Search This Blog

Showing posts with label comparision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comparision. Show all posts

Friday, 29 August 2014

LG´S NEW ROUND SMARTWATCH - THE LG G-WATCH R




LG's G Watch was one of the first Android Wear devices to hit the market, but it didn't quite capture the fancy of the buying public the way the beautiful, round Moto 360 did. So LG went back to work, and came up with a beautiful, round smartwatch of its own. Meet the G Watch R.
LG has finally verified that round displays on smartwatches are real. They're "a thing." The Moto 360 isn't a one-off; the industry has officially figured out how to deliver round wearables, and it's going to do so on a measurable scale. But there is still an issue.
The G Watch R's key feature is its display, a 1.3-inch Plastic OLED panel that takes up 100 percent of the watch's round face. LG promises that it's viewable in sunlight and clear from any angle, and the plastic also comes with some durability benefits — the G Watch R works in up to a meter of water for up to 30 minutes. The screen rests in a stainless steel frame, and comes with an interchangeable calf skin leather strap. This device looks perhaps more like a normal analog watch than any other we've seen before, including the Moto 360.
Of course, it's not an analog watch. It's powered by Android Wear, meaning it offers the same Google Now-based experience we've seen on a couple of devices so far. You'll get notifications, easy access to notes and calendar and directions, and more. It's powered by a 1.2GHz Snapdragon processor and 512MB of RAM, plus 4GB of internal storage. It has a heart-rate monitor, unlike the G Watch, plus a handful of health and fitness apps that should make the G Watch R a little more useful as a fitness tracker. Still, from a functionality standpoint the devices don't differ much. It's all about the hardware — and the hardware makes all the difference.

Where the G Watch is bland and square — not badly designed so much as simply not designed at all — the G Watch R has a lovely sense of sophistication to it. Part of that is also due to the retro-analog watchfaces, which show sweeping second hands and a set of internal dials that look right at home in a classic watch. There's even a crown on the side, which is likely the power button in disguise. (The G Watch's mysteriously missing power button appears to have been rectified.)
Count on this being a trend this year: smartwatch makers will churn these devices out as fast as they can, attempting to satisfy as many tastes as possible and to learn as quickly as possible what works for consumers. Things will change quickly, but right now, it's hip to be round.
However, there is still a big question in consumers´ mind. And that is;
SMART WATCHES STILL DON´T LOOK THAT GREAT
I can't overstate how important that is. Smartwatch adoption is held back primarily by two things: one, it's hard to convince people that they need notifications on their wrist. That's an ongoing challenge, and the ball now lies in Apple's court to see if the industry is ready and able to turn that corner. But secondly, smartwatches still just don't look that great. It's a complaint I've been lodging since before the launch of Samsung's original Galaxy Gear last year. Even the best-looking ones are compromised.
FASHION FIRST

That's not to say a wrist-worn device must have a round face to look good, of course, but it can't look like a physical manifestation of high technology — it has to put fashion first, because it's always visible. You can hide a smartphone in your pocket or purse when it's not in use, but wearables have to ascribe to the same rules of design as a shirt, shoe, or hat. (Imagine how many more Google Glass would be sold if they were indistinguishable from regular sunglasses or eyeglasses.) The round face, an iconic element of the classic wristwatch, is a huge leap in that direction.

ANALOG WATCH HANDS ARN´T DEAD
But it's only a leap, not the finish line. Multiple industry sources have indicated to me that manufacturers are aggressively pursuing display technologies that would make smartwatches virtually indistinguishable from a 30-year-old Timex or Tag Heuer without sacrificing functionality. Analog watch hands aren't dead: consider a round, full-color display with hands above, or a transparent OLED with hands underneath, for instance. The technology is close, and designers are fully aware that they need to get there.
And for smartwatches, that's the dream: once engineers figure out how to seamlessly walk us back to analog, they'll be able to replicate the full spectrum of designs found in traditional wristwatches. Obviously analog hands aren't for everyone, but then you'll be able to choose something more akin to a Moto 360 or G Watch R, or even a rectangular display if that's more your style. That variety is a wonderful thing. It's a celebration of form factor diversity that we've lost with smartphones in the age of the glass rectangle — but thankfully we won't have to lose it with the wearable.

Thursday, 12 June 2014

Is apple going the right way with IOS7 and further

Back in 1982, personal computers had monochromatic green screens. If you wanted to design a user interface, you had two tools available: Green letters and blank spaces.


Image Credit - Google Images

Steve Jobs had a deep and rich vision in 1981 for how user interfaces could work. If nontechnical users were going to do highly complex tasks on a computer with no training, he felt that Apple would need to make the technology disappear and the operations be utterly intuitive to nontechnical people. 

Here are some examples and difference between ios6 & ios7:-
Image Credit - Google Images


Image Credit - Google Images


Image Credit - Google Images




Image Credit - Google Images


Image Credit - Google Images





Image Credit - Google Images

Image Credit - Google Images

Image Credit - Google Images


Image Credit - Google Images


The iPhone was the highest realization of Steve's vision. Unlike PC applications, iPhone apps were not merely software programs; they transformed the phone into familiar physical objects. The notepad looked like a real notepad; the calendar was like holding a calendar; the clock looked like a clock and the library looked like a real wooden shelf with books. This is called Skeuomorphism. Skeuomorphism makes it easier for those familiar with the original device to use the digital emulation and that it is visually appealing. 

Steve Jobs once said this:-


“people don't know what they want until you show it to them.”

― Steve Jobs

In iOS 7, all of that is gone. Apps are now controlled with cryptic little florescent symbols that are interspersed across the screen. Everything looks the same. No more notepad; no more dials for making selections. It's all just dull software; black letters on white. Even the blue tint that helped you see if the keyboard shift key was pressed has been eliminated.



Apple has brought back the era of the hideously ugly, monochromatic 1982 UI. And it's worse than an IBM PC. Instead of a soft green color palette, iOS uses garish, florescent colors against harsh white backgrounds.


Image Credit - Google Images

This is the a good example of difference between skeuomorphic and flat interface.


Image Credit - Google Images

This is so wrong.

DOCUMENTS V.S. CONTROLS
The worst thing about iOS 7 is that the distinction between documents and controls is gone.
The iPhone always had a feeling like a well-engineered European sports car, with simple, purposeful buttons and dials to control the device. These controls were clearly and substantively distinct from user documents and workspaces. Now it's all blurred together, so you can't tell any more which things are controls and which aren't.
It reminds me of the days when you had to read a manual to learn how to use a piece of application software.
GRAPHIC DESIGN
The designers of iOS 7 forgot that consumers buy Apple products because they want simple, elegant devices to make their lives easier. But it appears to me as if the goal of iOS 7's designers was to look cool and hip, no matter the impact on users.

The new icons are garish, distracting, and less intuitive than the old ones. The new graphical flourishes--like making the lock screen photo go blurry.
I think this is far and away the worst thing Apple has ever done. Not only did the company throw away 30 years of progress, they have pulled all the major app makers down with them.
Apple has made a giant mess with iOS 7. It's hard to imagine the Apple design people owning up to what they did any time soon.
It pains me to say it, but I think Apple has given its loyal customers good reason to start looking at Android and other options.
Image Credit - Google Images

Friday, 21 March 2014

Moto G Versus Moto X


 
Image Courtesy - Google Images
The Moto X has finally come to India and the Moto G is already available so you might be trying to decide which to buy. Well that's where GUIthing comes in because we've compared the two Android smartphones in various categories to highlight how they differ.

Price
Motorola smashed it in terms of value for money with the Moto G, offering users a mid-range smartphone for a budget price. There's little to argue about with a price of just INR 12,499/- to buy it outright.
Things are a little different when it comes to the Moto X. It's Motorola's current flagship smartphone so it's bound to cost more than the Moto G and as such has a INR 23,999/- price tag.
This means you can buy nearly 2 Moto Gs for the price of one Moto X. So it is worth the extra money?
Both of Motorola's phones look very similar. Even though the screen sizes are a little different, the devices themselves are about the same size. In fact, the Moto G with is smaller screen is a little bigger than the Moto X. It's also understandably thicker and heavier than its more expensive brother.
Each is well made but feels quite plasticky so there's little in it. With no Moto Maker in India just yet, the Moto X doesn't have a big advantage over the Moto G here.

Moto G vs Moto X: Screen
Screen size is a great way to choose between two smartphones – you'll want to pick a size that's comfortable for you personally. There's only a small difference between the Moto G and Moto X here. The former is rocking a 4.5in display while the latter give you a little extra at 4.7in.
They both use a 720p resolution so it's in fact the Moto G which has a better pixel density but there's not much in it so it's better to go on the size.
The Moto X uses AMOLED technology. Colours are more vibrant and punchy but some users may prefer the more natural look of the Moto G's display.

Image Courtesy - Google Images


Moto G vs Moto X: Processor
Despite its bargain basement price, the Moto G has a 1.2GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 quad-core processor with 1GB of RAM. Meanwhile, the Moto X has a dual-core Snapdragon Pro chip clocked a bit higher at 1.7GHz. It's got 2GB of RAM.
This might seem a little confusing but the bottom line is that both offer decent performance so you needn't worry. The Moto X has a software optimised chip with a natural language processor and a contextual computing processor. Just bear in mind that the Moto G is punching way above its weight here.

Moto G vs Moto X: Storage
With no expandable storage available on the Moto G or Moto X, storage is another area to consider closely. The Moto G is available in 8- or 16GB models while the Moto X has double these capacities. However, it appears that the 32GB Moto X missed its flight to India.

Moto G vs Moto X: Cameras
The Moto G has a mid-range 5Mp main camera which takes surprisingly good photos. It's even got an HDR shooting mode. Although the 10Mp camera on the Moto X isn't quite as good as we'd hoped, it still offers more details and video in 1080p compare to 720p. It's front camera is also better at 2Mp against 1.3Mp.

Image Courtesy - Google Images


Moto G vs Moto X: Software
If you can't find a Moto G or Moto X which ships with Android 4.4 Kitkat, you'll be able to upgrade to the latest software once you're up and running – an advantage of being a Google-owned (Now Lenovo) company.

Although both phones run pretty vanilla versions of Android, there are differences which you should be aware of.  On top of things like Moto Assist, the Moto X has unique features like Active display and Quick Capture. It's also got voice recognition which can learn your voice so there are a few reasons to opt for the Moto X over the Moto G here.

Moto G vs Moto X: Battery life
It's worth noting that neither the Moto X nor Moto G has a removable battery. Each phone offers typical smartphone battery performance of one day with an average usage. Only light users will get more than a day.


Tech Specs - moto x
OS: Android 4.4 KitKat
CPU: 1.7 GHz dual-core Krait Qualcomm MSM8960 Snapdragon Pro
GPU: Adreno 320
Nano-SIM
65.3x129.3x10.4mm, 130g
Display: 4.7in AMOLED 720x1280, 312 ppi
Internal storage: 16GB, 2 years 50GB of Google Drive free
Memory: 2GB RAM
Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
Bluetooth 4.0 LE
NFC
Main Camera: 10Mp, autofocus, LED flash
Camera Features 1.4µm pixel size, geo-tagging, touch focus, face detection, panorama, HDR
Front Camera: 2Mp
Battery: 2200mAh

Verdict
The Moto G punches so far above its price tag that the large difference in price between it and the Moto X and the small difference in hardware and software mean the Moto X isn't worth the extra money.