“Everything iDon’t, Droid Does” – a history of Verizon's "Droid" brand, Part One

Droid Does origin stories.

Hello there, friends. As some of you may be aware, I’m lucky enough to have had a brand spanking new Motorola RAZR to play around with since Tuesday. I’ve been putting it through its paces, and am about to start spouting out in-depth review content from a real-world day-to-day usage context – unlike those one-day review devices other sites rush to push out impressions on, I’m taking the time to make the RAZR my daily driver, and it’s for this reason that I want to write lots of filler articles tell you where I and the phone am coming from, before I begin.

You see, I’ve not had a chance to play with one of Motorola’s high-end Android devices with their own flavour of the operating system before. Here in little old New Zealand, the most exciting Moto device on the market is the Defy+. What have Moto been up to for the past two years? Well, that’s where this article comes in: I want to talk about the history of the Droid series of devices.

A comment on our aptly-named editor ArtooDeetoo’s excellent History of Android series asking why the original Motorola Droid was omitted inspired me to research it and its ilk in a little more depth than I had previously. This was quite the worthwhile venture, as the Droid reversed Android, Motorola, and Verizon's fortunes. I have quite a lot to say about these devices, so we’ll call this the first instalment – I also want to look in-detail at several key television advertisements, as well as the full device range, not to mention a few ways to get a taste of the Droid branding on your Android phone or tablet right now. Without further ado, let’s jump into onslaught86’s A Brief History of Droids.

The Galaxy Note "Real-user" Review: Part 3 - GPS and Telephony

Here we are, part three of the Galaxy Note review to rule them all. This time I'm covering GPS and 'Reception', which covers not only WiFi and network reception, but also telephony aspects since they are inextricably linked to the signal strength attained by the Note.

You might recall that Samsung's flagship device of last year was lambasted for serious GPS issues - here is what I had to say of these previously at the Clove Blog: "You see, the first Galaxy S had problems with its GPS, rather large problems as it happens. While it could get a lock in an adequate timeframe, albeit slower than nearly every GPS-enabled handset I’ve owned since the N95, it just couldn’t hold it well enough to be relied upon. As a consequence, navigation was a rather painful experience at times. This was particularly evident in areas with densely packed and winding streets – your position would jump from street to neighbouring street continuously, triggering route recalculations each time. The result? Garbage voice guidance, confusion, frustration. Trying to do GPS-based tasks like sports-tracking, or geocaching that require even more accuracy? Forget about it." 

When I reviewed the Galaxy S II earlier this year for the Clove Blog, questions regarding it's GPS performance were far and away the most prominent question in the minds of prospective buyers. With the Galaxy S II things were a definite improvement, and for navigation at least I adjudicated it adequate for most users needs. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? Certainly the S II's GPS performance was not enough in the minds of many to cast the spectre of the Galaxy S's dreadful GPS firmly into the past. 

So then, is the Note the device that will finally put paid to Samsung's GPS shame, or will it yet again draw the ire of buyers? Answers after the break...

Can the Galaxy Note reproduce this kind of accuracy regularly???