But you're kind of missing the point though. If ARM really is that much better than x86 (I don't really know as I don't program on that level) then with the amount of momentum it is catching in mobile devices, ARM overtaking x86 is inevitable. I don't know a lot about x86_64 whatever vs. ARM but I do know that my Xoom outperforms my netbook and it does it while generating no heat and with 3 times the battery life from a smaller battery. Look out, intel.
just prevent someone from creating a smartphone that (to most consumers) looked identical to an iPhone
Well, they need to go find somebody else to sue then because Samsung does not sell a single phone that anybody with more than two brain cells to bang together would mistake for looking "identical to an iPhone".
If it's quality you're after, why don't go lossless and enjoy perfect quality?
Of course you or I would do that but this is Google and they have to take their infrastructure and number of users into consideration. I can see why they would rather go with lossy rather than lossless when storing other people's content.
Yet if it's efficient use of bandwith you're after, why not use a codec that actually manages to get the best sounding music in the least amount of bits?
The advantages of aac over mp3 are marked at low bit rates but we are talking about 320 not 128 and at high bitrates, as you've mentioned, you're not going to be able to tell the difference so Google must have taken other things into consideration when choosing their codec.
I still fail to see how the choice of MP3 at 320 kbps is anything but, like I said, worse of both worlds.
An aac at 224 isn't going to be as accurate reproduction as mp3 at 320 so you are stuck with 320 anyway if that is what you are going for. And at that high, sound quality differences between aac and mp3 are negligible so you have to take other things into consideration. Whatever those other things are for Google, they ended up choosing mp3. Who knows, maybe the encoder Google is using does a better job with high bitrate mp3's than with aac. At any rate, it will sound good and you would not have saved anything by going with aac, ogg, or anything else.
Maybe you have your songs where ever *you* are but I can guarantee you that it won't work worth shit if you were out on my bike trail
I guarantee you it will work worth much more than "shit" (what's the fascination with feces?) on your bike trail since it is trivial to pin songs onto your device.
No, currently you download music anywhere and all your devices have access to that music at once, wherever they are... you see all the playlists from any device, if a song is not stored locally then you can simply ask to download it.
I haven't used the service you're speaking of so I have a couple of questions. Do you have to download the song then listen or does it start streaming as soon as you click it like Google Music? Also, does this service cost money or is it free like Google Music?
Google Music does not require money to store 20,000 of your own songs and stream them on any computer or Android phone/tablet you have handy. I'd say that's quite a deal.
You can fill your Google Music with 20,000 tracks. That is not "really small" by 99.999 percent of people's definition. I don't think that will be a problem. People on Slashdot trolling? That's still a problem.
Umm, didn't you already have the ability to sync your music files to your phone? How many gigs of music do you really need to carry around? How much is just packrat/hoarding mentality?
At any one time, I might only want a few songs from my collection. The thing is that list will change from day to day. Now with Google Music on my Xoom, my cellphone and my desktop, I don't have to worry about the hassle of "syncing" between them all. It just works.
Google Music requires me to install a program that scans my hard drive looking for music, and it seems to keep a list online somewhere of the music I have. Is this not asking for trouble?
Are you going for the Glenn Beck rhetorical question award? He probably has that patented you know. Good thing you logged in AC.
the only benefit from the risk is the convenience of sharing music with an Android phone
And your tablet, and your pc, and your tv if you have more than a cable box attached to it. It also syncs with all of your devices automatically with no further intervention. Why are you so against this? It seems like the logical conclusion of my data being every I want it to be without me having to worry about it.
My bad. It's actually 10 dollars which comes out to 240 dollars over the two years. Strangely just about enough to cover the usual subsidy. Funny how that works.
The only difference is that the carrier specific phones have been locked to that provider, but that's acceptable since you're getting the phone at a huge discount.
What discount? You actually think you aren't paying full price and then some for your "free" phone? By that logic, I put $20,000 down on a $200,000 house. I got a hell of a "discount" didn't I? Oh, wait...
How do your numbers compare to the overall size of the economy in the markets they are competing in for the time periods you mention? Without those numbers to compare, your numbers are worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
But you're kind of missing the point though. If ARM really is that much better than x86 (I don't really know as I don't program on that level) then with the amount of momentum it is catching in mobile devices, ARM overtaking x86 is inevitable. I don't know a lot about x86_64 whatever vs. ARM but I do know that my Xoom outperforms my netbook and it does it while generating no heat and with 3 times the battery life from a smaller battery. Look out, intel.
just prevent someone from creating a smartphone that (to most consumers) looked identical to an iPhone
Well, they need to go find somebody else to sue then because Samsung does not sell a single phone that anybody with more than two brain cells to bang together would mistake for looking "identical to an iPhone".
Heh heh. Thanks anyway!
If it's quality you're after, why don't go lossless and enjoy perfect quality?
Of course you or I would do that but this is Google and they have to take their infrastructure and number of users into consideration. I can see why they would rather go with lossy rather than lossless when storing other people's content.
Yet if it's efficient use of bandwith you're after, why not use a codec that actually manages to get the best sounding music in the least amount of bits?
The advantages of aac over mp3 are marked at low bit rates but we are talking about 320 not 128 and at high bitrates, as you've mentioned, you're not going to be able to tell the difference so Google must have taken other things into consideration when choosing their codec.
I still fail to see how the choice of MP3 at 320 kbps is anything but, like I said, worse of both worlds.
An aac at 224 isn't going to be as accurate reproduction as mp3 at 320 so you are stuck with 320 anyway if that is what you are going for. And at that high, sound quality differences between aac and mp3 are negligible so you have to take other things into consideration. Whatever those other things are for Google, they ended up choosing mp3. Who knows, maybe the encoder Google is using does a better job with high bitrate mp3's than with aac. At any rate, it will sound good and you would not have saved anything by going with aac, ogg, or anything else.
Sure it sounds fine and indistinguishable from anything else.
Thank you, you finally answered my question.
Thanks for not answering the question. Your bias is showing and your credibility is waning. Have a nice night.
Pull the tinfoil a little tighter dude, I think I saw a black helicopter coming in. O_o
Maybe you have your songs where ever *you* are but I can guarantee you that it won't work worth shit if you were out on my bike trail
I guarantee you it will work worth much more than "shit" (what's the fascination with feces?) on your bike trail since it is trivial to pin songs onto your device.
Poor codec? You can tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 320 and whatever hypothetical other codec you seem to think isn't "poor"? Bull.
I have not experienced either of these issues and I have been using Google Music almost since it opened up. Maybe you're doing it wrong.
No, currently you download music anywhere and all your devices have access to that music at once, wherever they are... you see all the playlists from any device, if a song is not stored locally then you can simply ask to download it.
I haven't used the service you're speaking of so I have a couple of questions. Do you have to download the song then listen or does it start streaming as soon as you click it like Google Music? Also, does this service cost money or is it free like Google Music?
Google Music does not require money to store 20,000 of your own songs and stream them on any computer or Android phone/tablet you have handy. I'd say that's quite a deal.
As long as your music collection is really small
You can fill your Google Music with 20,000 tracks. That is not "really small" by 99.999 percent of people's definition. I don't think that will be a problem. People on Slashdot trolling? That's still a problem.
Umm, didn't you already have the ability to sync your music files to your phone? How many gigs of music do you really need to carry around? How much is just packrat/hoarding mentality?
At any one time, I might only want a few songs from my collection. The thing is that list will change from day to day. Now with Google Music on my Xoom, my cellphone and my desktop, I don't have to worry about the hassle of "syncing" between them all. It just works.
Google Music requires me to install a program that scans my hard drive looking for music, and it seems to keep a list online somewhere of the music I have. Is this not asking for trouble?
Are you going for the Glenn Beck rhetorical question award? He probably has that patented you know. Good thing you logged in AC.
the only benefit from the risk is the convenience of sharing music with an Android phone
And your tablet, and your pc, and your tv if you have more than a cable box attached to it. It also syncs with all of your devices automatically with no further intervention. Why are you so against this? It seems like the logical conclusion of my data being every I want it to be without me having to worry about it.
You are stupid. Figure out why. Hint: we weren't discussing the stock price.
Unfortunately, I can't take the real credit. When I installed Cyanogenmod, ciq was not a part of the package.
My bad. It's actually 10 dollars which comes out to 240 dollars over the two years. Strangely just about enough to cover the usual subsidy. Funny how that works.
Your monthly bill is the same whether or not you are on a contract
Mostly true however T-Mobile does give a 10 percent service price reduction when you bring your own device.
I just sprinkled bacon bits on a stack of hundred dollar bills. I am so excited!!
You can't just haul people into court, etc because it suits your whim.
Joke sure is on you!
Pro tip: Never utter the words "...my mom..." on Slashdot. Wait...doh!
I put Cyanogen on my Samsung Vibrant. It has "removed carrier iq" in the release notes.
The only difference is that the carrier specific phones have been locked to that provider, but that's acceptable since you're getting the phone at a huge discount.
What discount? You actually think you aren't paying full price and then some for your "free" phone? By that logic, I put $20,000 down on a $200,000 house. I got a hell of a "discount" didn't I? Oh, wait...
When I rooted my Vibrant and stripped out CIQ, the performance went through the roof. Logging every single thing a user does takes a toll apparently.
How do your numbers compare to the overall size of the economy in the markets they are competing in for the time periods you mention? Without those numbers to compare, your numbers are worthless.