Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nexus S Beats iPhone 4 In 'Real World' Web Browsing Tests

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the yeah-but-those-are-only-real-world-results dept.

Android 260

bongey writes "In a series of measured real-world web load tests, the Android-based Nexus S phone spanked the iPhone 4. The Android phone and iPhone 4 median load times were 2.144s and 3.254s respectively. The sample size was 45,000 page loads, across 1000 web sites. It also follows rumors that Apple is intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable."

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Or... (4, Funny)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520610)

Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520662)

Someone is surprised that a phone that's just being released is faster than a phone developed over a year ago and released 9 Months ago?

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520800)

Someone is surprised that a phone that's just being released is faster than a phone developed over a year ago and released 9 Months ago?

By "just being released", you really mean released nearly 3 months ago, right? By saying "9 months ago" when there was really a 5-month differential between release dates shows your bias.

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520912)

Using your brain shows your bias against iPhone users.

Re:Or... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521098)

Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.

The correct holding method is to be standing in queue at the Returns counter.

Re:Or... (0, Flamebait)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521586)

Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.

Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.

Bogus (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520646)

They were using a custom app. Not the default browser. So what they are saying is that their app runs faster on the Nexus S. Not that the Nexus S is faster then the iPhone.

Re:Bogus (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520842)

THIS. Bad test is bad. If you want a good measure of performance, use the native browser on each as that's what the vast majority of users are going to use.

Re:Bogus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521430)

>> Bad test is bad

itards out in masses to defend their ishit.. who would've thought? Lets see - if we get certain facts out of the way, we can claim that the study was wrong and continue to fap on ishit.

Re:Bogus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520922)

They were using a custom app. Not the default browser. So what they are saying is that their app runs faster on the Nexus S. Not that the Nexus S is faster then the iPhone.

And therein is the problem with this study -- it didn't use the actual Web browsers. It used the browser's rendering engines, but through this custom application. That significantly undercuts the results.

-- Information Week [informationweek.com]

I'd have to disagree with Eric Zeman... this is exactly the kind of stuff that's important. If you write an app that relies on the rendering engines as available to a custom app, you would want to know if you're being hog-tied.

Basically, Apple is gaming the benchmarks and deliberately slowing down stuff when it's for 3rd party developers. It's no different that that old quake3/quack3 trick, and the old tricks Microsoft did to guarantee Office ran faster on Windows than competing productivity suites.

Re:Bogus (3, Informative)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521414)

Except that was not the point of the comparison. The test was comparing web page load time.

Epic fail criticism. Not too mention app developers would have access to the update engine. Good grief.

Re:Bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521510)

Read between the lines. Apple fanbois are crying that the test is flawed when what the test ACTUALLY reveals is so much more interesting than what they set out to show in the first place.

Re:Bogus (4, Informative)

coldfarnorth (799174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521108)

First, read the article written by the folks who did the test: http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/ [blaze.io]

Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference. Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.

Re:Bogus (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521392)

First, read the article written by the folks who did the test: http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/ [blaze.io]

Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference.

Nothing in your link supports this. Their update (http://www.blaze.io/business/embeded-browser-vs-native-browser/ [blaze.io] ) basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.

Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.

JavaScript is not the only difference between safari and an embedded web renderer. Safari has different caching and multithreading as well.

Re:Bogus (3, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521484)

Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference.

To go to the trouble of testing the thing with their own app, then testing Safari, publishing the numbers for their own app and not publishing the benchmark for Safari seems obtuse in the extreme. Just tell us the numbers you got for the browser.

Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use,

A web browser renders content and loads it as well as executing stuff; javascript is only one part of the whole operation and only pertains to certain use cases.

they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.

Why estimate when they can just run a benchmark on the actual browser, instead of handwaving?

Re:Bogus (1)

coldfarnorth (799174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521674)

Aaaaannnnd in other news, if you read the link I posted, it contains the answers you seek . . .

One more thing: Is it just me or is your second comment a restatement of what I said in the line above it?

Re:Bogus (3, Interesting)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521206)

Actually, before buying my NEXUS ONE, I looked up quite a few comparison's on youtube. They were pretty much matched, but it some tests the Nexus was faster. In one particular test, by the time the iPhone4 loaded the homepage of the review sites, on the Nexus it was already loaded and a flash video playing. The difference still was just around 1 second, which is not the end of the world of course, but noticeable enough. I concluded that for web browsing, the Nexus is as good or slightly better as the iPhone. And remember, I'm talking about the Nexus One that came out 4 months before the iPhone4. So I do believe there might be something to this... and yeah, I've been a very happy Nexus owner since then. It's longevity is superb - still can't find anything that tops it. I mean yeah, there are better and faster phones out there right now, but I couldn't find a single compelling feature that would prompt me to buy a new phone for the foreseeable future.

Re:Bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521280)

Since then iOS 4.3 has dramatically improved the iPhone 4's rendering speed.

In any case I'm pretty much content with the way modern smartphones render pages. On to 3d performance, please!

Re:Bogus (2)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521424)

They were using a custom app. Not the default browser. So what they are saying is that their app runs faster on the Nexus S. Not that the Nexus S is faster then the iPhone.

That's a bold assumption AC. How do you know it didn't run slower on the android phones? Have you bench marked each application?

Still, what do you expect them to do to get accurate results? Use the actual browsers and sit there with a stopwatch?

How would you approach the problem of getting accurate times?

Primary Source:
http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/ [blaze.io]

The measurement itself was done using the custom apps, which use the platform’s embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone. Manual verification showed that page load performance of the embedded browsers, when properly configured, is effectively identical to the stand-alone browsers. The load times are calculated using the “Document Complete” callback from the browser, which is a standard way of measuring a web page’s load time. As mentioned above, the agents are now a part of a free service available at http://blaze.io/mobile/ [blaze.io] , and we encourage you to try it out.

Methodology
http://www.blaze.io/mobile/methodology/ [blaze.io]

Re:Bogus (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521588)

In other words, "Nunh-UNH!"

Re:Bogus (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521614)

They were using a custom app.

Maybe the point is that on the Nexus you can actually install a custom app.

Re:Bogus (1)

bigNuns (18804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521636)

What they were saying is developing apps with html rendering gives you a much faster rendering in Android when compared to the iPhone. This is kind of a big deal if you ask me... a lot of apps I use clearly are rendering HTML with what I assume are these very rendering engines that were tested.

IT BLEW HELL UP !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520648)

To kingdom come !!

Not surprised (1)

cytoman (792326) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520658)

When it comes to working efficiently, I've always seen that my Nexus S was better than the iPhones that my friends have. This study is just a more methodological and quantitative observation of what I and other Android users already know.

Meh (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520670)

Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life? I don't think this has anything to do with strangling web apps, just different design goals.

Re:Meh (1)

wsanders (114993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520718)

Hm, trade off 110 msec of my life wasted each time I restart an app vs. 3 days standby time with Wifi and Bluetooth on. Touch choice.

Re:Meh (2)

wsanders (114993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520748)

Oops meant 1110. That's more serious. Considering it takes me an average of 7865.349 msec to plug in my charger, still a fair trade..

Re:Meh (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520932)

Considering it takes me an average of 7865.349 msec to plug in my charger, still a fair trade..

Really? You timed this to millisecond precision? And you wonder about wasting time restarting an app?

I bow to you, Master of Misplaced Priorities and Decimal Points.

One hundred thousand Internets - you will need them.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521198)

Woosh

You might want to save some of the internets for yourself.

Re:Meh (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521060)

Touch choice

Pun intended? :-)

Re:Meh (4, Insightful)

SwabTheDeck (1030520) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520874)

Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life? I don't think this has anything to do with strangling web apps, just different design goals.

The iPhone 4 is 777 MHz while the Nexus S is 1 GHz. Both are based on the ARM Corext-A8 and both have 512 MB of RAM. Given the difference in CPU speed, the results of the page load tests don't seem far departed from what would be expected. While the Nexus S is still proportionally a little faster, it isn't so wildly so that it can't be attributed to some minor tweaks in the OS or browser software. Using the term "spanked" seems a bit sensationalist in this instance.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521168)

> Isn't the iPhone's A4 CPU supposedly some hundred MHz slower than the the one in the Nexus S, giving it better battery life?

Better battery life? If iPhones were designed to have a shorter lifespan, customers would be forced to buy new products sooner.
- This is why batteries were designed to be hard to replaceable. They even designed a new screw to make it harder to open it: http://www.ifixit.com/blog/blog/2011/01/20/apples-diabolical-plan-to-screw-your-iphone/
- "The battery life of early models of the iPhone has been criticized by several technology journalists as insufficient and less than Apple's claims": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#Battery
- "satisfaction survey, which gave the "battery aspects" of the iPhone 3G its lowest rating of 2 out of 5 stars": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#Battery

If you think that batteries suck because they had to use cheap parts to keep the price low, think again: "iPhone has a market share of barely 4% of all cellphones, but Apple still pulls in more than 50% of the total profit that global cellphone sales generate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone

Really? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520672)

Page load speed, that's their metric? And 50% faster is spanked? We're talking about computers, not 100m dash times - I expect an order of magnitude difference. How is the actual browsing experience - how easy is it to read and navigate on a 4" device?

I will go so far as to quote from TFA:

"Users don’t always notice the speed gap because websites are sometimes tailored to mobile phones, Blaze said. The difference will become more obvious as users demand richer experiences and move to tablet computers with larger screens.

So the metric their using to judge the devices isn't very noticeable, and probably won't matter on a device this size ever. Great. Guess if you have to break out a ruler to feel good about yourself...

Re:Really? (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520864)

Not to mention that they didn't even use the native browser on each platform, but a custom app, which makes this test even more irrelevant. If you want to measure browser performance, then use the bundled browser that the vast majority of users will be using.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521170)

Especially since if last week's story about slower JavaScript performance in apps that embed WebKit is correct, that means there's a good chance that the native browser in iOS would spank the Android browser despite being on a slower CPU.

Re:Really? (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521372)

I agree. Unless you are going to run two phones side by side, people will not notice the difference.

My bigger concern is that Safari on the iPhone makes for a poor user experience (at least compared to Opera on my old Nokia Communicator). Opera did some nice reflowing of HTML elements to fit web pages on a small screen. The iPhone makes the virtual screen size default to 920px across and relies on zooming in and out to be able to read things properly. It is particularly bad when reading text on a page that does not fix the screen size and just flows to the native page width. It is ridiculous that you should have to scroll horizontally to be able to read text that should just wrap to the screen width.

And unlike Opera, there were no configuration settings to change the way it works.

It gets worse when filling in forms (like I am doing now) because when the huge keyboard is on screen, the zoom level resets to a stupidly large size. This means that you cannot see full field as you type.

As a web developer, I can change the way the zooming works, but this relies on changing the HTML just to suit one browser. I had hoped that we saw the end of that madness with the demise if IE6!

Re:Really? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521602)

Now see, I actually like that about the iPhone (and I believe also the default Android) web browser. The way Opera and the default web browser on my Treo both did it was to try to wrap everything to the screen size. It made most sites look awful and poor attempts to wrap around (undersized to the point of near invisibility) graphics often made things hard to read besides. Render the site the way it's meant to be rendered and I'll zoom in and scroll. If I want to look at the graphics I can zoom them trivially too. Different strokes I guess. I've fount both the default Android and iPhone browsers both make me much happier. I do agree about the zoom on forms, it's one of my few annoyances with iOS Safari.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521662)

Over 1 second faster is huge in terms of user experience and mobile browsers. You misunderstand what the guy is saying. Or, it appears you do. He's saying that on sites with mobile versions that the speed difference is less noticeable. However, not all sites have mobile versions.

The custom app criticism is valid, but you're crazy if you think 1+s of time is insignificant.

Great! (-1, Troll)

happyslasher1 (2019572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520674)

Also, nexuis S contains a GPU that is as powerfull [wordpress.com] as low-mid range desktop GPU! Soon, all my games will be in the phone. Sweet

Re:Great! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520764)

DIAF

More fuel... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520682)

...for the pissing contest.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520686)

I realize Android hasn't garnered much favor here lately, so I'm sure fanbois on both sides of the fence will show up in force ...

... but does anyone, truly, care that much about browsing performance on their phone? I know when I bought my G1, Nexus One, and DroidX the last thing I was concerned about was how fast it rendered webpages.

Maybe you feel differently. So let the flaming commence :P.

Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520904)

You're pretty much bang on.

I just bought an Android after a year as an Apple guy, and I don't really care how quick it is, I care about the fact that my favourite websites work(lots of flash). An extra tenth of a second isn't going to make or break it.

Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521400)

Amen brother! What good is a smart phone if I can't use it to view porn videos while driving???

Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520956)

Yes. Performance of the browser is a critical feature.

Re:I'm probably going to get flamed for this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521570)

But when browsing performance is 'good enough' between both competing mobile products it's like comparing the microsecond difference of the JavaScript interpreters between Chrome/FF4/IE9. If you just browse webpages casually you probably won't care less about browser benchmarks.,

Now if it can push twice the amount of polygons using native OpenGL that's an impressive benchmark (if you care about graphics)...

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520702)

But..But.. But.. If you don't have an iPhone - you do not have an iPhone! Eat this Android fanboys!

Nexus S is a "developer phone" (0)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520704)

It would be more interesting to compare the iPhone to high end Android phones that have their own tv commercials.

Android/iPhone UI performance (1, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520726)

From personal observations, I have noticed that transitions are much smoother on iPhones than on comparable Android phones. For example, if I am browsing photos on an iPhone and I swipe left, I see the image smoothly (60fps or more?) move to the left and the new image smoothly move on. By comparison, every Android phone I have seen implements the same effect, but I see artifacts like tearing or skipping of frames. It looks like it goes at 60fps, then drops down to 5, then back up to 60. I tend to be more sensitive to this type of thing than most people (I see CRT refreshes and tend to get motion sick playing games that bob up and down)

IMHO, this is something Apple has done right all the way back to the original macs, and many other developers don't seem to have a grasp on. Most people don't notice the artifacts directly, but they "feel" it subtly. It makes people just like the iPhone UI more, and they may not be able to put their finger on exactly why.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (3, Informative)

Digicaf (48857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520916)

This has a lot to do with hardware acceleration in the GUI, which for the most part isn't there in any Android below 2.3. I bought my Droid 2 last september and noticed exactly what you mention. In 2.3, that's no longer true. It feels MUCH smoother. In fact, my wife went out a month ago and picked up a low end device (with 2.3) that has a much better response rate and feel despite having a processor only half as fast.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (1, Troll)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520950)

That's generally it too.

the IOS UI feels and responds better even under load than android does. think about it, a first generation iphone does smoothly what android needs gigerbread and twice the processor to accomplish.

Sure the newer phone loads websites better, but the UI is so under performing that it causes all that "saved" time to be wasted again.

the Ipad(first) and the Xoom is the same way. Sure the Xoom is loads faster at individual tasks, however, the interface lags such that it doesn't seem that way. It is really noticable on a galaxy tab, however that is running far outdated(and never to be updated) software anyways.

of course that is because apple can tweak the software to run better on a given set of hardware, than anyone else too. Allowing Apple to do more with less.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (0, Troll)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521264)

There are only so many CPU cycles to go around. By showing you that nice smooth 60FPS scrolling animation, they are slowing down something else that probably has some actual productive function. Would you rather have a smooth transition that takes 1 second or a jerky animation (or none at all) that takes .5 seconds? The different answers to that question are what separate "Apple Users" from the rest of us.

This goes back to the iOS app startup "screenshot" requirement. Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521334)

I absolutely hate the startup screenshot thing in iOS, because when it takes 5+ seconds to load the application I'm mashing the screen wondering when it's going to start. If it said "Loading" or at least looked like a splash screen I'd be less impatient on waiting.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (1)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521362)

Apple requires apps to include a screenshot to be displayed before the app completely opens, to trick users into thinking the phone is faster than it is. The practical effect is that every single app is 20-100kB larger and starts a fraction of a second slower, but "Apple Users" don't care about that, they just want it to be prettier.

You are misinformed or a liar. I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN. In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (1)

Twon (46168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521536)

Does the perceived responsiveness of the device count for anything? I'll happily eat that fraction of a second longer the app will take to start up if it means I won't be wondering whether or not I tapped the wrong icon (or missed completely) and the phone can't be bothered to tell me. Similarly, the feeling I get when I see choppy (or worse, stuttery) animation isn't "I'm glad they're using these cycles to compute something more important!" It's "I could be doing this faster myself on an abacus." This is, of course, utterly subjective and irrational, but it's the squishy human factors stuff that Apple's got figured out.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521024)

i agree 100%. I'm an android "fanboi" but I'll admit that I'm really jealous of how smooth the screens swipe on iOS. Then again, on the higher end Android phones, the hiccup is not nearly as noticible either. On the sub $150USD models, the animation is atrocious.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (0)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521086)

There is a very simple reason... "native code exection" . The java fanbois can claim what they want when it comes to app performance iPhone smokes any android device. This has little to do with the hardware as the iPhone is usually at a disadvantage but native code execution means the hardware can be pushed to it's limits without burning cycles on a jvm.

Some idiot will undoubtedly bring up the NDK and yes it exists but it is a nasty hack at best. If Android was such a hot development platform their would be a sea of quality games for it but that is not the case now is it?

As for the browser being slower I could care less, just means I sell more apps in itunes. I might use the browser on my phone at the most once a month, apps on the other hand all day long.

Re:Android/iPhone UI performance (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521518)

A lot of this depends on the phone though - most of the time on my Droid X the transitions are just as smooth as my friends iPhone 4.

Apple/Oranges (5, Interesting)

beanball75 (126064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520816)

Someone pointed out already that the way they tested is with apps that use the browser engine available to apps. As the second link says in the main story (probably, I'm too lazy to RTFA, I read others already), the iOS browser engine doesn't use the Nitro javascript engine.

I found one link that discusses it, but I'm sure there are better ones:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229301178

Re:Apple/Oranges (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520892)

^^^ This.

Where are mod points when you need them? The methodology was flawed since they built a custom app, rather than using the actual browser. Admittedly, there is a bug in iOS at the moment, but most people don't access the web that way.

That's nice. (4, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520828)

That's nice.

Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?

You don't say.

Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.

Re:That's nice. (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521222)

That's nice.

Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?

You don't say.

Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.

Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.

Re:That's nice. (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521316)

Hey, right around when my contract is up. Sweet.

Personally, I think it's a ploy, scare the consumer into being glad that Apple took mercy on them and "looked out for their interests." (Hah.) But, if not, a 32GB iPhone 4 holds value like nobodies business, so I'll recoup the cost of whatever top of the line model is available for an Android handset. If they do indeed pull it. But I'm not ready to believe they'd take such a step backwards until it's actually gone. Then, I voice my opinion with my dollars.

Re:That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521390)

That's nice.

Now, how quickly does it play Netflix movies? What's it's Hulu Plus app like, does it work nicely?

You don't say.

Seriously, for shame. I really do want an Android phone. It just isn't as functional yet. Another year or two of maturity and I think I'll finally get to switch.

Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.

[citation needed]

But seriously do you have a link that proves it? I know there is a lot of speculation around these parts, but I am curious the source of this claim.

How about CSS support? (2)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520832)

Since the beginning, the iPhone has had busted CSS support for position: fixed; elements, which is terribly unfortunate as it makes Game! [wittyrpg.com] difficult to play. How does the Nexus S fare?

2.144s and 3.254s (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520834)

That's damn fast. Even my 750k high speed line can't do that.
Can the Nexus run Opera?

Re:2.144s and 3.254s (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520988)

"750k high speed line"

Welcome to the future. Is that a real 5.25" floppy disk in your trapper-keeper?

Re:2.144s and 3.254s (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521160)

Yeah 750k is slower than your 20,000k line, but show me where else I can get a hulu.com-compatible line (for watching Stargate and other shows) for only $15/month. It doesn't exist.

>>>5 1/4" floppy disk

Fixed that for you. ;-) And no I upgraded to the new "stiffies" a long time ago.

Re:2.144s and 3.254s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521660)

Yeah 750k is slower than your 20,000k line, but show me where else I can get a hulu.com-compatible line (for watching Stargate and other shows) for only $15/month. It doesn't exist.

A 20M line? Hell, I'm out here in the boonies (central Kentucky), and I could get 50M easily if I wanted. Are you really sure you want to keep trying to prove you're anywhere near up with the times?

And what's a "hulu.com-compatible line"? How does this differ from a normal line? You ARE aware that you can get to hulu.com from other ISPs, right? Do you even have any clue what you're talking about? Or are you just withholding vital pieces of information that would make you not sound like a moron in the hopes that revealing it afterward will make you look clever, like a troll? You're a troll, aren't you?

>>>5 1/4" floppy disk

Fixed that for you. ;-)

Yep, you're a troll. Thank you, please drive through.

Re:2.144s and 3.254s (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521396)

That's damn fast. Even my 750k high speed line can't do that.

AT&T's blazingly fast "broadband" DSL.

And this is how Apple shot themselves in the foot (0)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520838)

Because if you're going to intentionally slow down your own platform, and hence, making your own platform inferior to others using the very same browser and JS engine, what you get is a very nice opening for the competition to claim superiority over you (and by rights they shall, since you suck). Ta-da: Apple's 101 on how to shoot yourself in the foot.

You tell 'm, bucko! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521054)

Apple is done for, now that you have told them off. Or they might just continue raking in the billions by making stuff that people want to buy.

Re:You tell 'm, bucko! (1)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521138)

Well, being the king of the hill is hard. So if Apple stops to deliver superiority over the competition, reality distortion field not withstanding, what point would there be to buy them?

Here troll, have some food. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521618)

Because if you're going to intentionally slow down your own platform, and hence, making your own platform inferior to others using the very same browser and JS engine, what you get is a very nice opening for the competition to claim superiority over you (and by rights they shall, since you suck).

Ta-da: Apple's 101 on how to shoot yourself in the foot.

Except that they didn't slow down the platform. They merely added optimizations to their browser app; other apps still run as fast as they ever did before the optimization.

funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520854)

Most of the comments here pretty much sum up my initial thoughts. Ridiculous test, different hardware, apples to androids. That being said, I don't know why an application using safari to browse would not benefit from speed increases applied to the browser as a whole. I find the 'newer platform' comment ridiculous as well.

There are more than two operating systems. (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520894)

Why not also include WP7? Has it been written off before people even try it?

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520994)

Why not also include WP7? Has it been written off before people even try it?

Why would you want to run Word Perfect on a cell phone?

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521258)

I think he meant WordPress 7. Still doesn't make any sense, however.

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521178)

Has it been written off before people even try it?

Given that this is from the same company that gave us the Kin, I'm willing to say yes, and they work in Redmond, Washington.

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521466)

Given that the Kin was made by a second party developer... well, you know.

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (1)

anethema (99553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521472)

Yes

Re:There are more than two operating systems. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521562)

So, the next question is "why?"

This just in... (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520898)

Just-released gadget is faster than year-old gadget! You know It's news, because it has something to do with Apple!

Re:This just in... (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520996)

Sorry, I don't really keep up on phones... looks like it's been out a couple months already.

Still, it's a bit silly to compare them, since in a few more months we'll be screaming "iPhone 5 beats Nexus S!", then later "Nexus 3 beats iPhone 5!"...

Re:This just in... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521028)

If I have money to spend on a phone today, it's relevant.

How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebait? (4, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520986)

Really, this is pretty much a new low in comment-baiting for Slashdot.

This so-called "test" is so utterly and completely unscientific as to be not worth the service space it is stored on.

Period.

It's supposed to be NEWS for Nerds, and this hardly qualifies. And, not content to troll on its own, the summary has to link to ANOTHER Flamebait summary to "support" its "point".

Note to Slashdot: You can do better than this; so DO it already!

Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521052)

Well, no, it can't, because they're using an iPhone to check the submissions for postworthiness, and they just don't have time to make sure they're all good.

Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521066)

Oh stop whining. We, as usual, are ignoring both TFA and TFS. We're just happily bouncing our keyboards and gabbing about random things. I'm sure you've noticed that the comments have nothing at all to do with the subject, the article, each other or the laws of Thermodynamics. It's just about Apple and occasionally Microsoft.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you another time.

Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521154)

I think they have proven time and time again that they can't do any better.

Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521260)

I find that excluding timothy and kdawson is a good start towards that end. Sadly, the exclusions don't work in the slashboxes, so I occasionally stumble onto this type of drivel.

Re:How Do I Moderate an Entire Article as Flamebai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521290)

It's supposed to be NEWS for Nerds, and this hardly qualifies.

Yes, since iPhone is a toy.

Who Cares?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521046)

Stupid and irrelevant test and article. Like this is going to make any difference in sales. What a waste of time.

Android and iphone differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521194)

Having used both (Android first), I noticed the following:

* The entire user interface/interaction is much much better for iphone. It knows howto act properly in many situations, simply put:

* knows how to dial a phone number if I click on an email phone number,

* the movements are MUCH smoother (Android even with a 1 GHz chip is jerky in movements),

* calendar knwos how to create events automatically from emails etc etc.

* Battery life is great too. Small voice wuality difference too i think. May be all little liktte things, but they add up. the

* UI is much more polished as well.

* Bluetooth connects much faster.

* front -facing camera. General camera quality.

Only thing I miss about the droid i the widget-based customization, and the quick bluetooth turn on-off. With the iphone batteyr life, it's not a big deal. Also, the moment apple releases an app for the power control that's done too.

No real way to measure? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521254)

They got a skeptical view counter point...

From the article:

âoeWe know thereâ(TM)s no such thing as a perfect Web page load measurement.â

My first thought was, why not have a simple page that grabs the current time, loads a page in the iframe, when the iframe triggers it's ready() event, grab the current time and compare against the start for a load time analysis? the overhead of having it in an iframe can't be *that* bad can it?

Re:No real way to measure? (1)

rreay (50160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521444)

why not have a simple page that grabs the current time, loads a page in the iframe, when the iframe triggers it's ready() event, grab the current time and compare against the start for a load time analysis?

Because that may not be correct either. In their iPad 2 preview [anandtech.com] Anandtech went back to manual timing of web page loading because

"It turns out that Honeycomb's browser was stopping our page load timer sooner than iOS', which resulted in some funny numbers when we got to the 4.3/Honeycomb comparison. To ensure accuracy we went back to timing by hand (each test was repeated at least 5 times and we present an average of the results)."

While they don't talk about their method (either) they decided they couldn't trust whatever automated system they had. Obviously there are all kinds of assumptions and differences in the test bed but the basic point is you can't necessarily trust the browser to tell you when it's ready either as an embedded view or stand alone browser.

I simply do not care (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521262)

This is just like all those articles that say that BrowserX has a javascript engine that is 15% faster than BrowserY. As an engineer that is a tiny bit interesting (only a tiny bit mind you) but as an end user I could not possibly care less. I honestly cannot feel the difference even if it is measurable. Benchmarks hold little fascination for me and are almost always irrelevant to my choice of device. A 2 second versus a 3 second load time? Sure there is a difference but not enough for me to really notice much less care. I hope they continue to improve it but I'm not about to buy a smartphone based solely on webpage loads that are just a bit faster and neither is (almost) anyone else.

Why is the reply always "no one cares about" (2)

bongey (974911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521382)

Why is that every time you show some Android product has better feature or performance, call it X, than an competing Apple product the reply from Apple fans follows this logic..

People don't care about X

Eventually Apples popularity will start to fade and people WILL care.
1 second difference can add up to a lot of time if you read many web pages, or you are searching for something. Just do the math. Say 100 modest amount web pages a day , 365 days a year. So you have (100*365)/3600 = 10.13 extra hours spent a year staring at screen that is doing nothing. In both tests they used the embedded browser for both handsets respectively. From their testing suite I don't see how they could throw off the benchmark that much, 45,000 samples is a pretty significant sample size.
More on there testing methodology is here http://www.blaze.io/mobile/methodology/ [blaze.io] .
Finally the second link is complaints from Apple iOS developers. iOS 4.3 browser cannot use the new Nitro javascript engine in full screen mode, html 5 caching is missing, and mode in which the page is drawn on the screen has changed such that it is slower than native apps. Bug or not, it currently slower and no one knows why except Apple.

Well... no. (5, Informative)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521434)

First, Apple isn't "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." They have added a new JS interpreter (actually a just-in-time JS compiler) to Safari, but not to the "normal" web views that other apps can embed. This means only Safari is faster now, others are as fast as before.

Second, this test is flawed since it does not use Safari. It uses a custom app which uses neither the new JS engine nor the better caching of Safari or asynchronous multithreading.

Re:Well... no. (1)

bongey (974911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521664)

The predicate "rumor" comes before the statement "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." Means it doesn't mean it is true, but there were some "bugs" or new "features" that were introduced from the 4.2 to 4.3 release, of which there is not official replies from Apple.

Hmmpf... (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521698)

They show that they can beat the iPhone in one discipline (browser speed) with some cheating (custom app, not the default browser). Well, that's not the trick. You have to beat the complete package to be the better phone.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>