Except the government wouldn't risk seizing it and outing their agenda......what was the quote from the Exorcist when the Devil wouldn't move the object - "that's far too overt a display of power"?
If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it.
No, they wouldn't because the USPS is unionized. Unions do what's good for the union workers in the short run, even if it harms the customers and the business in the long run - including many instances where the union workers were so focused on the short term that they ran the company into bankruptcy and ended up unemployed as a result.
If you bothered to read up on the fair tax, you'd know that it's not regressive. But, since you already outed yourself as being against fairness by wanting to play the jealousy against the "evil rich" card, you're not going to read it anyways.
The really amusing part about your comment is that the Fair Tax would require the rich to pay more than they currently do as a result of eliminating all of the tax loopholes. When they buy a new $6 million house, they'll pay out the ass in taxes. When they guy a new $400,000 car, they'll pay out the ass for it. All of their parties, they'll pay more for in taxes.
Oh, and since I know you'll never read up on the Fair Tax because it goes against your idea that success is a bad thing and should be punished, the Fair Tax actually gives a rebate on taxes for necessities based on the number of people in your home - so the poor will pay very little.
One more thing - "the rich, who spend a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, also end up paying a smaller fraction of it as taxes." How the FUCK can you justify the current situation where 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes? Yea, I get it, you're jealous that someone has more than you. However, there's absolutely no possible way to claim it's "fair" or "just" for most of the population to pay little to no taxes (it's currently around 50% of the people in the US don't pay any income tax) and a small portion pay almost all of the taxes.
The USPS could be eliminated without an amendment, but I hope it wouldn't be.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see why you hope we keep an inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, and slow delivery service when we already have multiple options that are much better, especially given the fact that people rarely send letters anymore.
Just look at delivery times based on cost - there's no reason why a typical package should take 2 weeks to show up via USPS other than they want to charge you more money to get it shipped in 3-5 days, which is how fast it would be if they didn't intentionally delay things. Check your tracking the next time you have something shipped via USPS - you tend to (but not always) see it sit at a given location for a few days for no reason before moving on.
Also, you fail to realize that you MUST jailbreak an iPhone to get those tools you love. With Android, you (or someone else) can simply write the software and install it without rooting it and voiding your warranty.
Well first off, you're comparing a jailbroken iPhone to a stock Android phone. If you compared it to a rooted Android phone, it would be an even comparison. Secondly, I've never used a Nexus One, but the only time I've seen the performance issues you mention was on an older phone that was running a non- supported version of Android (such as a Moment running 2.1). So either you had a bad phone or you're spreading FUD.
First quarter 2010, there were more Android phones sold than iPhones. Also I was reading various articles on this, and a site (I wish I'd bookmarked it now - maybe someone reading knows which one it is) showed graphs for mobile browser usage - over a one year time span, May 2009 to May 2010, iPhone browser usage dropped 8% and Android browser usage increased 12%.
I had an iPhone 3GS from the day they went on sale until two weeks ago when I bought an Evo. I loved the iPhone at first, until all of it's shortcomings (virtually none of which have been fixed in the new version) became too obvious to stand. Android is a much better platform and you get a large selection of different handsets to choose from. Out of all the people I know, it's about 50/50 for iPhone vs Android ownership. However, I currently know no one looking to buy a new iPhone - but I know several people looking to buy a new Android phone and several who want to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone (but that's just my personal experience).
I have to say one of my favorite things about the kindle is the books you buy are stored remotely as well as on your device, so unless Amazon goes out of business (unlikely) you have the book forever. I can't keep track of how many books I've lost, read until they disintegrated, etc. The kindle book is always there.
I'm guessing you weren't reading slashdot back when they had the scandal of removing copies of 1984 that people had purchased....
What you see as the biggest upside, most of us see as one of it's biggest downsides.
I won't do so aggressively until prices are reasonable (at $5, I'd go nuts, and their profits would skyrocket; everybody wins.
$5 isn't bad, but given the fact that their manufacturing and distribution costs are essentially $0, I would never buy many ebooks until the price hit $3 or less.....but that's just my opinion. With prices at $5 I'd rather just spend the extra couple bucks and have something physical that I own. As it is with the average price being over $8, it's cheaper to buy paperback books, and that's before you factor in the cost of the device.
I'd love to have an e-book reader, but I'm not buying one until the price (for both the books and the reader) are reasonable. $150 is reasonable for the reader, now they just need to fix the pricing on their books.
I know you're just a troll, but you can read on multiple websites that features that Android has that iphones don't have.
Why should I pay a $99 a year fine to write software for MY device? Android lets me write an app for free - AND I can distribute it to anyone I want without having to beg Lord Jobs approval.
BTW, just WHAT is it that you want to run SO badly, that DOESN'T exist in the App Store?
Useful apps. The majority of worthwhile apps that get submitted to the App Store get rejected (probably because Lord Jobs is pissy he didn't think of it first).
Please tell me in what fucked-up version of reality do you think it is that Apple doesn't want the largest USEFUL (booby apps are arguably NOT in that category) software catalog?
Again, you fail to realize that they'll only let in a useful app if Lord Jobs feels like it - too often he doesn't because he's focused purely on his ego and couldn't care less about the peons who use the device.
And with 250,000 apps (and counting!) in the App Store, they must be "feeling kind enough" to approve a new App about every 15 seconds.
Yes, and as an iPhone owner I can tell you from experience that just about all of those apps are utter crap. The quantity of apps available means nothing. The quality of apps and the ability to run any app you want is what matters.
Just my impressions, but he struck me as the kind of person that would get bullies and made fun of a lot in high school even without the video. Come on, this is slashdot - it's not like we don't know what those kids look like...
Better because it does more things, does them faster, and allows you to run whatever the hell you want. I couldn't care less about if an OS is "open" or not. What I do care about is being able to run software written by whoever writes something worthwhile. With Apple, not only do you get less features in the OS, but you can only run software on your phone if Apple decides they're feeling kind enough to let you.
But it IS artificially blocking all content IS the old way of thinking.
That doesn't even make sense with what I said.
I guess the main point is try to be innovative for a change, and plese your customers.
I've said the same thing many times in other discussions. I've tried explaining that to employees at game companies that if they provided a BENEFIT to buying the game that people would buy it instead of download it........they weren't able to grasp that concept.
Well, to be fair, he didn't say anything about the potent enemies getting the judge fired. They could always just have them killed (not saying it's likely, but it's possible).
err.. which is still stuck in the old way of thinking
No, it's not. It's taking the current system of "you have an unending copyright and all downloading is illegal" and changing it to "companies get a reasonable amount of time to make a profit and after that short period, people can download it all they want".
Your view seems to be (since you bitched about "the old way of thinking") that companies shouldn't be able to make any profit, which makes you just as much of a problem in getting the copyright / downloading issue talked about in a reasonable manner as the RIAA/MPAA are. If you take away their ability to make a profit, they will stop making movies, music, games, and books. Sure, some people will do it for free, but most of them will stop because they'll have to find another way to pay the bills. You have to allow them to make a reasonable profit if you want any real discussion to occur.
And maybe that's eventually what has to happen. That the creation of easily reproducable art (I use that word loosly here) has to become a non profit activity, where you could only generate profit by selling things that are not in limitless supply, like concerts (you can't clone the singer and have him appear everywhere at once), authentic autographs (photocopies don't count, people that want something like this want the real deal) and the like.
Either that or we just get sane copyright laws - say for the first two years after a movie or game comes out, it's illegal to download it. After those two years are up and they've made their realistic dvd / game sales, then it's fair game to download.
I don't think anybody can hear you, over the millions of people who are sometimes physically duking it out over places in line to buy the iPad, yelling and screaming themselves hoarse trying to buy them.
Seriously, epic fail? A million units a month, which is the kind of volume companies would probably kill for if it would help them, is an epic fail?
You're unable to distinguish between "useful device" and "financially successful device". There are countless cases of utter crap selling incredibly well (American Idol is a great example). I never said that the iPad doesn't sell, I said it fails as a useful device, especially since it doesn't do a single thing that an iPod Touch / iPhone doesn't do.
Too bad there is no convenient, globally addressable network that these files could travel across. Maybe someday they will invent one and then I could get files onto my ipad. I mean, there's no way somebody could email me a Pages document, and I click on the link, and the iPad automatically grabs the file, puts it in my little pages doc library, and opens it.
Damn.
See the iPad is a *networked* device and in this day and age there is really no reason to lug a whole bitchton of files with you say, when you go on a trip. And even the base model certainly has enough space to throw books and movies on there to entertain you for your trip, in lieu of a network connection.
Too bad that there's these things called "attachment size limits", not to mention it still requires TWO computers to get that file. Then there's the fact that not everyone wants their files put on an email server where it can be read / viewed by others.
Apple has created another product like the iPhone and the iPod, one that would literally sell itself if they stopped advertising. The reason is because it fucking works.
No, the reason is that the majority of their customer base doesn't know any better. Apple has openly acknowledged for years that they intentionally target the people who are so incompetent that they can't even read an instruction manual or figure out what the difference between "left click" and "right click" is. They exploit people who know absolutely nothing about technology and are desperate for social status.
ost folks out there use computers to do three things - read email, browse the web, and use it as a fancy electronic typewriter.
Yes, and the iPad does - well, lets be nice and round up - 45% of those three things. It lets you read email no problem, I won't argue that at all. It lets you browse some of the internet. The absurd number of sites using Flash though are unable to be viewed, meaning that you can't access large parts of the internet. Then lets look at a touch screen - I love touch screen devices, but it's horrible for typing more than a few sentences, so it fails at typing documents in anything other than an emergency situation.
I can tell you from experience that the Android phones I have used, despite their theoretically superior hardware, felt sluggish and often went all modal and would not allow you to turn the device and have the screen auto rotate.
That may have been true on old Android phones, but not new ones. I know many people with them and I had far more trouble with getting my iPhone to rotate the screen than I ever have on an Android phone.
If you are happy with the paucity of apps in the Android marketplace, then that's great but I doubt you could find many people on the street that would rather have the Droid's app selection over the App Store.
I know - I'm picking useful apps over a large quantity of garbage. Stupid me. And yes, since I've had an iPhone for a year and spent plenty of time in the App Store, I'm well aware that maybe 1% of the apps on the iPhone are actually worthwhile.
So once more you spout off a bunch of nonsense based on Apple's advertising. By your own admission you've never even touched one of these phones, yet somehow you're an expert on both of them.
Remember when the G1 was hot shit? Or the Droid? Or the Nexus One? They all have their month of fame. And then they drop away, to be replaced by the New Hotness. The EVO is having its fun now, lets just see how successful it is compared to the iPhone 4. I'd be highly surprised if it outsells this next iPhone, or the last iPhone, or the iPhone before that...
And your limited intelligence is showing. It's not about a particular handset, it's about the Android OS. How those phones become outdated so fast? That's called "progress". Android and the handsets it runs on are constantly improving. Apple comes up with minor updates to both the hardware and the OS once a year. Android improves the OS much more frequently and the hardware is improved every 2-3 months. Also, the iPhone has been around for 4 years - Android has been around for a year and a half, plus Android lacks the shiny apple logo and the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field. That's pretty damn impressive.
But hey, it's from Apple, so of course it's vastly superior and you just have to get one.
Firstly, as has been stated over and over in this discussion, the iPad can read SD cards with a small peripheral.
Actually the iPad can read picture files from SD cards with a small peripheral. The other 99.99999% of files can NOT be read from an SD card by the iPad.
Oh, so you have a bandolier of SD cards strapped around you, and you change "mags" a dozen times a day with your phone/tablet device? Why not just get the storage space you require, INTERNALLY?
Well, your beloved Apple limits the iPad to 64 GB (for way too much money) or a measly 16 GB which stores....well, not much. SD cards would fix that just fine - cell phones have been doing it for years.
If you want a file, why not email or otherwise FTP it to where you want? Rather than carrying things about on little bits of plastic? Or...do it all..."on the cloud"!
Once again, with your "email it" "solution", you're back to needing a second computer just to get a damn file. That's absurd and one of the major failings of the iPad. Secondly, if you want Google / MS / Apple / Other Big Company to have ALL of your personal files (pictures, home videos, word documents, everything) that not only they have access too but a mistake could mean you lose all of your files FOREVER, then to be blunt, you're a damn fool. A little extra convenience is NOT worth losing your privacy or potentially losing all of your files for.
Give me an example of an iPad competitor, thats in the market right now (pretty much worldwide too), that I could have bought instead of my iPad.
Well, you know, there's this thing called "impulse control" - you could start by learning some of that. Then you could wait a few weeks as the Android tablets flood the market. I know - researching before you buy something, it's a crazy idea!
We also have no Apple Stores, those damn attractive, ultra profitable stores, damn them! *shakes fist*
Please, go in one sometime when you're in the US. You'll never want to do business with Apple again. Everything about their stores (from the way the employees talk to customers to the giant displays they have with "tips") tells you blatantly that they think you are a complete moron. It's rather insulting, not to mention that Apple intentionally has about one store per 5 million potential customers, which ensures that you'll always have long waits.
I would personally assume the iPhone 4 is far better than the EVO, but I have actually used neither.
Making decisions about two products you've never used based purely off Lord Jobs' advertising. I can see now why you bought an iPad. I have an iPhone 3GS and I've used phones running Android 2.1. Android not only allows you to run whatever apps you want, to customize whatever apps you want, but it also adds new features at a pace that Apple can't even dream of.
Whats the EVO got? Faster network...actual tethering (although the iPhone can be tethered in basically every OTHER country apart from yours....)....what else?
More memory, expandable storage, higher res cameras (yes, BOTH cameras are higher rest), mini-HDMI port, FM tuner, a kickstand to watching movies / Sprint TV, Flash support, a much bigger screen, and other things I can't think of off the top of my head.
The iPhone 4 will be about the same price (I buy unlocked and run on prepaid plans normally), is slimmer, I think it will have better build quality (my opinion) and definitely a better rear camera, from what we've seen.
Being.1 inches slimmer is an unnoticeable difference. You're basing the "better camera" on what exactly? As for build quality, the Evo has gotten great reviews for build quality, as has just about every HTC phone.
Listen, I know its all cool to hate "the establishment" and all, but judge tech on its own merits, not how your peers feel.
I do buy based off the merits of the technology - that's what my whole disagreement with you has been about. You've been saying people should buy a device because "OMFG it looks cool!" instead of it actually DOING something useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the government wouldn't risk seizing it and outing their agenda......what was the quote from the Exorcist when the Devil wouldn't move the object - "that's far too overt a display of power"?
If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it.
No, they wouldn't because the USPS is unionized. Unions do what's good for the union workers in the short run, even if it harms the customers and the business in the long run - including many instances where the union workers were so focused on the short term that they ran the company into bankruptcy and ended up unemployed as a result.
If you bothered to read up on the fair tax, you'd know that it's not regressive. But, since you already outed yourself as being against fairness by wanting to play the jealousy against the "evil rich" card, you're not going to read it anyways.
The really amusing part about your comment is that the Fair Tax would require the rich to pay more than they currently do as a result of eliminating all of the tax loopholes. When they buy a new $6 million house, they'll pay out the ass in taxes. When they guy a new $400,000 car, they'll pay out the ass for it. All of their parties, they'll pay more for in taxes.
Oh, and since I know you'll never read up on the Fair Tax because it goes against your idea that success is a bad thing and should be punished, the Fair Tax actually gives a rebate on taxes for necessities based on the number of people in your home - so the poor will pay very little.
One more thing - "the rich, who spend a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, also end up paying a smaller fraction of it as taxes." How the FUCK can you justify the current situation where 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes? Yea, I get it, you're jealous that someone has more than you. However, there's absolutely no possible way to claim it's "fair" or "just" for most of the population to pay little to no taxes (it's currently around 50% of the people in the US don't pay any income tax) and a small portion pay almost all of the taxes.
The USPS could be eliminated without an amendment, but I hope it wouldn't be.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see why you hope we keep an inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, and slow delivery service when we already have multiple options that are much better, especially given the fact that people rarely send letters anymore.
Just look at delivery times based on cost - there's no reason why a typical package should take 2 weeks to show up via USPS other than they want to charge you more money to get it shipped in 3-5 days, which is how fast it would be if they didn't intentionally delay things. Check your tracking the next time you have something shipped via USPS - you tend to (but not always) see it sit at a given location for a few days for no reason before moving on.
Of course, I'm for the apt tax replacing all this bullshit anyway, no loopholes.
I'll read your link later, but as of now, the Fair Tax seems the best option - tax on what you spend, not on what you earn.
www.fairtax.org
Also, you fail to realize that you MUST jailbreak an iPhone to get those tools you love. With Android, you (or someone else) can simply write the software and install it without rooting it and voiding your warranty.
Well first off, you're comparing a jailbroken iPhone to a stock Android phone. If you compared it to a rooted Android phone, it would be an even comparison. Secondly, I've never used a Nexus One, but the only time I've seen the performance issues you mention was on an older phone that was running a non- supported version of Android (such as a Moment running 2.1). So either you had a bad phone or you're spreading FUD.
First quarter 2010, there were more Android phones sold than iPhones. Also I was reading various articles on this, and a site (I wish I'd bookmarked it now - maybe someone reading knows which one it is) showed graphs for mobile browser usage - over a one year time span, May 2009 to May 2010, iPhone browser usage dropped 8% and Android browser usage increased 12%.
I had an iPhone 3GS from the day they went on sale until two weeks ago when I bought an Evo. I loved the iPhone at first, until all of it's shortcomings (virtually none of which have been fixed in the new version) became too obvious to stand. Android is a much better platform and you get a large selection of different handsets to choose from. Out of all the people I know, it's about 50/50 for iPhone vs Android ownership. However, I currently know no one looking to buy a new iPhone - but I know several people looking to buy a new Android phone and several who want to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone (but that's just my personal experience).
Please, enlighten me as to how the MPAA can revoke my ability to use the dvd's that I own.
That's not the point. The point is that they proved that they can (and will) remove books that you own at any time and for any reason they feel like.
That is why you never let someone else have control over your property.
I have to say one of my favorite things about the kindle is the books you buy are stored remotely as well as on your device, so unless Amazon goes out of business (unlikely) you have the book forever. I can't keep track of how many books I've lost, read until they disintegrated, etc. The kindle book is always there.
I'm guessing you weren't reading slashdot back when they had the scandal of removing copies of 1984 that people had purchased....
What you see as the biggest upside, most of us see as one of it's biggest downsides.
I won't do so aggressively until prices are reasonable (at $5, I'd go nuts, and their profits would skyrocket; everybody wins.
$5 isn't bad, but given the fact that their manufacturing and distribution costs are essentially $0, I would never buy many ebooks until the price hit $3 or less.....but that's just my opinion. With prices at $5 I'd rather just spend the extra couple bucks and have something physical that I own. As it is with the average price being over $8, it's cheaper to buy paperback books, and that's before you factor in the cost of the device.
I'd love to have an e-book reader, but I'm not buying one until the price (for both the books and the reader) are reasonable. $150 is reasonable for the reader, now they just need to fix the pricing on their books.
Very true. The only system that feels dated is the Wii, which could use a better GPU.
I know you're just a troll, but you can read on multiple websites that features that Android has that iphones don't have.
Why should I pay a $99 a year fine to write software for MY device? Android lets me write an app for free - AND I can distribute it to anyone I want without having to beg Lord Jobs approval.
BTW, just WHAT is it that you want to run SO badly, that DOESN'T exist in the App Store?
Useful apps. The majority of worthwhile apps that get submitted to the App Store get rejected (probably because Lord Jobs is pissy he didn't think of it first).
Please tell me in what fucked-up version of reality do you think it is that Apple doesn't want the largest USEFUL (booby apps are arguably NOT in that category) software catalog?
Again, you fail to realize that they'll only let in a useful app if Lord Jobs feels like it - too often he doesn't because he's focused purely on his ego and couldn't care less about the peons who use the device.
And with 250,000 apps (and counting!) in the App Store, they must be "feeling kind enough" to approve a new App about every 15 seconds.
Yes, and as an iPhone owner I can tell you from experience that just about all of those apps are utter crap. The quantity of apps available means nothing. The quality of apps and the ability to run any app you want is what matters.
Just my impressions, but he struck me as the kind of person that would get bullies and made fun of a lot in high school even without the video. Come on, this is slashdot - it's not like we don't know what those kids look like...
Better because it does more things, does them faster, and allows you to run whatever the hell you want. I couldn't care less about if an OS is "open" or not. What I do care about is being able to run software written by whoever writes something worthwhile. With Apple, not only do you get less features in the OS, but you can only run software on your phone if Apple decides they're feeling kind enough to let you.
But it IS artificially blocking all content IS the old way of thinking.
That doesn't even make sense with what I said.
I guess the main point is try to be innovative for a change, and plese your customers.
I've said the same thing many times in other discussions. I've tried explaining that to employees at game companies that if they provided a BENEFIT to buying the game that people would buy it instead of download it........they weren't able to grasp that concept.
Well, to be fair, he didn't say anything about the potent enemies getting the judge fired. They could always just have them killed (not saying it's likely, but it's possible).
Sad but true. That's why restaurants aren't allowed to sing "Happy Birthday" to you.
err.. which is still stuck in the old way of thinking
No, it's not. It's taking the current system of "you have an unending copyright and all downloading is illegal" and changing it to "companies get a reasonable amount of time to make a profit and after that short period, people can download it all they want".
Your view seems to be (since you bitched about "the old way of thinking") that companies shouldn't be able to make any profit, which makes you just as much of a problem in getting the copyright / downloading issue talked about in a reasonable manner as the RIAA/MPAA are. If you take away their ability to make a profit, they will stop making movies, music, games, and books. Sure, some people will do it for free, but most of them will stop because they'll have to find another way to pay the bills. You have to allow them to make a reasonable profit if you want any real discussion to occur.
And maybe that's eventually what has to happen. That the creation of easily reproducable art (I use that word loosly here) has to become a non profit activity, where you could only generate profit by selling things that are not in limitless supply, like concerts (you can't clone the singer and have him appear everywhere at once), authentic autographs (photocopies don't count, people that want something like this want the real deal) and the like.
Either that or we just get sane copyright laws - say for the first two years after a movie or game comes out, it's illegal to download it. After those two years are up and they've made their realistic dvd / game sales, then it's fair game to download.
I don't think anybody can hear you, over the millions of people who are sometimes physically duking it out over places in line to buy the iPad, yelling and screaming themselves hoarse trying to buy them. Seriously, epic fail? A million units a month, which is the kind of volume companies would probably kill for if it would help them, is an epic fail?
You're unable to distinguish between "useful device" and "financially successful device". There are countless cases of utter crap selling incredibly well (American Idol is a great example). I never said that the iPad doesn't sell, I said it fails as a useful device, especially since it doesn't do a single thing that an iPod Touch / iPhone doesn't do.
Too bad there is no convenient, globally addressable network that these files could travel across. Maybe someday they will invent one and then I could get files onto my ipad. I mean, there's no way somebody could email me a Pages document, and I click on the link, and the iPad automatically grabs the file, puts it in my little pages doc library, and opens it. Damn. See the iPad is a *networked* device and in this day and age there is really no reason to lug a whole bitchton of files with you say, when you go on a trip. And even the base model certainly has enough space to throw books and movies on there to entertain you for your trip, in lieu of a network connection.
Too bad that there's these things called "attachment size limits", not to mention it still requires TWO computers to get that file. Then there's the fact that not everyone wants their files put on an email server where it can be read / viewed by others.
Apple has created another product like the iPhone and the iPod, one that would literally sell itself if they stopped advertising. The reason is because it fucking works.
No, the reason is that the majority of their customer base doesn't know any better. Apple has openly acknowledged for years that they intentionally target the people who are so incompetent that they can't even read an instruction manual or figure out what the difference between "left click" and "right click" is. They exploit people who know absolutely nothing about technology and are desperate for social status.
ost folks out there use computers to do three things - read email, browse the web, and use it as a fancy electronic typewriter.
Yes, and the iPad does - well, lets be nice and round up - 45% of those three things. It lets you read email no problem, I won't argue that at all. It lets you browse some of the internet. The absurd number of sites using Flash though are unable to be viewed, meaning that you can't access large parts of the internet. Then lets look at a touch screen - I love touch screen devices, but it's horrible for typing more than a few sentences, so it fails at typing documents in anything other than an emergency situation.
I can tell you from experience that the Android phones I have used, despite their theoretically superior hardware, felt sluggish and often went all modal and would not allow you to turn the device and have the screen auto rotate.
That may have been true on old Android phones, but not new ones. I know many people with them and I had far more trouble with getting my iPhone to rotate the screen than I ever have on an Android phone.
If you are happy with the paucity of apps in the Android marketplace, then that's great but I doubt you could find many people on the street that would rather have the Droid's app selection over the App Store.
I know - I'm picking useful apps over a large quantity of garbage. Stupid me. And yes, since I've had an iPhone for a year and spent plenty of time in the App Store, I'm well aware that maybe 1% of the apps on the iPhone are actually worthwhile.
In three months, another Android phon
So once more you spout off a bunch of nonsense based on Apple's advertising. By your own admission you've never even touched one of these phones, yet somehow you're an expert on both of them.
Remember when the G1 was hot shit? Or the Droid? Or the Nexus One? They all have their month of fame. And then they drop away, to be replaced by the New Hotness. The EVO is having its fun now, lets just see how successful it is compared to the iPhone 4. I'd be highly surprised if it outsells this next iPhone, or the last iPhone, or the iPhone before that...
And your limited intelligence is showing. It's not about a particular handset, it's about the Android OS. How those phones become outdated so fast? That's called "progress". Android and the handsets it runs on are constantly improving. Apple comes up with minor updates to both the hardware and the OS once a year. Android improves the OS much more frequently and the hardware is improved every 2-3 months. Also, the iPhone has been around for 4 years - Android has been around for a year and a half, plus Android lacks the shiny apple logo and the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field. That's pretty damn impressive.
But hey, it's from Apple, so of course it's vastly superior and you just have to get one.
Firstly, as has been stated over and over in this discussion, the iPad can read SD cards with a small peripheral.
Actually the iPad can read picture files from SD cards with a small peripheral. The other 99.99999% of files can NOT be read from an SD card by the iPad.
Nice attempt at trolling though!
Oh, so you have a bandolier of SD cards strapped around you, and you change "mags" a dozen times a day with your phone/tablet device? Why not just get the storage space you require, INTERNALLY?
Well, your beloved Apple limits the iPad to 64 GB (for way too much money) or a measly 16 GB which stores....well, not much. SD cards would fix that just fine - cell phones have been doing it for years.
If you want a file, why not email or otherwise FTP it to where you want? Rather than carrying things about on little bits of plastic? Or...do it all..."on the cloud"!
Once again, with your "email it" "solution", you're back to needing a second computer just to get a damn file. That's absurd and one of the major failings of the iPad. Secondly, if you want Google / MS / Apple / Other Big Company to have ALL of your personal files (pictures, home videos, word documents, everything) that not only they have access too but a mistake could mean you lose all of your files FOREVER, then to be blunt, you're a damn fool. A little extra convenience is NOT worth losing your privacy or potentially losing all of your files for.
Give me an example of an iPad competitor, thats in the market right now (pretty much worldwide too), that I could have bought instead of my iPad.
Well, you know, there's this thing called "impulse control" - you could start by learning some of that. Then you could wait a few weeks as the Android tablets flood the market. I know - researching before you buy something, it's a crazy idea!
We also have no Apple Stores, those damn attractive, ultra profitable stores, damn them! *shakes fist*
Please, go in one sometime when you're in the US. You'll never want to do business with Apple again. Everything about their stores (from the way the employees talk to customers to the giant displays they have with "tips") tells you blatantly that they think you are a complete moron. It's rather insulting, not to mention that Apple intentionally has about one store per 5 million potential customers, which ensures that you'll always have long waits.
I would personally assume the iPhone 4 is far better than the EVO, but I have actually used neither.
Making decisions about two products you've never used based purely off Lord Jobs' advertising. I can see now why you bought an iPad. I have an iPhone 3GS and I've used phones running Android 2.1. Android not only allows you to run whatever apps you want, to customize whatever apps you want, but it also adds new features at a pace that Apple can't even dream of.
Whats the EVO got? Faster network...actual tethering (although the iPhone can be tethered in basically every OTHER country apart from yours....)....what else?
More memory, expandable storage, higher res cameras (yes, BOTH cameras are higher rest), mini-HDMI port, FM tuner, a kickstand to watching movies / Sprint TV, Flash support, a much bigger screen, and other things I can't think of off the top of my head.
The iPhone 4 will be about the same price (I buy unlocked and run on prepaid plans normally), is slimmer, I think it will have better build quality (my opinion) and definitely a better rear camera, from what we've seen.
Being .1 inches slimmer is an unnoticeable difference. You're basing the "better camera" on what exactly? As for build quality, the Evo has gotten great reviews for build quality, as has just about every HTC phone.
Listen, I know its all cool to hate "the establishment" and all, but judge tech on its own merits, not how your peers feel.
I do buy based off the merits of the technology - that's what my whole disagreement with you has been about. You've been saying people should buy a device because "OMFG it looks cool!" instead of it actually DOING something useful.