Nawknai

You just use this phone. You didn’t make, or contribute to its design.

If a mobile phone can actually define you as a person, or reflects your personality and attitude, then you’re a sad, shallow, boring little person.

Just because Google will run Moto at “arms length”, does not mean that Moto won’t be favoured to make Nexus devices for Google. It’s one thing to show favouritism, but another to not take advantage of a recent $12bn dollar acquisition. Having future Nexus devices made on Moto isn’t cutting anybody else off. Samsung is still free to make their Galaxy devices with their own GUI, and HTC can continue on with whatever they’re doing.

Hipsters gonna hipst.

All hail, Russian Google.

Zuckerberg just made $200m off a fart in FaceBook’s price.

He’ll lose $2bn in a sneeze.

Looks too much like a Samsung.

Except Leica digitals can’t, and don’t.

Leica makes 35 mm film cameras that are totally worth it. However, if you shoot digital, you’d be better off taking photos from a used Canon 5D or 5D2, D700, etc. They’re all full-frame, but Nikons are awesome, and Canon is pretty much as good.

No, it’s not important. However, it’s litigious. What Samsung did doesn’t make any of this important. It’s scrolling. It’s only important amongst lawyers who need to make a living out of making something out of the trivial.

f/2.4 is, in a practical sense, the same as f/2.5. It’s not even 1/3 stop faster. It’s like someone making an 8 mm thick phone, and someone else making a 7.95 mm thick phone. Other than measure-debating, what’s the point?

It’s got a pretty small f/2.5 lens coupled to a 12-megapixel sensor

How is f/2.5 considered “small”/slow? It’s a large aperture, and would be great in low light. Not sure about that though, because it also depends on sensor size and pixel density, and 12 MP sensor seems quite crammed. If anything is going to be the limitation with regards to low light shooting, it’ll be the sensor, not the aperture.

“I agree. This is ironic.” — Alanis Morrisette (29th of April, 2012).

Not really, because I expect objectivity from Woz. I don’t expect it from Gates, who has invested more of his life and vision into Windows than Woz has to Mac OS, iOS, or hardware design.

Woz’s emotional investment into the Apple brand is now limited to some fond memories. If Jobs was alive and was asked if he thought WP7 was better, of course he’d say “No”. If he truly felt that WP7 was better, he would have gone back to Apple HQ and “righted the wrongs” in iOS before answering that type of question from an interviewer.