Great Value: What you get from Android phones

by Uluroo — September 26, 2017

The more ingredients, the better.


If there's one thing a good cook knows, it's that if you take a bunch of, well, okay ingredients and throw 'em in a pot, the result will be a masterpiece.

The same principle applies to smartphones. The more features, the better. As long as they're all okay, the final product should be great as long as you can throw together a ton of features, you're guaranteed a winner.

Here to tell us about it is Inc's Minda Zetlin, who says that "Those Cool New iPhone X Features? Android Phones Had Them First." In case you were wondering, this is not quite the biggest clickbait in history (more on that later), but it certainly comes in very high on the list, neck-and-neck with the likes of Jack Morse.

Innovation at Apple ain't what it used to be.

Yes! The last few market-defining devices it created—the iPad, the iPad Pro (it's almost a category of its own), and the Apple Watch, weren't as big a deal as the Mac and the iPhone. So, holding Apple to a different standard than its opponents, we should say that innovation at Apple "ain't what it used to be."

Before we go any further, it's interesting to note that the Android phones that had these features first are all copying the original iPhone. Just wanted to get that out there. But, as we reasonable people know, this is irrelevant. The fact that the iPhone came first doesn't mean that the iPhone is better. The same goes for Android phones with newer features.

It was yet another big Apple announcement. The company announced its three newest iPhones: the iPhone X, iPhone 8, and iPhone 8 Plus. They have a bunch of cool new features that the company demonstrated at its big product launch.

But wait! Are these features really new, or is Apple scamming you with its fake "innovation"? You have two guesses.

While you're considering whether to fork out the big bucks for one of these smartphones, consider this: Nearly every gee-whiz feature of the new iPhones has existed in one or more Android phone for a while now.

So why don't you go out and buy those Android phones from years ago, because they're obviously so much—OW, ULUROO PULLED HIS SARCASM MUSCLE.

Dear readers, please fasten your seat belts and keep your hands, arms, feet, and legs inside the vehicle at all times. And brace yourselves. Because this freight train of flawed logic is about to jump the tracks and plummet over the thousand-foot drop that is Bad Examples Gulch.

That bezel-less screen everyone loves? The Sharp Aquos Crystal had it in 2014.

Oooooooooookay. Okay. Okay. The Sharp Aquos Crystal can be considered bezel-less if you literally chop off the bottom, what, 15% of the phone. It has an impressive tiny frame around the top and sides, but at the bottom of the phone is a bezel so huge that it's ugly. As in, really ugly. And the selfie camera is at the bottom of the phone. By the first example provided, we can see that this awesome bezel-less display on the Sharp had some very serious tradeoffs, including the look of the phone itself.

Wireless charging? The Samsung Galaxy S6 had it in 2015.

"Galaxy S6 Failure Hands Apple Another Victory."

So did the Google Nexus 4 in 2014 (and ever since).

And the Google Pixel does not support wireless charging. Isn't that interesting? And the Nexus line was the most popular smartphone line the world has ever seen.

Uluroo needs to stop before he tears the sarcasm muscle.

For an article on a site that's supposed to cover business and the like, this one sure brings up a lot of failures.

Facial recognition goes all the way back to Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), launched in 2012.

If we're going to do it this way, smartphones go all the way back to the original iPhone in 2007. But we're reasonable. Comparing Android's facial recognition to Apple's is absurd. Apple has brought a ton of innovation to facial scanning technology because Face ID can't, ya know, be hacked like the Galaxy S8's facial recognition can. In fact, the Galaxy S8 and the iPhone X share the same number of secure biometric unlocking technologies: one.

But wait, does Apple really want to be first?

Well, it's good that we got to asking this halfway through the article and your headline didn't seem like the opposite of this at all.

while Apple may not have done any of these things first, it seems to have done them really, really well... Certainly, the 2012 version of facial recognition was far from flawless.

Wait, so this article really was clickbait? Because it's starting to seem like clickbait. It seems like this article was so titled because there would turn out to be some reasonable discussion of—

Although, so is the notion that facial recognition is needed in a world where most smartphones already have fingerprint readers.

Who really wants a more secure biometric unlocking system? Who needs a smartphone anyway? Where does this stop? Are we supposed to have nothing but what we "need" and not innovate any further?

Imagine how tough it must be, being Apple. People like Minda Zetlin say that Apple isn't innovating enough and that it's just catching up to its competitors. But then they turn around and try to say that innovation shouldn't exist at all. They go from "Androids had facial recognition first" to "Who needs facial recognition?" And it's really annoying because they are the people who are trying to stop the innovation they hypocritically support.

Here's another business thing Inc. should consider. Apple did not become the most valuable company in the world by giving consumers what they thought they needed or wanted. Apple is not sitting on over $200 billion because it made computers with text-based interfaces and rotary dial phones. And it certainly isn't the company it is today because it thought it had to listen to what people thought they wanted. Because you know what? Apple knew what people would want. And it didn't listen to the Minda Zetlins of 2006 who said, "Well, most phones already have a keyboard, so who needs a touchscreen?"

It wasn't always so. The iPhone itself is a great reminder of the innovator that Apple used to be. Before Apple, no one had ever imagined making a phone without a keyboard. No one had made a tablet with a touchscreen.

And this logic exists in a vacuum and cannot apply to things like facial recognition! Now, all innovation should cease.

Apple did bring one piece of completely new innovation to the iPhone X, 8 and 8 Plus: face-tracking animojis...

Below that is a video of Animoji, but everyone has already seen that so it's pointless to include it. Anyway, this is not the "one" new innovation Apple brought to the iPhone X. The iPhone X has Portrait Lighting on both cameras, a unique design (despite the fact that it's bezel-less, it's different), and a chip that blows away Android phones.

So yes, if you truly desire a smartphone that can translate your facial expressions onto the face of an animated unicorn (or the infamous poop animoji), well that might be a good reason to shell out $700 or more for one of the new iPhones.

And why not be inaccurate in as many ways as possible? The iPhone 8 and 8 Plus don't have Animoji, so you would have to spend $999 or more. But that isn't the point. If Minda Zetlin has to minimize Apple's innovation by talking about literally one new thing Apple brought to the table this year, then maybe she shouldn't be writing a column about why Apple "isn't innovating." Or maybe about Apple at all. This entire piece demonstrated a robust, stubborn unwillingness to accept the facts of what's new about the iPhone X. People are not going to buy the X solely because of Animoji. Maybe they, you know, want a phone that's faster than Android phones. Or maybe they want a good camera. Or maybe they aren't like Minda Zetlin, who would have had to put her fingers in her ears during the Apple Special Event in order to miss so much.

But in the end, features are not what make a smartphone great, much as ingredients do not make a dish great. The finished meal, the taste of everything combined, is what matters. It's why millions of people continue to use iPhones even though they may not have wireless charging or bezel-less screens yet.

Saying that phone A is better than phone B because phone A has more features is about as lazy as listing the ingredients of a Great Value ice cream sandwich and thinking those make it better. Maybe it has more ingredients, but that doesn't make it automatically the better candidate. It may not be as good for your tongue. Or your health, for that matter. You know, because some of them blow up.

Oh wait, that was the Android phones.