|
||||||||
Other tablets the big disappointment |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
It has a fancy name though. "Airplay" on Apple. On my tablet it just does like you say to any dlna device, be that console, mediaplayer, pc or smart tv. It's not called anything it just does it.
![]() Its got to be a better solution than carrying your Apple TV round in case you ever want to 'wirelessly connect' to a mates TV
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,219
|
Quote:
I may have this wrong but -
With Apple you need a separate 'box' that is then wired to your TV in order to stream from an iPad/iPhone ? With Android you can stream to/from any DLNA enabled device with no wires involved at all. Whilst both work fine I cant see that anyone could argue that the Apple route is better than using globally accepted standards ?? Thousands of DLNA devices vs Apple TV ...... |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
I don't have a DNLA capable device so I need something like the Apple TV or even the Chromecast to allow me to stream from my devices to my TV.
Id also argue that you are not wirelessly streaming with your setup but thats a whole other argument ![]() ... As i have said though, both work and work fine. I would argue that anyone could convincingly state that the Apple approach is 'better' than the DLNA one. I cant see any benefits of the Apple approach at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
It doesn't matter what way is better anyway. There are plenty of airplay apps in the Play store and no doubt there are plenty of DLNA apps in the appstore. So everyone can be happy whatever they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
So the brand new 5s only trumps the 'majority' of top end Android devices ? ..
The 2.5X higher than iPhone resolution super retina Android smartphones thus need Tegra 4.(should they not have called it the Tegra 4+1 ?). SO if you stick the new Apple A7 in the 3GS with its old screen it will really rocket. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,288
|
Quote:
Yep. Agreed. But by buying an Apple TV you are limiting yourself to only be able to stream to units that also have an Apple TV connected (or carry your own unit around). By choosing the DLNA option you are able to stream to/from any of the thousands of makes/models of hardware that are DLNA compatible which includes the majority (?) of new televisions
I don't have a single DLNA device so they are hardly ubiquitous! Just how low down the vast Android spectrum can you go before the phone won't drive it? |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
So what?? The Apple TV does far more than mere streaming. It you just wanted streaming a cable would be far cheaper.
I don't have a single DLNA device so they are hardly ubiquitous! Just how low down the vast Android spectrum can you go before the phone won't drive it? ![]() On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs. Id be willing to bet that there are MANY times more DLNA devices out there than there are Apple TV units ![]() Just taking the PS3 - it has sold 80 million units worldwide. Compare that to 15 million Apple TV units (13 million in May). Just taking one DLNA device means I am 5 times more likely to find a compatible unit at a friends house ![]() Really not quite sure what your last sentence means ??? As I have said, im not criticising Apple TV at all. I was simply unsure as to how someone could state that it is better than the alternative ?? ![]() EDIT: A useful link - DLNA "440 million DLNA units out there" (at the time of the article) - just none in your house
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,288
|
Quote:
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey :eek
Quote:
On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs.)
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable.AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,219
|
Quote:
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey
![]() On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs. Id be willing to bet that there are MANY times more DLNA devices out there than there are Apple TV units ![]() Just taking the PS3 - it has sold 80 million units worldwide. Compare that to 15 million Apple TV units (13 million in May). Just taking one DLNA device means I am 5 times more likely to find a compatible unit at a friends house ![]() Really not quite sure what your last sentence means ??? As I have said, im not criticising Apple TV at all. I was simply unsure as to how someone could state that it is better than the alternative ?? ![]() EDIT: A useful link - DLNA "440 million DLNA units out there" (at the time of the article) - just none in your house ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,219
|
Quote:
Ok I have a desktop running Windows 7 and a laptop on Vista. Neither have admitted to doing DLNA!
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable. AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA, ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
Ok I have a desktop running Windows 7 and a laptop on Vista. Neither have admitted to doing DLNA!
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable. AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA, ![]() It does, as the saying goes, just work. Similarly, the PS3 will happily stream content (only tried video and stills) from my old Symbian phones. Haven't bothered looking for any DLNA support for iOS, as my iPhone doesn't have anything worth streaming on it .... |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
This only really matters in this thread if you can't do airplay with Android tablets. You can, so I'm not a "disappointed" non ipad owner!
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...55123115,d.d2k |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24,424
|
Another point I care to make is I wonder how many of these cheap tablets will be in dustbins in a few years? they will be dated quickly, no software updates. However Ipad 1 holds it's value and people still want them.
I quite liked the first generation 7" galaxy tablet but can't imagine many people using these now. These £50 ones will be first be binned. When I say cheap tablets I don't mean the top range ones like the Motorola and Galaxy 10" one. The difference is manufacturers ad a good lead on Apple before the Iphone came along however in the tablet market it's the others who have played catch up and played it badly. It was always predicable there would be more "tablets" around but I don't know many people who would seriously consider a main tablet other than Apple. I know people with the Kindle Fire as a second tablet but not as a first one. For that reason I am confident Apple will set the bar and dominate in the same way the Ipod has. Nobody tends to buy other MP3 players these days. If only people could see this about the phone market. Infact they have Nokia and Blackberry are on the way out. Everybody who doesn't want Iphone maybe goes HTC and Samsung. However I don't get why they buy into the large screens and the echo system of Android is crap. Android was only created as an app platform to challenge Apple. It's software limits phones in so many ways I'd go back to the days where you had Samsung smart phones running there own OS. I know it's personal taste but people should buy into the Iphone more it's a much better device all round camera, software and build quality than anything else on the market. If Iphone 5S was free on a contract today I think it would the worlds biggest smartphone marketshare. |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
|
Quote:
If only people could see this about the phone market. Infact they have Nokia and Blackberry are on the way out. Everybody who doesn't want Iphone maybe goes HTC and Samsung. However I don't get why they buy into the large screens and the echo system of Android is crap. Android was only created as an app platform to challenge Apple. It's software limits phones in so many ways I'd go back to the days where you had Samsung smart phones running there own OS. I know it's personal taste but people should buy into the Iphone more it's a much better device all round camera, software and build quality than anything else on the market. If Iphone 5S was free on a contract today I think it would the worlds biggest smartphone marketshare.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more. As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24,424
|
Quote:
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more. And we are not talking Google here they released Android for there own use. Somebody somewhere decided to go with Android to take on Apple. From memory it was Samsung and I am sure the first Android was HTC for Google? |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,153
|
Quote:
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more. As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish. ![]() You can't deny that the iPad was the first successful iteration of the tablet computer that we know and love today. It was a game changer in the industry. The Android tablets were way behind for quite a while. Microsoft could have taken that spot if they had been quicker on the ball. Android has caught iPad up now and exceeded it in some aspects, especially in the 7inch sector. But it is a good thing that we have the choice. As much as you hate Apple, Android has more in common with iOS than you probably care to admit and it's good for the consumer that there is no one dominating eco system right now. Competition is good but you seem to fail to understand this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24,424
|
Quote:
Microsoft had tablet computers before iPad with project origami. It was a failure like the surface RT is a failure as they don't understand the use case of a tablet.
You can't deny that the iPad was the first successful iteration of the tablet computer that we know and love today. It was a game changer in the industry. The Android tablets were way behind for quite a while. Microsoft could have taken that spot if they had been quicker on the ball. Android has caught iPad up now and exceeded it in some aspects, especially in the 7inch sector. But it is a good thing that we have the choice. As much as you hate Apple, Android has more in common with iOS than you probably care to admit and it's good for the consumer that there is no one dominating eco system right now. Competition is good but you seem to fail to understand this. When the rest of the industry went with netbooks Apple came along with Ipad. Who was right? Netbooks are finished. Microsoft seem to think putting a keyboard on a tablet is the ideal niche now. Did nobody tell them how good the Ipad keyboard is and you don't need a stick on keyboard? |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 3,975
|
Quote:
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more. As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,586
|
Eh? My ipod 4 doesn't run ios 7 and neither would I expect it to.
![]() Don't tell me it can run on the ipad 1st gen? |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
|
Quote:
There's a slightly different take on that story doing the rounds. It goes that Android started out life as a keyboard based Blackberry-like OS. It's only when the iPhone came to light (or rather being on Apple's board of directors, Eric Schmidt became privy to) that suddenly it changed direction and became a touchscreen based iPhone-like OS, debuting on an actual phone just over a year later.
It is true that Android started out as a competitor to the Sidekick, but if you watch the original Google demo, many of the key features of Android including the way it handles notifications were already in place. The OS itself had been touch focused for some time. The G1 came a year later because in between, Google formed the Open Handset Alliance and began getting OEMs on board before they came to work with HTC. Plus Android was still quite primitive at that stage. It's interesting how far it has come in such a short space of time though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,806
|
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10 inch screen was a major disappointment for me I could not read the paper without zooming in. The screen on the iPad is perfect for reading the newspaper or magazine. I don't think the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10 inch screen is any better hopefully Samsung will bring out tablets with a better screen next year.
I expect the screen on the Nexus 10 2 will be a good resolution I am interested in seeing what it is like. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 3,975
|
Quote:
That story doesn't add up as Google demoed a touch-based version of the OS in 2007, just 3 months after the iPhone was announced. As talented and resourceful as Google is, I find it far-fetched that the OS would undergo a supposed drastic rewrite in such a small time frame.
It is true that Android started out as a competitor to the Sidekick, but if you watch the original Google demo, many of the key features of Android including the way it handles notifications were already in place. The OS itself had been touch focused for some time. The G1 came a year later because in between, Google formed the Open Handset Alliance and began getting OEMs on board before they came to work with HTC. Plus Android was still quite primitive at that stage. It's interesting how far it has come in such a short space of time though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
I remember that tablet and it was a failure. Seemed like no purpose.
When the rest of the industry went with netbooks Apple came along with Ipad. Who was right? Netbooks are finished. Microsoft seem to think putting a keyboard on a tablet is the ideal niche now. Did nobody tell them how good the Ipad keyboard is and you don't need a stick on keyboard? Netbooks are just small laptops, which surprisingly are still doing ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 4,665
|
I have some DLNA Devices like my TV, and my games consoles, Airplay is a completely different experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
iPhone available to buy June 29 2007. Source: Wikipedia. That's a full 15 months earlier. 15 months. By the time Google had got their act together, Apple had already released the 2nd iteration of iPhone, the 3G. Android (for touch) was totally a reaction to the iPhone and it took Google all that time to re-engineer Android for touch and come up with what was at best a mediocre device notable only for being the first smartphone to offer Android. And that chin. ![]() As it was, I had to wait for my then feature phone contract to expire before getting what was then the new(ish) HTC G2. By that time, of course, other manufacturers were coming on board with their takes on what constituted a great Android phone. And that G2 ended up being buggy rubbish BTW. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:50.









