03-17 08:02 · Score: 2

Why is that every time you show some Android product has better feature or performance, call it X, than an competing Apple product the reply from Apple fans follows this logic..

People don't care about X
Eventually Apples popularity will start to fade and people WILL care.
1 second difference can add up to a lot of time if you read many web pages, or you are searching for something. Just do the math. Say 100 modest amount web pages a day , 365 days a year. So you have (100*365)/3600 = 10.13 extra hours spent a year staring at screen that is doing nothing. In both tests they used the embedded browser for both handsets respectively. From their testing suite I don't see how they could throw off the benchmark that much, 45,000 samples is a pretty significant sample size.
More on there testing methodology is here http://www.blaze.io/mobile/methodology/ .
Finally the second link is complaints from Apple iOS developers. iOS 4.3 browser cannot use the new Nitro javascript engine in full screen mode, html 5 caching is missing, and mode in which the page is drawn on the screen has changed such that it is slower than native apps. Bug or not, it currently slower and no one knows why except Apple.
1. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  1 second difference can add up to a lot of time if you read many web pages, or you are searching for something. Just do the math. Say 100 modest amount web pages a day , 365 days a year. So you have (100*365)/3600 = 10.13 extra hours spent a year staring at screen that is doing nothing.
  This. Right here. I have never met one person in real life who gives a shit about the x.y extra hours they could have spent not staring at a screen waiting for their web page to load. No one remembers ten minutes after the fact that the phone was slow by a second. THEY. DON'T. CARE.
  Referencing a similar comment below that says Android did the right thing by making their software with developers in mind, the vast majority of consumers don't care whether the software in their gadget was made with developers or monkeys in mind. They just want the thing to work as advertised and do the small number of things that they do on a day-to-day basis in a consistent and easy to navigate way. Should we insist that [sic] DVD players make toast too? For most people if they can plug it in and have it work without having to read the manual and set a whole bunch of configuration items they don't understand anyway, they're ahead of the game.
  In the interest of full disclosure, my old DVD player did make toast occasionally...of my DVDs.
2. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by Dunega · 2011-03-17 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please, if you're so concerned over how much time you've wasted waiting for all of those 1 seconds maybe you should have done the browsing on an actual desktop or laptop computer. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.
3. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by bongey · 2011-03-17 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I love it when fanboys get upset.
4. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by macs4all · 2011-03-17 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  Why is that every time you show some Android product has better feature or performance, call it X, than an competing Apple product the reply from Apple fans follows this logic..
  
  People don't care about X
  Eventually Apples popularity will start to fade and people WILL care.
  You are assuming that Apple will not continue to define and re-define whole markets and classes of devices, as it has done repeatedly in its history. Honestly, to take but one example, do you really think we would even HAVE Honeycomb to compare iOS to if Apple hadn't released the iPad?
  
  1 second difference can add up to a lot of time if you read many web pages, or you are searching for something. Just do the math. Say 100 modest amount web pages a day , 365 days a year. So you have (100*365)/3600 = 10.13 extra hours spent a year staring at screen that is doing nothing.
  The flaw in your logic is that you spend zero time after the page loads doing things like figuring out what part of the page is relevant, scrolling to read desired content, picking your nose, etc. Ya know, the things that humans do, that an automated test does not. Now, if the difference was like 200 or 300%, then I would agree that it MIGHT matter to a HUMAN.
  
  In both tests they used the embedded browser for both handsets respectively. From their testing suite I don't see how they could throw off the benchmark that much, 45,000 samples is a pretty significant sample size.
  And the differences are not spectacular, and in the next couple of months, the iPhone 5 will whip on the Nexus. So what? Until Apple and Google decide to synchronize their hardware and software releases (not bloody likely), there will continue to be a back-and-forth "winner", as each respective platform updates themselves asynchronously with the other.
  
  More on there testing methodology is here http://www.blaze.io/mobile/methodology/ . Finally the second link is complaints from Apple iOS developers. iOS 4.3 browser cannot use the new Nitro javascript engine in full screen mode, html 5 caching is missing, and mode in which the page is drawn on the screen has changed such that it is slower than native apps. Bug or not, it currently slower and no one knows why except Apple.
  And no one knows why Android's scrolling/swiping is jumpy except Google, apparently; because I sure haven't seen anyone posting links to FIXES for that issue, and many, many Android owners complain about just that on Slashdot every single day (some even in this thread).
  
  Could be that a piece or twelve of iOS javascript engine-code could use a little tightening. Cool thing is, when Apple does that, EVERY iOS device that can run the updated code will be updated to do so. How long do you think such a change would take to propagate through the Android multiverse?
5. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  1 second was just the median, not actuals, and since the average wasn't given you cannot compute the expected load time.
  
  Cool thing is, when Apple does that, EVERY iOS device
  
  In case of emergency, keep drinking your kool-aid.
  http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/139721/ios-43-leaves-iphone-3g-owners-exposed
  http://gizmodo.com/#!5512610/original-iphones-3g-cant-fully-upgrade-to-iphone-os-4
6. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by macs4all · 2011-03-17 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  1 second was just the median, not actuals, and since the average wasn't given you cannot compute the expected load time.
  
  Cool thing is, when Apple does that, EVERY iOS device
  In case of emergency, keep drinking your kool-aid. http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/139721/ios-43-leaves-iphone-3g-owners-exposed http://gizmodo.com/#!5512610/original-iphones-3g-cant-fully-upgrade-to-iphone-os-4
  I note that you conveniently hacked off the end of the sentence, where I CONTINUED "that can run the updated code..."
  
  But what else would I expect from an AC?
7. Re:Why is the reply always "no one cares about" by Uberbah · 2011-03-18 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I love it when fanboys get upset.
  ....says the retentive troll.
Well... no. by joh · 2011-03-17 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

First, Apple isn't "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." They have added a new JS interpreter (actually a just-in-time JS compiler) to Safari, but not to the "normal" web views that other apps can embed. This means only Safari is faster now, others are as fast as before.
Second, this test is flawed since it does not use Safari. It uses a custom app which uses neither the new JS engine nor the better caching of Safari or asynchronous multithreading.
1. Re:Well... no. by bongey · 2011-03-17 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  The predicate "rumor" comes before the statement "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." Means it doesn't mean it is true, but there were some "bugs" or new "features" that were introduced from the 4.2 to 4.3 release, of which there is not official replies from Apple.
2. Re:Well... no. by bongey · 2011-03-17 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  You also missed the part that in iOS 4.2 a feature was there but in 4.3 is disappeared.
3. Re:Well... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 11:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And more to the point, there is actually a technical reason not to have Nitro in apps.
  Nitro is a JIT compiler. To use it means that the App needs to be basically allowed to have self modifying code (the power to say "this data memory is now executable"). This capability is an application-wide setting, that is reserved to Apple-developped apps for now, for good reasons.
  This has never been allowed in apps (and is the technical basis to disallow any frameworks like mono), because it exposes the device to a security threat that is not easily detected by Apple's testing (say an app that will, at some future date, download data from a remote server, turn it into code, and execute it. Voila, instant virus).
  This is not something Apple is prepared to simply allow for the sake of performance. This decision does not degrade web apps performance (as you noted, they still perform as good as they used to).
  People on slashdot usually yell when companies do not take security seriously. Well, this is a decision that is firmly rooted in the security camp.
  There might be technical solutions allowing nitro in apps and not compromising the device's security in the future. But anything that is released is a compatibility weight in the future, so I don't blame Apple for not releasing something half baked that they would have to take away later (or leave a gaping security hole).
4. Re:Well... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 19:27 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying... that the "custom" non-Apple apps are running slower because they aren't able to use the new JS engine/better Safari caching?
  Thanks for the re-summary.
Here troll, have some food. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:17 · Score: 0

Because if you're going to intentionally slow down your own platform, and hence, making your own platform inferior to others using the very same browser and JS engine, what you get is a very nice opening for the competition to claim superiority over you (and by rights they shall, since you suck).
Ta-da: Apple's 101 on how to shoot yourself in the foot.
Except that they didn't slow down the platform. They merely added optimizations to their browser app; other apps still run as fast as they ever did before the optimization.
1. Re:Here troll, have some food. by The+End+Of+Days · 2011-03-17 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't sound enough like a conspiracy. You must be a shill.
Hmmpf... by mseeger · 2011-03-17 08:22 · Score: 1

They show that they can beat the iPhone in one discipline (browser speed) with some cheating (custom app, not the default browser). Well, that's not the trick. You have to beat the complete package to be the better phone.
Literally? by Gizzmonic · 2011-03-17 08:28 · Score: 1

Did a cell phone literally spank another cell phone?
Can I pay to see that?

--
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Android is poised for World Dominance by RackNine · 2011-03-17 08:36 · Score: 1

Google has done the right thing in this case. I'm not delving into other products, strategies, etc., but with Android, they've done the right thing, by making their software with developers in mind, and not rushing to reap benefits as if there was no tomorrow, Google is steadily owning tomorrow's market And also very importantly, Android is poised for dominance in China, the world's largest mobile market. A HUGE piece of the cake. Android is definitely poised for World dominance http://www.racknine.com/blog/software/android-os-poised-for-world-dominance/

--
We put you on the Internet map,
www.racknine.com
Curious by alvinrod · 2011-03-17 08:40 · Score: 2

Although nowhere near 45,000 tests, Anandtech recently ran a preview of the iPad 2 and did some browsing benchmarks to test the CPU where they loaded the pages for the iPad 2, Xoom, and the original iPad. Obviously the two tablets are different animals than the two phones, but given they run essentially the same OS and have beefier CPUs, we should expect similar results.

However, the iPad 2 is clearly faster in 7 of the 8 tests and the same speed as the Xoom in the remaining 1. It's possible that the websites used aren't good predictors for general load time though. Given that the two both have dual-core ARM chips running at similar clock rates, we shouldn't be seeing those results, especially if the ones from this study are a valid indicator of performance. The only other conclusions that can be drawn are that performance regressed in Android 3.0 (Or at least Motorola's implementation of it.), the Tegra 2 is a pile of crap, or that Apple is now somehow capable of making a significantly better SoC than many established players.

I can't speculate regarding the first, but given that the Xoom has a similar SunSpider result and a better BrowserMark result than the iPad 2, it's unlikely that either of the other two conclusions are correct. Would like to have additional data before concluding one way or the other, but it does appear as though some things are not adding up.
1. Re:Curious by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-17 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Although nowhere near 45,000 tests, Anandtech recently ran a preview of the iPad 2 and did some browsing benchmarks to test the CPU where they loaded the pages for the iPad 2, Xoom, and the original iPad. Obviously the two tablets are different animals than the two phones, but given they run essentially the same OS and have beefier CPUs, we should expect similar results.
  "The difference will become more obvious as users demand richer experiences and move to tablet computers with larger screens, said Guy Podjarny, chief technology officer of Blaze,"
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
A whole second???!??! by Dunega · 2011-03-17 08:49 · Score: 1

Holy crap, stop the presses. It's a freaking second, not a big deal.
1. Re:A whole second???!??! by bongey · 2011-03-17 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Hey can you go back to school? The median had a 1 second difference.
In my real world tests by The+Great+Pretender · 2011-03-17 08:49 · Score: 1

I didn't notice any difference, but who am I other than an average person who does average things on smart phones that don't appear to be any faster than each other...to me

--
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Throttling back the older iPhones. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:58 · Score: 0

It has been known since 2009 that the 3GS is capable of HD output using nothing more complicated than Apple's own Component AV cables. The reason it was throttled down for the native apps, so it was assumed, was for one of two reasons: either that Apple could claim accuracy for their battery life (HD video is more of a resource hog, and therefore a battery drain), or that the 3GS couldn't quite handle the bitrate of HD video.
I should add - it was throttled down for NATIVE apps, but for third-party apps that could oputput video formats not supported natively (using FileApp to play .avi files or CineXPlayer for DivX videos, to give two examples), it wasn't. So it was possible to load an HD video onto a 3GS or an iPhone 4 and stream it to an HDTV in a larger-than-VGA (640 x 480) format.
Once Apple updated to iOS 3, only the iPhone 4 was able to stream that HD video onto a larger screen. 3GS users now get an on-screen message saying that HD streaming using the Apple AV cables is not supported. Sound will play from the TV, but video will not.
So it wouldn't surprise me if there is some reining in, some restricting, elsewhere on my 3GS.
Blaze's biz "is to increase download times" by BcNexus · 2011-03-17 10:03 · Score: 1

Users don't always notice the speed gap because websites are sometimes tailored to mobile phones, Blaze said. The difference will become more obvious as users demand richer experiences and move to tablet computers with larger screens, said Guy Podjarny, chief technology officer of Blaze, whose business is helping companies increase website download times.

Maybe their customers are ISPs who charge by usage?
1. Re:Blaze's biz "is to increase download times" by treeves · 2011-03-17 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  What does that even mean? Clutter the websites up with ads?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
updated by milkmage · 2011-03-17 10:40 · Score: 2

Blaze backed away from its conclusion in light of the new data. Chief Technology Officer Guy Podjarny told CNET in a statement:
This test leveraged the embedded browser which is the only available option for iPhone applications. Blaze was under the assumption that Apple would apply the same updates to their embedded browser as they would their regular browser. If this is not the case and according to Apple's response, it's certainly possible the embedded browser might produce different results. If Apple decides to apply their optimizations across their embedded browser as well, then we would be more than willing to create a new report with the new performance results.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20044325-264.html#ixzz1GtaYoees
Performance and perfection matters only until... by martin_dk · 2011-03-17 10:52 · Score: 1
...the next brand new model is released.
My iPhone 3G was running pretty smooth until Apple pushed some update along with the 3GS release. Then everything got slower, bugs were introduced and primary features like list of messages would hang for 15 seconds. Apple did not respond to this. I decided to go for an HTC Desire HD in 2010
An update from HTC, december 2010 has rendered my HTC Desire HD almost useless:
- At random times all your text messages are just deleted
- Sometimes when you send an MMS, the CPU goes 100% and the phone consequently is slow and useless until you reboot it
- Notification doesn't work properly. Yes, that means you never know if somebody has sent you and SMS.
Both Apple and HTC products have serious skipping and lag problems. I agree Apple usually offers a smoother experience with their new models. I wish they all had the decency assure reasonable quality of updates.
What bothers me the most is I know the phones are indeed capable of delivering a smooth user interface. Crappy code and lousy quality control is to blame...
Ho hum by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 11:17 · Score: 0

Unknown company in search of page hits trashes Apple. FOSS fanbois masturbate. Woohoo! I have worthwhile things to do.
Mod Parent Up by mjwx · 2011-03-17 13:27 · Score: 1

Still, what do you expect them to do to get accurate results? Use the actual browsers and sit there with a stopwatch?
Thank you for responding and standing by your work. Nice to see someone is willing to stand by their work and up to criticism.

Further more thank you for pointing out that simple fact. In all my speed testing of network speeds at the application level it has either been done with either a custom application designed to take these measurements or a custom site designed to take these measurements. If you want "real world" results I.E. using web pages or services existing in the wild you cant use a custom page.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
the MEDIAN difference was 1 second by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 15:05 · Score: 0

The 1 second difference was the MEDIAN. If you cannot understand median,average,expected values, sample size, you really don't even understand the story.
So much time... by X.mpls · 2011-03-17 15:30 · Score: 1

In the time it took for me to write this comment I could have loaded 5 extra webpages. Who cares about a 1 second difference? (That qualifies as a spanking?)
Apple loses again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 18:44 · Score: 0

High end PC Desktop vs Mac who wins?
High end PC laptop vs Mac who wins?
Is this test surprising?
1. Re:Apple loses again by smash · 2011-03-18 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Define: win
  Benchmarks aren't the reason I buy apple gear for home. They're also not the reason I run BSD on my servers, or Windows on my work desktop.
  Besides, find a nice Xeon desktop from someone other than apple, compare features + performance + price and they're actually pretty damn close. Except the mac can run every OS the PC can, PLUS OS X. Plus it comes with garageband, which imho is worth a good couple of hundred bucks (if i could pay that to run it on PC) by itself.
  Maybe I'm getting old (34 this year). But i've been doing the build my own PC thing since I was 11 and whilst it was fun to get the exact bits I wanted, you know what? I don't really care these days. There are millions of othter non-nerd people out there who don't care whats in the box either - its a tool to do a job.
  IF the tool can't do the job you want to do, you change tools. Its exactly the same with computers. Getting hung up on the platform due to some religious zealotry is cute, but most people grow out of it once they move into the real world and have a job to do.
  You don't see carpenters arguing with each other over whether or not hammers or screwdrivers are better. They're both different tools for different jobs.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.