The Difference Between iPhone Apps and iPad Apps

The iPhone and iPad, as everyone knows, are two highly popular, bestselling gadgets from Apple. The iPhone is a smart phone that can be used to make calls, send text and email messages, read books on, play music and videos, browse the Internet, and many more. The number of applications that can be downloaded and used on the iPhone is only limited by its storage capacity-and the purse of the iPhone owner. Some applications (or "apps" for short) are free, while others cost a certain amount, usually $1 or $2 for the most popular apps. On the other hand, the iPad is a much larger tablet device, which is used mainly for connecting online, reading books, and playing multimedia files. Basically, the iPad can do all the things that the iPhone is capable of, except make calls and send text messages. (There are some iPad apps that do allow the sending of texts, but with certain restrictions.)

In short, the iPhone and the iPad are much the same in terms of what they can do. Their glaring difference is that the iPhone is a phone, and the iPad is not. In other words, the iPhone can be-and is primarily-used to make phone calls, while the iPad is more like a netbook or portable personal computer. Another difference that stands out is their sizes. The iPhone has a 480×320 touchscreen, while the iPad has a much larger one that measures 1024×768 pixels. Looking at the two devices, about six iPhone units can be placed on the surface of an iPad.

The size difference is a key factor in comparing iPad and iPhone apps. Practically all iPhone apps (except those for making calls) may be downloaded on the iPad. The apps will work pretty much the same except that they will appear bigger to fit the larger iPad touchscreen. But not all apps meant for the iPad will work on the smaller iPhone. Apps that are native to the iPad use greater detail to take advantage of the larger touchscreen space. If these apps could be "shrunk" on the smaller iPhone screen, they wouldn't look as great-in fact, they might as well be unreadable. This is the reason why native iPad apps cannot be downloaded to an iPhone. But, just to make a point clear, the reverse can be done: most iPhone apps can be downloaded to and used on an iPad.

Examples of native iPad apps that won't work on the iPhone are magazine and newspaper apps. On the iPad, a magazine spread looks great and is very readable. But imagine the same on an iPhone screen. The pictures and text in a magazine or newspaper article won't simply fit on the smaller space.

Can it be said then that apps are better on the iPad than on the iPhone? This is close to the truth, but it's not quite there yet. While it is true that practically all iPhone apps can migrate to and function well on the iPad, an aesthetic loss is incurred in the process. Apps that are native to the iPhone, when viewed in an enlarged manner on the iPad, look less sharp, more pixelated. One may see jagged edges and blurry parts on the graphics of these apps. This naturally results from enlarging or doubling graphics originally composed for a smaller screen. This effect is known as "pixel doubling."

To correct pixel doubling, the iPad user is given the option to view a native iPhone app in its original, smaller size. Thus, on the iPad, the app will occupy just about one-half of the screen. For some native iPhone apps, there is also an option to download a higher-resolution version. With this, the app looks great on the iPad as it does on the iPhone.

There too are apps that have both iPad and iPhone versions. The user simply has to download the correct version to enjoy the apps with all their graphics and functionality intact.

Find reviews on new apps for iPhone and iPod touch, ipad games, and everything else at AppCraver.com, a website dedicated to app reviews for all of the iDevices.

contribute: ezinearticles.com

Verizon Apple iPhone 4 Slower than ATandT iPhone: Report

Verizon and AT&T iPhone 4s perform differently in different scenarios, says a new report. In motion, AT&T's was faster, but stationary the opposite was true.

The Verizon iPhone 4 is slower than its AT&T counterpart, according to Metrico, a company that tests mobile device performance. This bit of bad news for the long-awaited device follows reports that it additionally suffers from antenna signal loss when held in the "death grip" — a phrase coined after the release of the AT&T iPhone 4, which was found to drop reception bars when in held in a specific, but mostly natural, way.

According to the Metrico report released March 7, differences it discovered between the Verizon iPhone 4, which is based on CDMA technology, and the GSM-based AT&T iPhone 4 depend on how the smartphone is being used.

"The AT&T iPhone experienced double the mean data download speed of the Verizon iPhone," the firm said in a statement, " but the mean load time for an average Web page was about the same on both devices."

Metrico also found differences when the devices were being used in motion — in a car, say. "The AT&T iPhone successfully completed around 20 percent more data download sessions than the Verizon iPhone," reported the firm. "The results were opposite when the iPhones were stationary; the Verizon iPhone was more consistent uploading data when stationary in comparison to the AT&T iPhone, with a 10 percent success rate."

The findings echo those of early reviewers. The Wall Street Journal's Walter Mossberg, in a Feb. 3 review, reported that he performed "scores of speed tests" on the two iPhones, which he mostly used in Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland and, for a day, Chicago. "Despite a few Verizon victories here and there, AT&T's network averaged 46 percent faster at download speeds and 24 percent faster at upload speeds," wrote Mossberg. The differences were most notable, he found, when the phones were being asked to perform labor-intensive tasks, such as downloading large numbers of e-mails.

"AT&T's speeds varied more while Verizon's were more consistent, but overall, AT&T was more satisfying at cellular data," Mossberg concluded.

David Pogue's experience, reviewing the iPhones for The New York Times, was one that has made so many folks look forward to the iPhone on the Verizon network. He drove around San Francisco — an Achilles' heel for AT&T iPhone coverage — dialing a landline number. Over the course of 30 minutes, the AT&T iPHone dropped the call four times, while Verizon's held it continuously.

Metrico additionally compared the iPhones to other devices on their respective networks. It found the AT&T iPhone to rank near the top on download and upload speeds, "with comparable performance to the Sony Ericsson Xperia, the LG Quantum and the HTC Surround." The Verizon iPhone, however, ranked "below average in data download speed relative to other Verizon smartphones like the HTC Incredible."

The Smartphone Mobile Experience evaluation testing that the phones underwent offer carriers and original equipment manufacturers information with which they can establish a scientifically derived user-experience baseline, Richard McNally, Metrico vice president, said in the statement. Metrico's performance evaluation included performing more than 10,000 Web page downloads, more than 2,000 upload tests and placing nearly 4,000 voice calls.

"The mobile industry is competing on performance, and anecdotal performance information isn't good enough to drive management and marketing decisions," McNally added.

The Verizon iPhone 4 has inspired a number of organizations and Web sites to run performance tests of their own. Consumer Reports found that having a finger on various parts of the phone can cause a "meaningful decline in performance," and so was unable to recommend it. Tech site iLounge held the Verizon iPhone in various bear-hugging ways and noticed a "dramatic, dramatic slowdown" in upload speeds. Analysis group AnandTech, in its testing, found the death-grip issue to have been addressed.

"Getting a case still makes sense," the site reported, "but using the phone without one is no longer something that will dramatically affect phone usability.”

link search :eweek.com