I think Android tablets would do better if they didn't feel so cheap and outdated, even when compared to the iPad 1.

You should try viewing at closer range to see the difference. The other posters told me so.

Instead of spouting ignorant opinions that are flat-out wrong, one of you could try Googling it to see why you're wrong. A novel concept for a forum poster, I know, but you may actually end up learning something and next time or have a correct answer for someone with a question. Or maybe save someone a few minutes explaining something to you that you should have learned already. Here, I'll even help you with the first step.

http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=dpi+viewing+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=dpi+viewing+distance

Piracy is not theft. Try google it yourself.

Are you sure about that? Isn't it around 800x480 or something like that?

And that is one of the biggest faults with Big Media's complaints about piracy, which makes it difficult to swallow their more salient points on how it damages the industry. Though to claim "the bulk" is victimless on economic grounds is just as speculative as their claims that everything is a lost sale.

I'll add that economic grounds are not the only ones worth noting in piracy, though. A pirate is profiting intellectually from the stolen good. While it's not as damaging to the creator as the loss of money from the piracy, it's still worth mentioning.

But these are side points, really. My main problem with piracy is that there are people, like the person I was debating earlier, who say "pirates spend more at concerts". This statement bothers me on many levels. Do pirates spend more? Possibly, but they don't go to concerts, buy shirts, merchandise, etc. from every band they pirate and they certainly don't spend the equivalent amount of money on said band. In my experience, pirates rarely spend anything close to the equivalent amount of money of what they pirate. A larger percentage of their money goes to the artist in question, for sure. But is it enough to balance the economic gulf caused by the piracy in the first place? Unlikely. Almost all stastical and observational evidence points toward a resounding "NO".

Say I'm at a comic convention. A dude walks up to me and says "Hey man, love your book but I pirated it. But I totally dig your stuff so here's $50. I want you to draw me a picture of Wolverine." Totally cool. The guy is giving back MORE than he would have given if he had purchased the book in the first place. But I guarantee you that the guy doesn't do that for every artist he pirates, nor does he turn around and spend $500 on commissioned art to compensate for the, say, $1000 he pirated in books. If he spends even 1/10th of what he pirated, I'd be shocked. People don't seem to realize how much of a negative effect piracy can have on the artists you respect and admire, particularly the fringe artists. It's really fucking hard to make it as an artist. Lady GaGa couldn't give a shit about your pirated album and nobody gives a shit about Lady GaGa's financial situation in 2012. But are you also pirating LCD Soundsystem without making sure you give back to the band in another way? What about Fleet Foxes? Cold Cave? Continue ad nauseum. Because I guarantee you that those bands do care about lost revenue and it really hurts them to see their work pirated, enough to the point that it could cause a struggling artist to quit and pursue a more traditional career just to pay the rent.

Hey, I understand piracy. I do it myself at times. There are real reasons to stick it to the music, movie, and television industries. They are purebred douchebags to their very core. But I hear a lot of excuses by pirates about how they give back in other ways or how they believe it's a victimless crime, blah blah blah. To some, it is. To others, it most certainly is not. All I ask is that people take the time to consider how their piracy affects the artists they truly admire and whether they're doing enough to ensure that those respected artists make enough money to continue doing their work. Because, while there are considerate pirates out there for sure, about 95% of piracy exists solely because people like getting free shit with no regard given to the people whose financial outlooks are seriously damaged by piracy and theft.

I sometimes worry that an entire generation is being raised without any kind of respect for the amount of work it requires to become an artist and be good enough to have it financially support continued works. And that's sad because if people don't take a moment to think how to support artists they respect, those artists may quit and/or be swallowed up by some corporate whore on a level unsee even today.

Ooh, ZING! You totally got me. I've written pages in this thread about how piracy can negatively affect artists and creators while you respond with little more than "derp piracy isn't theft derp derp!".

Truly outstanding work, my man. Brilliant stuff. I'm a convert.

And people wonder why good posters have bailed this forum in droves.

sorry, meant Samsung Galaxy S3. I use the Samsung Galaxy S2 by myself and again: i never thought that I need 4 times more pixel

Did you read my post? Do you think the viewing distance is dramatically different from my laptop to my tablet? If so, you are wrong.

This and your first comment sum up all the response that is needed to the OP.

The situation in the OP is no different than shobebody be impressed by a 2012 Toyota and telling them it is a 2013. They liked it and didn't know the difference what's that supposed to prove?