16GB is enough for me (and is probably still the most popular option). I'd like 32GB more, but they are charging too much. Pictures can be deleted after they were uploaded to Google Photos (for free at full quality up to 16 megapixels). That was my main storage concern. 16GB is enough for a few GB of music and a few GB for applications.
You forget the efficiency. External batteries discharge to charge the internal battery. The efficiency of that process is below 100%. Therefore 10,000 mAh in the external battery might only give you half of that internally.
They don't need a cover. But even if they do, then the whole point of a cover is to protect the screen. A good cover for the Edge would cover the whole screen, even the curved part.
Nexus is really about getting software support. You will have the latest Android version, while Samsung will be 6-12 months late (and will update only once). You also get monthly security updates. Nexus are also less bloated. Samsungs tend to ship with two alternatives for the same program. Samsung's version always suck more.
But hardware-wise, the S7 is better than the 6P. The 5X might have the best value however, with recent price drop. Moto G is a good cheap alternative.
are nice additions from the S6. I also think it's a good idea to offer 2 screen size options. I still think Edge is a gimmick however. And they should have used USB-C with video out.
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication
I understand, but Morocco consume on average 2.5 GW of electricity, and that will probably only raise as the country gets richer, and with population growth. An extra 500 MW by 2018 won't change much in the net export/import balance of the country.
It has everything to do with net neutrality. Charging different prices according to the content of the data. Just because it's a "good thing" or your like it doesn't make it any less a net neutrality violation.
Its unacceptable when you stop providing something to someone who has nothing, and start actively taking away from someone who otherwise could have something.
What kind of definition is that? You realize that for the same price (same investment in the network), users in India could have say, 100 MB per month. But instead, Facebook want them to be stuck on their web site.
I remember accessing the internet through the local library for free. It was amazing, but it was also censored and limited. But it was better than nothing which is what the people now have.
Net neutrality is a principle that should be applied to networks, not computers or libraries. The local library is free not to give you access at night and this isn't a violation of net neutrality either.
As I commented on the other post, when people start complaining about Net Neutrality for Wikipedia Zero and stop applying double standards because %corporation% then I'll let it be.
People do complain about Wikipedia zero. Competitors to Wikipedia are indeed disadvantaged by this program. I admit it's also a net neutrality violation.
They start with free Facebook. Hey it's free, so it's better than not having it! Next thing they will add Twitter and some other lame web site, but will charge $1/month. It's so cheap, so it's better than not having it! Then they will ask $30/month for "full"-ish Internet, but you will be limited to sites they white list. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Then that ISP will buy its competitor, and enforce the same kind of Net Neutrality violations that are first world problems. Then they will block some political party web site, because they do not like it. And you will say "it's OK, it's not as if you paid for full internet". And then, only then, maybe you will wish they stood up for Net Neutrality right at the beginning.
I get it, you are against net neutrality and that's fine. I was replying to the OP, who seems to believe that this isn't a net neutrality violation. At least you understand it is one, but you support it.
There is a price. You must pay if you want to access web sites other than Facebook. Use 100GB per month of Facebook? It's free. Use 100MB of a random web site, you must pay. That's a clear violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Well if there was no good free search engine left I may want to pay for Google. I doubt they make anything close to $5/month from me however. Probably more like a few cents. Slashdot makes even less, even offering me to disable ads since I am a registered member.
This is Net Neutrality, like it or not. They are not forbidden to offer Internet for free. If they want to give 200MB/month to everyone for free, it's fine. People will be free to use it for whatever they want however, not just Facebook. There is no technical reason why an ISP could offer free Facebook but not a small, neutral, amount of data.
So people won't mind then if they get refused access to free services on websites who sustain themselves with ads if the user has an ad-blocker installed?
They are free to block those with ad-blockers. We are free to block their ad-blocking detection algorithm and/or decide to switch another web site.
Oh and just out of curiosity, If the service is useless because you aren't prepared to pay for it why are you using it?
It may be worth 1/month (which is close to worthless). If they charge $1/month for it, I will not use it.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of apps require 16GB? Sounds like poorly written / bloated apps.
16GB is enough for me (and is probably still the most popular option). I'd like 32GB more, but they are charging too much. Pictures can be deleted after they were uploaded to Google Photos (for free at full quality up to 16 megapixels). That was my main storage concern. 16GB is enough for a few GB of music and a few GB for applications.
You forget the efficiency. External batteries discharge to charge the internal battery. The efficiency of that process is below 100%. Therefore 10,000 mAh in the external battery might only give you half of that internally.
The G5 has a larger screen, that's mainly why the phone is larger.
They don't need a cover. But even if they do, then the whole point of a cover is to protect the screen. A good cover for the Edge would cover the whole screen, even the curved part.
Nexus is really about getting software support. You will have the latest Android version, while Samsung will be 6-12 months late (and will update only once). You also get monthly security updates.
Nexus are also less bloated. Samsungs tend to ship with two alternatives for the same program. Samsung's version always suck more.
But hardware-wise, the S7 is better than the 6P. The 5X might have the best value however, with recent price drop. Moto G is a good cheap alternative.
are nice additions from the S6. I also think it's a good idea to offer 2 screen size options.
I still think Edge is a gimmick however. And they should have used USB-C with video out.
I don't think it can be forced on Android. You always have to approve an update manually before installation, and that requires unlocking the phone.
He hates freedom and his a control freak.
How so?
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sounds like the exact definition of what they are doing with zero-rating Facebook but not other kind of data.
I understand, but Morocco consume on average 2.5 GW of electricity, and that will probably only raise as the country gets richer, and with population growth. An extra 500 MW by 2018 won't change much in the net export/import balance of the country.
500 MW is pretty small. Morocco needs much more than that. How can they think about exporting?
pretty sure it's in the desert, 0 vegetation there.
It has everything to do with net neutrality. Charging different prices according to the content of the data.
Just because it's a "good thing" or your like it doesn't make it any less a net neutrality violation.
Its unacceptable when you stop providing something to someone who has nothing, and start actively taking away from someone who otherwise could have something.
What kind of definition is that?
You realize that for the same price (same investment in the network), users in India could have say, 100 MB per month. But instead, Facebook want them to be stuck on their web site.
I remember accessing the internet through the local library for free. It was amazing, but it was also censored and limited. But it was better than nothing which is what the people now have.
Net neutrality is a principle that should be applied to networks, not computers or libraries. The local library is free not to give you access at night and this isn't a violation of net neutrality either.
As I commented on the other post, when people start complaining about Net Neutrality for Wikipedia Zero and stop applying double standards because %corporation% then I'll let it be.
People do complain about Wikipedia zero. Competitors to Wikipedia are indeed disadvantaged by this program. I admit it's also a net neutrality violation.
At which point does it stop being acceptable? Why would it be only acceptable when it's free and/or in poor countries?
They start with free Facebook. Hey it's free, so it's better than not having it!
Next thing they will add Twitter and some other lame web site, but will charge $1/month. It's so cheap, so it's better than not having it!
Then they will ask $30/month for "full"-ish Internet, but you will be limited to sites they white list. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Then that ISP will buy its competitor, and enforce the same kind of Net Neutrality violations that are first world problems.
Then they will block some political party web site, because they do not like it. And you will say "it's OK, it's not as if you paid for full internet".
And then, only then, maybe you will wish they stood up for Net Neutrality right at the beginning.
I get it, you are against net neutrality and that's fine. I was replying to the OP, who seems to believe that this isn't a net neutrality violation. At least you understand it is one, but you support it.
There is a price. You must pay if you want to access web sites other than Facebook.
Use 100GB per month of Facebook? It's free. Use 100MB of a random web site, you must pay. That's a clear violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Well if there was no good free search engine left I may want to pay for Google. I doubt they make anything close to $5/month from me however. Probably more like a few cents.
Slashdot makes even less, even offering me to disable ads since I am a registered member.
This is Net Neutrality, like it or not.
They are not forbidden to offer Internet for free. If they want to give 200MB/month to everyone for free, it's fine. People will be free to use it for whatever they want however, not just Facebook. There is no technical reason why an ISP could offer free Facebook but not a small, neutral, amount of data.
So people won't mind then if they get refused access to free services on websites who sustain themselves with ads if the user has an ad-blocker installed?
They are free to block those with ad-blockers. We are free to block their ad-blocking detection algorithm and/or decide to switch another web site.
Oh and just out of curiosity, If the service is useless because you aren't prepared to pay for it why are you using it?
It may be worth 1/month (which is close to worthless). If they charge $1/month for it, I will not use it.
Those who want to support these web sites are free not to block their ads.
Available in the play store, and supports ad-blocking extensions.
The app market is where the smart money is now.
Ironic. MS success is because Windows had more "apps" than other PC OSes.