The Samsung Galaxy Nexus is finally available in the U.S. from Verizon Wireless. The Nexus is the first device in the U.S. to run Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), the most recent version of Google's Android operating system.
In reviewing the OS, PCMag mobile analyst Sascha Segan noted that ICS "adds dozens of features, changes and improves the interface, and makes much better use of the latest smartphone hardware." That makes the Galaxy Nexus an especially big deal.
The phone runs on Verizon's 4G LTE network, which just celebrated its first-year anniversary and is now available in 190 markets. Verizon now has a bunch of killer LTE smartphones, so we decided to see how the Galaxy Nexus stacks up against the current leaders, the Motorola Droia Bionic and the Motorola Droid RAZR. Take a look at the specs for each phone in the chart below.
The Galaxy Nexus features a 4.65-inch HD Super AMOLED display with 1280-by-720 resolution, which blows the competition away, both in terms of size and resolution. But it's powered by a dual-core 1.2-GHz TI OMAP4460 processor, which puts it right in line with the Bionic and the RAZR.
The Nexus has a 5-megapixel rear-facing camera and 1.3-megapixel front-facing camera for video chat. That's a step down from the 8-megapixel rear-facing cameras on the Bionic and the RAZR—though we were actually a bit disappointed by the Bionic's camera performance in our tests
The Galaxy Nexus includes 1GB of RAM and 32GB of storage, but lacks a microSD card slot. The Bionic and RAZR, on the other hand, both come with 16GB of internal memory, and 16GB microSD cards, expandable to 32GB, so ultimately they can store up to 48GB.
The one spec that most people will be looking at, however, is support for Ice Cream Sandwich, and there's no competition there. While Samsung's Galaxy Nexus features ICS right out of the box, Motorola says the Droid RAZR and Droid Bionic will be getting ICS updates at some point in the future. But there's no word on when, and we've seen users wait on updates for quite some time in the past.
Then of course, there are also some features you can't compare in the box above, like the diamond-cut aluminum accents, tapered corners, stainless steel core, and laser-cut woven Kevlar fiber that make up the Droid RAZR. Or the incredibly sharp, incredibly large 720p display on the Galaxy Nexus. The next-gen handset also boasts a super-thin design profile and a curved back that's contoured for a "softer, more natural look and feel." The buttonless design and slip-resistant hyperskin backing are also worth mentioning. And don't forget the Droid Bionic's ability to transform into a desktop or laptop computer via some additional accessories.
So which phone should you get? If you want your Ice Cream Sandwich, and you want it now, get the Galaxy Nexus. But judging by the rest of the specs alone, there is no clear cut answer. Take a look at our reviews of the Galaxy Nexus, Droid Bionic, and the Droid RAZR to help you decide. And for more Nexus info, see our unboxing below.
Source: PCMag
In reviewing the OS, PCMag mobile analyst Sascha Segan noted that ICS "adds dozens of features, changes and improves the interface, and makes much better use of the latest smartphone hardware." That makes the Galaxy Nexus an especially big deal.
The phone runs on Verizon's 4G LTE network, which just celebrated its first-year anniversary and is now available in 190 markets. Verizon now has a bunch of killer LTE smartphones, so we decided to see how the Galaxy Nexus stacks up against the current leaders, the Motorola Droia Bionic and the Motorola Droid RAZR. Take a look at the specs for each phone in the chart below.
The Galaxy Nexus features a 4.65-inch HD Super AMOLED display with 1280-by-720 resolution, which blows the competition away, both in terms of size and resolution. But it's powered by a dual-core 1.2-GHz TI OMAP4460 processor, which puts it right in line with the Bionic and the RAZR.
The Nexus has a 5-megapixel rear-facing camera and 1.3-megapixel front-facing camera for video chat. That's a step down from the 8-megapixel rear-facing cameras on the Bionic and the RAZR—though we were actually a bit disappointed by the Bionic's camera performance in our tests
The Galaxy Nexus includes 1GB of RAM and 32GB of storage, but lacks a microSD card slot. The Bionic and RAZR, on the other hand, both come with 16GB of internal memory, and 16GB microSD cards, expandable to 32GB, so ultimately they can store up to 48GB.
The one spec that most people will be looking at, however, is support for Ice Cream Sandwich, and there's no competition there. While Samsung's Galaxy Nexus features ICS right out of the box, Motorola says the Droid RAZR and Droid Bionic will be getting ICS updates at some point in the future. But there's no word on when, and we've seen users wait on updates for quite some time in the past.
Then of course, there are also some features you can't compare in the box above, like the diamond-cut aluminum accents, tapered corners, stainless steel core, and laser-cut woven Kevlar fiber that make up the Droid RAZR. Or the incredibly sharp, incredibly large 720p display on the Galaxy Nexus. The next-gen handset also boasts a super-thin design profile and a curved back that's contoured for a "softer, more natural look and feel." The buttonless design and slip-resistant hyperskin backing are also worth mentioning. And don't forget the Droid Bionic's ability to transform into a desktop or laptop computer via some additional accessories.
So which phone should you get? If you want your Ice Cream Sandwich, and you want it now, get the Galaxy Nexus. But judging by the rest of the specs alone, there is no clear cut answer. Take a look at our reviews of the Galaxy Nexus, Droid Bionic, and the Droid RAZR to help you decide. And for more Nexus info, see our unboxing below.
Source: PCMag
When you're shopping for an HDTV, there are plenty of factors to consider. Chief among them is the type of display. While boxy, bulky CRTs are long dead and mammoth rear-projection HDTVs are all but extinct, the HDTV market currently offers three distinct choices in display technologies: plasma, traditional CCFL-backlit LCD, and LED-backlit LCD. For years, the question of which technology reigned supreme has remained unanswered.
In the early days of HDTVs, plasma, with its inky blacks and top-notch picture quality, was the prevalent flat-panel technology, especially among videophiles. Gradually, thinner, more energy-efficient LCDs with CCFL backlighting became less expensive and more capable and started gaining ground. The difference between plasma and LCD wavered for some time, with each offering different economic and visual benefits depending on the model, price, and time in the life cycle of HDTVs. But in the past couple of years, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated LED backlighting, we finally have a true winner. With its unmatched energy efficiency, LED-based LCD is the best flat-panel HDTV technology. Unfortunately, it's also generally the most expensive. (Though LED HDTV prices have come down considerably over the past year, and continue to drop all the time.) If it's in your budget, the choice is clear: Pay the premium and get an LED-lit HDTV.
The Basics: What's the Difference Between LCD, LED, and Plasma?
The three technologies are vastly different, particularly how each the screen is lit. In plasma HDTVs, the phosphors that create the image on the screen light up themselves, and don't need any backlighting. For LCD HDTVs, however, the liquid crystal screen does not illuminate, requiring a separate light source. That's where the difference between "regular" LCD screens (also known as CCFL-backlit LCD) and LED-backlit LCD screens (also known as LED-LCD, or just LED screens) come in. Traditional LCD HDTVs use cold cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to illuminate the screen. CCFLs are similar to the fluorescent lights you might see in your lamps and overhead light fixtures. They use a charged gas to produce light. LED-LCD screens, like their name implies, use light emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the display.
Several factors can be influenced by the type of HDTV display you choose. Among them, the most prominent are screen thickness, brightness, darkness, energy efficiency, and price. Ideally, you want an HDTV that's affordable, paper-thin, can get face-of-the-sun-bright and black-hole-dark, and consumes less than a watt. That's currently impossible, but LED-backlit LCD HDTVs can come closer than the other two technologies.
For this advantage, LED HDTVs command a premium; for all major HDTV manufacturers, LED-backlit HDTVs can cost a few hundred dollars more than CCFL-backlit HDTVs of the same size. Generally, plasma HDTVs tend to be the least expensive, priced at equal to or slightly less than CCFL-backlit HDTVs. However, that savings means the screen will be thicker and much more power-hungry, even if it does offer as good a picture as an LED-backlit HDTV. For example, Samsung's 46-inch CCFL-backlit LCD HDTVs begin at $799.99 (the 600 series), and can get as pricey as $1,699.99 (the 750 series). Samsung offers 50-inch 1080p plasma HDTVs (there are no 46-inch models currently available, and 52-inch CCFL-backlit LCDs start at $1,299.99 with the 530 series) for as little as $1,149.99 (the 540 series) and as much as $2,299.99 (the 8000 plasma series). For the extra size, that bump up in price is reasonable. Meanwhile, 46-inch Samsung LED HDTVs start at $1,199.99 (the 6050 LED series) and can become as expensive as $4,999.99 (the 9000 LED series). LED HDTVs don't have to be super-expensive, but they almost always cost more than their CCFL-backlit and plasma counterparts. Considering the excellent picture quality and significant benefits in screen thickness and power consumption, that extra amount on the price tag is well worth it.
Image Quality
How good the picture looks, especially if you're a videophile or a cinema fanatic, is the most vital aspect of any HDTV. Specifically, peak white and black levels determine how detailed a picture can look on a screen. Poor white levels mean fine details can get washed out in bright scenes, while poor black levels mean shadows swallow up parts of the picture in dark scenes. A very wide gamut from dark to light lets the HDTV show the tiniest details, regardless of how bright or dark the movie gets. In our tests, we measure white and black levels by luminance using a chromameter. A mediocre HDTV might produce black levels of 0.05 to 0.07 cd/m2, while an excellent HDTV might offer levels of 0.01 to 0.03 cd/m2. Historically, plasma HDTVs have produced the best black levels, specifically the now-defunct Pioneer Kuro HDTV brand. The Kuro's screen got so satisfyingly dark that it remained a popular HDTV for enthusiasts long after Pioneer stopped making the sets. The domination of plasma in this field, however, is over. Our current Editors' Choice HDTV, the LED-based LG Infinia 47LW5600, puts out only 0.01 cd/m2, the best level we can measure. That any LED-backlit LCD can get that dark shows how far the technology has come.
White levels don't matter quite as much as black levels, because it's more difficult for screens to show fine details in shadows and easier to crank out very bright whites with backlighting, but they can still matter. At this, LED backlighting again triumphs. The Panasonic TC-L42E30 reaches a staggering 473.50 cd/m2 white levels with modest 0.04 cd/m2 black levels. It completely (and literally) outshines the Panasonic TC-P50ST30, its plasma HDTV cousin that puts out only 107 cd/m2 peak white while offering a slightly better 0.03 cd/m2 black level.
Size and Power
Screen thickness isn't the most important aspect of an HDTV, but initially, it's the most noticeable. A super-thin HDTV is not only visually striking, but it's more easily mounted on a wall, and can be more readily arranged, displayed, or concealed as part of your home theater. At this, LED lighting wins hands-down. The CCFLs that backlight standard LCD screens are much thicker than LEDs, and plasma screens require a fair amount of room for the actual plasma cells. LEDs, on the other hand, can be extremely tiny while being extremely bright, meaning an array of LEDs along the edge of an LCD can light it up while completely removing the backlight from the equation (in this configuration, the LEDs are considered "edge-lighting," not backlighting, though the term backlighting can cover all screen illumination). Samsung's 8000 series LED HDTVs measure a very-svelte 0.9 inches, thanks to its edge-lighting. To contrast, Samsung's 8000 series plasma HDTV models measure 1.4 inches thick, and its CCFL-backlit 750 series HDTVs measure a bulkier 3.2 inches thick. You could literally cram three 8000-series HDTVs front-to-back inside the space of one 750-series screen. However, edge-lit LCDs can't produce quite as dark blacks as LED-array-backlit LCDs. With a full wall of LEDs behind the screen, individual lights can dim and turn off to produce the best black levels when the picture needs them. However, this means the screen can't get quite as thin as if it was edge-lit. Still, even LED-backlit screens can stay remarkably thin. The LG Infinia 47LW5600 measures just 1.2 inches thick.
Energy efficiency is an important factor when choosing an HDTV, and between the three technologies LED-backlit HDTVs win again. LED HDTVs consistently consume around 100 watts or less, while plasma HDTVs can eat up two or three times as much. The 47-inch LG Infinia 47LW5600 uses a meager 95 watts, and the slightly smaller 42-inch Panasonic TC-L42E30 needs just 78 watts. Compare that with plasma HDTVs like the 42-inch Panasonic TC-P42GT25, which eats up 236 watts, or the 50-inch Samsung PN50C590G4F, which uses a staggering 272 watts. However, you can't be certain that an LED-backlit HDTV will be energy efficient. It's a good general rule, but some HDTVs, like the Vizio XVT3D650SV, eats up 165 watts (although that's for a massive 65-inch screen), and the Sony Bravia 46EX720 consumes 112 watts. Even still, these are far better numbers than you'll get with any plasma screen.
In the early days of HDTVs, plasma, with its inky blacks and top-notch picture quality, was the prevalent flat-panel technology, especially among videophiles. Gradually, thinner, more energy-efficient LCDs with CCFL backlighting became less expensive and more capable and started gaining ground. The difference between plasma and LCD wavered for some time, with each offering different economic and visual benefits depending on the model, price, and time in the life cycle of HDTVs. But in the past couple of years, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated LED backlighting, we finally have a true winner. With its unmatched energy efficiency, LED-based LCD is the best flat-panel HDTV technology. Unfortunately, it's also generally the most expensive. (Though LED HDTV prices have come down considerably over the past year, and continue to drop all the time.) If it's in your budget, the choice is clear: Pay the premium and get an LED-lit HDTV.
The Basics: What's the Difference Between LCD, LED, and Plasma?
The three technologies are vastly different, particularly how each the screen is lit. In plasma HDTVs, the phosphors that create the image on the screen light up themselves, and don't need any backlighting. For LCD HDTVs, however, the liquid crystal screen does not illuminate, requiring a separate light source. That's where the difference between "regular" LCD screens (also known as CCFL-backlit LCD) and LED-backlit LCD screens (also known as LED-LCD, or just LED screens) come in. Traditional LCD HDTVs use cold cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to illuminate the screen. CCFLs are similar to the fluorescent lights you might see in your lamps and overhead light fixtures. They use a charged gas to produce light. LED-LCD screens, like their name implies, use light emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the display.
Several factors can be influenced by the type of HDTV display you choose. Among them, the most prominent are screen thickness, brightness, darkness, energy efficiency, and price. Ideally, you want an HDTV that's affordable, paper-thin, can get face-of-the-sun-bright and black-hole-dark, and consumes less than a watt. That's currently impossible, but LED-backlit LCD HDTVs can come closer than the other two technologies.
For this advantage, LED HDTVs command a premium; for all major HDTV manufacturers, LED-backlit HDTVs can cost a few hundred dollars more than CCFL-backlit HDTVs of the same size. Generally, plasma HDTVs tend to be the least expensive, priced at equal to or slightly less than CCFL-backlit HDTVs. However, that savings means the screen will be thicker and much more power-hungry, even if it does offer as good a picture as an LED-backlit HDTV. For example, Samsung's 46-inch CCFL-backlit LCD HDTVs begin at $799.99 (the 600 series), and can get as pricey as $1,699.99 (the 750 series). Samsung offers 50-inch 1080p plasma HDTVs (there are no 46-inch models currently available, and 52-inch CCFL-backlit LCDs start at $1,299.99 with the 530 series) for as little as $1,149.99 (the 540 series) and as much as $2,299.99 (the 8000 plasma series). For the extra size, that bump up in price is reasonable. Meanwhile, 46-inch Samsung LED HDTVs start at $1,199.99 (the 6050 LED series) and can become as expensive as $4,999.99 (the 9000 LED series). LED HDTVs don't have to be super-expensive, but they almost always cost more than their CCFL-backlit and plasma counterparts. Considering the excellent picture quality and significant benefits in screen thickness and power consumption, that extra amount on the price tag is well worth it.
Image Quality
How good the picture looks, especially if you're a videophile or a cinema fanatic, is the most vital aspect of any HDTV. Specifically, peak white and black levels determine how detailed a picture can look on a screen. Poor white levels mean fine details can get washed out in bright scenes, while poor black levels mean shadows swallow up parts of the picture in dark scenes. A very wide gamut from dark to light lets the HDTV show the tiniest details, regardless of how bright or dark the movie gets. In our tests, we measure white and black levels by luminance using a chromameter. A mediocre HDTV might produce black levels of 0.05 to 0.07 cd/m2, while an excellent HDTV might offer levels of 0.01 to 0.03 cd/m2. Historically, plasma HDTVs have produced the best black levels, specifically the now-defunct Pioneer Kuro HDTV brand. The Kuro's screen got so satisfyingly dark that it remained a popular HDTV for enthusiasts long after Pioneer stopped making the sets. The domination of plasma in this field, however, is over. Our current Editors' Choice HDTV, the LED-based LG Infinia 47LW5600, puts out only 0.01 cd/m2, the best level we can measure. That any LED-backlit LCD can get that dark shows how far the technology has come.
White levels don't matter quite as much as black levels, because it's more difficult for screens to show fine details in shadows and easier to crank out very bright whites with backlighting, but they can still matter. At this, LED backlighting again triumphs. The Panasonic TC-L42E30 reaches a staggering 473.50 cd/m2 white levels with modest 0.04 cd/m2 black levels. It completely (and literally) outshines the Panasonic TC-P50ST30, its plasma HDTV cousin that puts out only 107 cd/m2 peak white while offering a slightly better 0.03 cd/m2 black level.
Size and Power
Screen thickness isn't the most important aspect of an HDTV, but initially, it's the most noticeable. A super-thin HDTV is not only visually striking, but it's more easily mounted on a wall, and can be more readily arranged, displayed, or concealed as part of your home theater. At this, LED lighting wins hands-down. The CCFLs that backlight standard LCD screens are much thicker than LEDs, and plasma screens require a fair amount of room for the actual plasma cells. LEDs, on the other hand, can be extremely tiny while being extremely bright, meaning an array of LEDs along the edge of an LCD can light it up while completely removing the backlight from the equation (in this configuration, the LEDs are considered "edge-lighting," not backlighting, though the term backlighting can cover all screen illumination). Samsung's 8000 series LED HDTVs measure a very-svelte 0.9 inches, thanks to its edge-lighting. To contrast, Samsung's 8000 series plasma HDTV models measure 1.4 inches thick, and its CCFL-backlit 750 series HDTVs measure a bulkier 3.2 inches thick. You could literally cram three 8000-series HDTVs front-to-back inside the space of one 750-series screen. However, edge-lit LCDs can't produce quite as dark blacks as LED-array-backlit LCDs. With a full wall of LEDs behind the screen, individual lights can dim and turn off to produce the best black levels when the picture needs them. However, this means the screen can't get quite as thin as if it was edge-lit. Still, even LED-backlit screens can stay remarkably thin. The LG Infinia 47LW5600 measures just 1.2 inches thick.
Energy efficiency is an important factor when choosing an HDTV, and between the three technologies LED-backlit HDTVs win again. LED HDTVs consistently consume around 100 watts or less, while plasma HDTVs can eat up two or three times as much. The 47-inch LG Infinia 47LW5600 uses a meager 95 watts, and the slightly smaller 42-inch Panasonic TC-L42E30 needs just 78 watts. Compare that with plasma HDTVs like the 42-inch Panasonic TC-P42GT25, which eats up 236 watts, or the 50-inch Samsung PN50C590G4F, which uses a staggering 272 watts. However, you can't be certain that an LED-backlit HDTV will be energy efficient. It's a good general rule, but some HDTVs, like the Vizio XVT3D650SV, eats up 165 watts (although that's for a massive 65-inch screen), and the Sony Bravia 46EX720 consumes 112 watts. Even still, these are far better numbers than you'll get with any plasma screen.
Amazon’s long-awaited tablet is finally here, in the form of the Kindle Fire. The $199 tablet runs a heavily modified version of Android, hooks neatly into Amazon’s gigantic book store, and is designed for multimedia consumption and, more than anything, reading.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because the Barnes & Noble Nook, released months ago, is designed for essentially the same thing. The Nook Color is the clearest competitor to the Kindle Fire, but given the hype surrounding the new tablet, it seems more likely that the holiday season’s biggest question will be “should I get a Kindle Fire or an iPad?”
The answer to that question boils down to what you want to do with a tablet. The Kindle Fire and Apple iPad compete primarily along content lines: The iPad has iTunes, with its millions of songs, TV shows, movies and books; and the Kindle Fire has Amazon, with, well, basically the same thing. The Kindle Fire can’t compete with the iPad’s A5 processor, its 500,000 apps, or its 64GB of internal storage, but at $199 it doesn’t have to. The iPad is certainly a more impressive machine, but that may not matter to every user.
The differences between the Kindle Fire and the Nook Color boil down similarly to a company vs. company debate. The specs of the two devices are nearly the same: 7-inch tablets running heavily customized versions of Android, 8GB of internal storage (though the Nook Color has a micro SD slot), 8-hour battery life, Wi-Fi, and even similar dimensions and weight. Barnes & Noble boasts a giant bookstore with tons of periodicals, newspapers, and even children’s books; Amazon does the same. If you’re already in the Barnes & Noble ecosystem, it’s difficult to leave it for Amazon, but Amazon’s offering of music, movies, and TV shows in addition to its book library is awfully compelling.
Of course, the rumor mill is churning with talk that a new Nook Color is in store, so Barnes & Noble could be poised to leapfrog the Kindle Fire as it did to the Kindle with its Nook Touch Reader.
Below, we’ve rounded up and compared some of the key specs and features of the Kindle Fire, the iPad 2, and the Nook Color. It’s already a very competitive tablet market, and it will be very interesting to see what people choose for themselves and their loved ones.
For more from today's launch event, meanwhile, see the slideshow above.
Source: pcmag.com
If that sounds familiar, it’s because the Barnes & Noble Nook, released months ago, is designed for essentially the same thing. The Nook Color is the clearest competitor to the Kindle Fire, but given the hype surrounding the new tablet, it seems more likely that the holiday season’s biggest question will be “should I get a Kindle Fire or an iPad?”
The answer to that question boils down to what you want to do with a tablet. The Kindle Fire and Apple iPad compete primarily along content lines: The iPad has iTunes, with its millions of songs, TV shows, movies and books; and the Kindle Fire has Amazon, with, well, basically the same thing. The Kindle Fire can’t compete with the iPad’s A5 processor, its 500,000 apps, or its 64GB of internal storage, but at $199 it doesn’t have to. The iPad is certainly a more impressive machine, but that may not matter to every user.
The differences between the Kindle Fire and the Nook Color boil down similarly to a company vs. company debate. The specs of the two devices are nearly the same: 7-inch tablets running heavily customized versions of Android, 8GB of internal storage (though the Nook Color has a micro SD slot), 8-hour battery life, Wi-Fi, and even similar dimensions and weight. Barnes & Noble boasts a giant bookstore with tons of periodicals, newspapers, and even children’s books; Amazon does the same. If you’re already in the Barnes & Noble ecosystem, it’s difficult to leave it for Amazon, but Amazon’s offering of music, movies, and TV shows in addition to its book library is awfully compelling.
Of course, the rumor mill is churning with talk that a new Nook Color is in store, so Barnes & Noble could be poised to leapfrog the Kindle Fire as it did to the Kindle with its Nook Touch Reader.
Below, we’ve rounded up and compared some of the key specs and features of the Kindle Fire, the iPad 2, and the Nook Color. It’s already a very competitive tablet market, and it will be very interesting to see what people choose for themselves and their loved ones.
For more from today's launch event, meanwhile, see the slideshow above.
Source: pcmag.com
Nokia 101 trang bị màn hình hiển thị 1,8 inch độ phân giải 128×160 pixels, khe cắm thẻ nhớ microSD có thể mở rộng tới 16GB, nghe nhạc MP3, FM, giắc cắm tai nghe 3.5mm. Ngoài ra, Nokia 101 cũng được tích hợp đèn pin. Máy sử dụng pin 800mAh cho phép thời gian đàm thoại lên đến 7 giờ, 25 ngày ở chế độ chờ và 26 giờ nghe nhạc với tai nghe ở mức âm lượng 50%.
Nokia 101 có vẻ được lòng người dùng hơn với phím bấm cao su êm dễ sử dụng. Giao diện giống hệ điều hành Symbian Anna trông khá bắt mắt đây có thể được coi là điểm nhấn trên dòng máy giá rẻ này. Máy cho chất lượng cuộc gọi tốt, loa ngoài to khi mở nhạc “max volume” không bị rè như X1-01. Sóng không bị rớt khi thực hiện cuộc gọi nhưng vẫn như X1-01 khi sim 1 gọi thì sim 2 off và ngược lại. Nokia 101 “vẫn bị lỗi reset như X1-01 khi bạn để chế độ đèn nền chớp theo nhiệp điệu”. Nhưng phần lớn người dùng khá hài lòng với mức giá 719,000 đồng cho 1 thiết bị 2 sim 2 sóng, hỗ trợ thẻ nhớ…
Còn Nokia X1-01, máy được tích hợp hai SIM, trang bị màn hình với độ phân giải 160 x 128 điểm ảnh, đài FM, giắc cắm tai nghe 3.5mm, hỗ trợ đèn LED flash, khe cắm thẻ microSD. Pin của máy có thời gian chờ lên đến 43 ngày, đàm thoại liên tục trong khoảng 13 tiếng và nghe nhạc 36 tiếng.
Theo 1 số người đã qua sử dụng X1-01 nhận định, bàn phím thiết kế liền không khó bấm nhưng thực tế bấm rất êm và dễ bấm, nút End call và nút Cancel hay bị nhầm lẫn. Loa to mở hết âm lượng có hiện tượng hơi rè nhưng giảm xuống thì nghe tốt hơn, âm thanh trung thực hay không bị méo tiếng. Máy hoạt động mượt mà, gắn thẻ 16GB máy vẫn chạy tốt không bị chậm. Với mức giá hiện tại khoảng 869,000 đồng, Nokia X1-01 vẫn được nhiều khách hàng chọn mua cho 1 chiếc điện thoại 2 sim 2 sóng.
Hy vọng với những điểm so sánh trên bạn có thể chọn lựa cho mình sản phẩm vừa ý.
Bắt đầu từ mùa thu năm nay với sự ra đời của iCloud, bạn sẽ có thể truyền tải thư viện nhạc số qua Internet, thay vì phải chép chúng đến các thiết bị và lưu trữ chúng. Chúng ta đã nhìn thấy những nỗ lực của Amazon và Google ở dịch vụ âm nhạc trực tuyến, nhưng với sự thống trị của iTunes trong ở lĩnh vực này, sự ra đời của iCloud có thể làm lu mờ cả hai.
Dưới đây là tóm tắt những khác biệt và tương đồng trong ba dịch vụ này.
Sự khác biệt trọng tâm giữa iCloud so với những dịch vụ khác là nó không chỉ dành cho âm nhạc: nó đảm nhiệm tất cả các chức năng như của ứng dụng MobileMe cũ - email, danh bạ, lịch, cùng với việc sao lưu và đồng bộ hoá hình ảnh, dữ liệu ứng dụng cho thiết bị iOS, và các văn bản iWork
Một sự khác biệt rất lớn về khả năng âm nhạc của iCloud là bạn không thể chơi các bài hát từ bên trong một trình duyệt web như dịch vụ của Amazon và Google. Bạn cần một thiết bị iOS và iTunes chạy trên máy tính để sử dụng được iCloud. Tuy nhiên việc thiếu truy cập web chỉ làm giảm đi tính linh hoạt của iCloud so với hai dịch vụ kể trên
Với Amazon và Google, bạn phải chờ đợi cho các dữ liệu thực tế được tải lên từ máy tính hoặc thiết bị của bạn, có thể mất nhiều ngày nếu bạn có một bộ sưu tập âm nhạc lớn. Ngược lại, Apple đã có sẵn phiên bản độ phân giải cao (256 kbps AAC) gồm 18 triệu bản nhạc đã được lưu trữ trên máy chủ của nó, vì vậy mỗi lần iCloud kiểm tra một bài hát bất kì của bạn, nó sử dụng bản sao để cho bạn sử dụng trong tương lai hoặc tải về. Điều này có nghĩa là bạn không cần chờ đợi quá trình tải lên, và hãy nhớ rằng ngay cả các kết nối băng thông rộng thường có tốc độ tải lên chậm hơn nhiều so với tốc độ tải về.
Apple đã tiến hành việc thực hiện giao dịch với bốn nhãn hiệu âm nhạc lớn - Universal Music Group, EMI Group, Sony Music Entertainment và Warner Music Group để làm cho bản nhạc trực tuyến luôn có sẵn cho mọi người dùng. Amazon và Google đã thực hiện cách tiếp cận khác, xem kho âm nhạc trực tuyến như là một thiết bị lưu trữ đơn giản khác, như một ổ đĩa cứng trên đám mây cho người sử dụng
Sau đó là vấn đề mua các bản nhạc mới. Tất nhiên, Apple vượt trội trong lĩnh vực này, với iTunes cung cấp các thư viện kỹ thuật số lớn nhất với 18 triệu bài hát. Amazon không phải ở quá xa phía sau với 16 triệu bài hát. Bất kỳ bản nhạc kỹ thuật số bạn mua từ Amazon sẽ tự động nhập vào Cloud Player của bạn, và bạn sẽ không phải trả tiền cho không gian lưu trữ của nó- giống như cách của iCloud. Google vẫn chưa công bố tính năng mua nhạc-một trở ngại nghiêm trọng cho tham vọng xưng bá trong lĩnh vực âm nhạc của hãng cho đến nay.
Và những bản nhạc mà bạn không mua thông qua dịch vụ thì sao ? Apple có một phương pháp duy nhất ở đây, được gọi là iTunes Match. Các dịch vụ khác sẽ không quan tâm nơi nào bạn có các bài hát, bạn có thể tải chúng lên mà không cần phân biệt nguồn. Nhưng với iCloud, bạn phải trả 24,99 USD cho một năm lưu trữ các bản nhạc không được mua thông iTunes. Mặt tốt của việc này là một khi bạn trả tiền lệ phí hàng năm, bạn sẽ không bị giới hạn dung lượng về mặt lưu trữ. Và lợi ích khác là các bản nhạc này sẽ được thay thế bằng bản sao độ phân giải cao nếu chúng không ở mức độ chất lượng cao cho phép . Nhược điểm là bạn sẽ phải nộp lệ phí ngay cả khi bạn chỉ có một hoặc một vài album không mua thông qua iTunes
Những điều trên là những sự khác biệt chủ yếu. Đối với một số khác biệt khác, bạn có thể lướt qua bảng so sánh dưới đây.
Tác giả bài viết: Lê Trung Hiếu
Nguồn tin: XHTT Online