Sun Sep 9 23:54:25 EDT 2012 Boris Liberman wrote: > > In a similar manner, when I was looking at reviews of some smartphones > > yesterday, I was disappointed that some of them said nothing about quality > > of calls, while describing in detail camera(s), apps, etc. > > When was the last time you were even remotely interested in call > quality, sir? May be when Apple dropped the ball with the so called > "grip of death". Or was it the ball they dropped intentionally? But no > matter, the modern smartphone (or superphone) is practically laptop > computer of 10 years ago and mini-laptop computer of 5 years ago. So, > ability to make phone calls is, well, how to put it, auxiliary > feature...
Boris, that's where your rethorical question falls short: For every phone that I bought, I've always researched the call quality. Call me a dinosaur, but the upcoming phone will be the first smartphone for me, - because I use my phone primarily for phone calls.. (I also have been using it in lieu of my watch for the last 4 years, since my move to Texas, where the watch stainless steel bracelet rusted within just a few months.) > Speaking of which, my company issue Samsung Galaxy S II sux both in > terms of touch quality (I mean, physical response, etc), in terms of > dropped calls (my be property of my area and my specific operator) and > in terms of battery life. So here you go... Thanks for that hint. While having been using Samsung phones exclusively for the last decade, I am actually considering the new Motorola Android Razor M. > > It is interesting to see the current market trends. > > I humbly submit to the court that these trends are not current. You mean they are not new, but they are still current. > > The main advertising points are "14 filter effects, countless creative > > options" (in my firefox, this ad doesn't show all the steps except the > > alst one). > > While just recently it was a race for MegaPixels, now, it's the > > effects.. > It's the Moore's law. Whatever they can extract from increasing > computational power, they will. That's an interesting perspective. You might be right. However, as always, there are exceptions where people are more looking for an aesthetic appeal. Multicolored design by Apple back in late 90s is a good example. (Pentax was not original in that move. :-) ) > Although "soft" (with controllable > low/high setting) effect of my Ricoh GXR does produce some memorable > photos from the family album... Sold! ;-) Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
