Smartphones head to head: Apple iPhone 5S vs iPhone 5C vs Samsung Galaxy S4

Apple has now unleashed the latest iteration of its world-conquering smartphone but, as predicted by the rumour mill, this time round there's a twist. 

Not only do we have the anticipated yearly upgrade - with the iPhone 5S following the bi-annual evolutionary step pattern of the 3GS and 4S - but Apple devotees get a new option in the form of the iPhone 5C. 

Scuttlebutt leading up to the announcement had the 5C pegged as a budget alternative with pricing said to be in the £200-300 region, but this proved to be way off the mark and Apple has set its off-contract RRP much higher. 

In hindsight we should not have expected the 'C' to stand for 'cheap'.

Assuming you weren't one of those queuing up early doors this morning you may well be weighing up the pros and cons of a shiny new upgrade right now. But as well as considering how the new iPhone measures against its Android competition there's also the 5C into account.

How do they stack up? Let's take a look at the key features of the iPhone 5S, iPhone 5C and Samsung's top-end Galaxy S4 Android superphone.

4", IPS LCD, 640 x 1136, 326 ppi4", IPS LCD, 640 x 1136, 326 ppi5", Super AMOLED, 1080 x 1920, 441 ppiBluetooth 4.0, 'Lightning' connectorBluetooth 4.0, 'Lightning' connectorBluetooth 4.0, NFC, Infrared, microUSB8MP, 3264 x 2448, dual-LED flashA-GPS & GLONASS, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compassA-GPS & GLONASS, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compassA-GPS & GLONASS, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer, temperature, humidity250 hours standby, 10 hours talk (3G)250 hours standby, 10 hours talk (3G)370 hours standby, 17 hours talk (3G)3.5mm audio, MHL video out, Bluetooth A2DPAluminium, Corning Gorilla GlassPolycarbonate, Corning Gorilla Glass Polycarbonate, Corning Gorilla Glass 3White, yellow, green, blue, pink£549 (16GB) / £629 (32GB) / £709 (64GB)

The iPhone 5S hasn't changed a great deal from last year's model, but there are a few notable upgrades which might prove tempting.

The 'Touch ID' sensor neatly built into the 5S home button allows the user to unlock their iPhone simply by holding a finger on the sensor for a moment. Fingerprint scanners aren't new to smartphones, but Apple has done it's usual thing of improving an existing technology so it works with the minimum amount of hassle. There's been some fuss about the security provided by Touch ID, but the fact is that any determined attacker who has your phone will probably find a way in, and Touch ID will still deter a casual thief while also saving you from having to enter a code over and over again.

The camera has seen some improvements, with an increased pixel size and aperture which greatly increases its low-light capabilities, though this won't have much of a noticeable impact on daylight shots. The iPhone 5S remains one of the better smartphone cameras out there and a perfectly serviceable alternative to point and shoot cameras for most of us. 

Perhaps the most dramatic difference is on the inside: the iPhone 5S is sporting the new Apple A7 chipset, which is not only faster than before but also makes it the first smartphone to use a 64-bit architecture. Right now this isn't going to have much of an impact but in future 64-bit optimised apps should benefit from greater processing power and superior energy efficiency.

The 5C is essentially identical to last year's iPhone 5. It has much the same specification with the only real change being greater support for 4G networks which means it will work on all existing and forthcoming 4G services in the UK. 

What it does is fill the role normally held by older iPhones when a new flagship is released, providing plenty of power and features at lower cost, but this time they're trying a new marketing tactic with the bright colour scheme.

Those colourful plastic shells are a big change for Apple, of course, though as Nokia cheekily pointed out they have more than a passing resemblance to the Lumia range. 

Sadly the 5C isn't as affordable as anticipated. With prices starting at £469 it's only marginally cheaper the 5S, but then Apple has never been one to chase the budget market. It's going to be more appealing to anyone on a budget, but if you're really stuck then an older iPhone 4 or 3GS off eBay would be a better option.

Add your comment now See all >

The very best smartphones of 2013

Summary: With the year now drawing to a close, it's time to take a look at some of the best tech for the year, and now I move my gaze to smartphones.

With the year now drawing to a close, it's time to take a look at some of the best tech for the year, and now I move my gaze to smartphones.

Smartphones are the device that kick-started the post-PC revolution, and as screen resolution, processing power and battery life has increased, these devices are taking over tasks that previously required a desktop or notebook PC.

Here all operating system prejudices have been left at the door, and there are smartphones running Android, iOS and Windows Phone in the listing.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Juniper study: 80% of smartphones still unprotected from malware, attacks

Summary: Smartphones (and tablets) are just open hotspots for trouble waiting to happen if their owners don't take precautions immediately.

We all take risks for granted sometimes, but one place that nearly everyone seems to be doing that a little too lightly is on smartphones.

According to a new report from Juniper Research, more than 80 percent of smartphones (both for business and personal use) are unprotected from malware and other possible malicious attacks. Analysts expect that figure to hold true for at least the rest of 2013.

On the one hand, such an alarming figure might seem strange given how serious most people now take antivirus precautions and security on PCs.

But even that mentality took years to go mainstream, and it's still an ongoing process drumming that into people's minds in both the workplace and at home.

Analysts acknowledged in the report that a severe lack of awareness among consumers, in particular, is a major attributing factor as to why there is such a low level of mobile security software adoption.

Furthermore, analysts found that there is a "a widespread consumer perception that the price of security products is excessive," which might explain (at least partially) why people are more willing to shell out a few bucks for Angry Birds and not give a second thought about a mobile security app.

Essentially, the lesson to be learned from Juniper's latest report is that smartphones (and tablets) are just open hotspots for trouble waiting to happen if their owners don't take precautions immediately.

The full report, entitled Mobile Security: BYOD, mCommerce, Consumer & Enterprise 2013-2018, is available for purchase.

Rachel King is a staff writer for ZDNet based in San Francisco.

Smartphones: Transforming society into a sea of stupid

 

In a previous column, I discussed the impact of smartphone technology on human society and why extended usage of these devices may be stealing our most valued moments of life away from us.

I've given this a bit more thought. The issue isn't so much smartphones per se, but our increasing reliance on mobile technology combined with an irresistible cocktail of social networking. A cocktail in which there are incentives for constant participation or sharing of information, as well as incessant information "snacking."

Basically, the problem comes down to what Yale University computer science professor David Gelernter has termed the "lifestream", and what I have referred to in a previous article as "The fast track to nitwit."

In summary, the smartphone/social networking cocktail combined with this penchant for information snacking is a perfect storm for artificially created autism spectrum disorders, and it makes antisocial behavior in the form of a non-stop feedback loop the new accepted norm.

But smartphones and technology as a whole are generally accepted to be morally neutral, right?

Technology may be morally neutral, but society as a whole establishes the norms. Once we decide collectively as a society what is socially acceptable to do, there's no turning back.

For example, in the 1920s, radio became a popular form of entertainment that started to displace various social activities. In the 1950s, television re-enforced this, and by the 1960s, the "Boob Tube" became part of our collective lexicon.

So while we can certainly point towards societal detachment with the introduction of radio and television, those were only consumptive technologies rather than interactive ones.

The move towards Personal Computing starting in the early 1980s added an element of societal detachment. By comparison, radio and TV could be enjoyed in groups, whereas the PC and online interaction was by nature a single-user activity.

Technology may be morally neutral, but society as a whole establishes the norms. Once we decide collectively as a society what is socially acceptable to do, there's no turning back.

The widespread use of the PC, the rise of online services, and the use of the internet outside of academia were probably the tipping points of this trend towards a societal disconnect through technology. The mobile phone along with texting was another one.

Once these technologies were combined into the smartphone, the perfect device for bringing out the worst of our inner antisocial qualities was born.

With smartphones and mobile devices, we've extended that introversion and ersatz social activity to anywhere that there's a wireless data connection.

One could argue that any technology when applied in moderation is beneficial. Becoming connected to other people is always a good thing, but there are qualitative aspects of making connections.

I'm having a hard time believing that Facebook, Instagram, Vine, or Twitter are high-value experiences compared to, say, email or a voice-over-IP (VoIP) or video conferencing session between colleagues or distant family members.

Of course, we cannot place the blame of societal disconnect entirely on the current generation of mobile devices.

Smartphones and tablets just so happen to be the latest and greatest tool for freebasing social networking and information snacking — eventually, there will be other avenues for doing this, such as through wearable computing devices.

Game consoles and PC gaming, interestingly enough, are more of a high-value experience, particularly if they involve multiplayer games. It's certainly a more complex form of social interaction than the standard quick-share or quick-consume model of social networking.

However, too much gaming and staying inside is not great for us as a society, either.

Those who have lived through the evolution of mobile computing can still remember an age when we didn't have these devices and still have the capability to "turn off," but even so, it's still difficult to do for those people, including myself.

What is most concerning is the generation of people who are growing up with smartphones and cannot remember life without them, or never knew a time when this form of behavior was socially unacceptable.

Wearables will allow people to be antisocial in a nearly undetectable manner. In my opinion, that makes it worse, because nobody on the other side of the eyepiece will truly know whether they are being paid attention to or not.

This is pretty much the ultimate evolution, short of a cybernetic implant or the mythical technological singularity of an artificially created autism spectrum disorder.

Of course, I'm not advocating neo-Luddism of any kind here. I think that we can put mechanisms into our technology that tells us that we need to take a "time out."

Just like the fitness sensors that we have built into our phones and Bluetooth devices that count our calories and miles walked, it would also be possible to track how much we are using our technology and create thresholds which inform us that we need to take a rest.

We also need to tell people when they are acting in a socially unacceptable manner, and try not to be part of the problem ourselves.

Additionally, as my colleague James Kendrick pointed out, human beings just plain need to get out and be with other people more.

As I have said in earlier writings, we are becoming a society of anxious, sleep-deprived, irritable stress-heads. Add the "lifestreams" to this mix, and we're all at risk of becoming attention challenged and socially inept as well.

My earlier advice still stands: Simply turn the devices off and engage in basic social activities more often. Cook with people and have discussions without your devices at the dinner table.

Technology can enable us to reach out to people in ways that were never possible before, but at the same time, it is also extremely capable of bringing out the absolute worst of humanity.

Engage in group exercise like team sports, or even engage in solitary exercise to clear your mind and to meditate. And while long-form reading of books and newspapers is not a social activity per se, it stimulates the brain differently than social networking services do.

Technology can enable us to reach out to people in ways that were never possible before, but at the same time, it is also extremely capable of bringing out the absolute worst of humanity.

Anything that enhances the human condition is a positive thing, but anything that displaces basic forms of human interaction will potentially destroy us, if we are to believe EM Forster, who predicted the rise of the internet in 1909 with his short story "The Machine Stops."

I don't believe we need conclusive scientific evidence that over-use of these devices and a tendency to replace traditional means of social interaction with social networking tools disconnects us from society and may also retard or harm our overall developmental skills, particularly if we are exposed to them at an early age.

Those of us who already have difficulties in social situations or have autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and associated co-morbid conditions, such as ADHD and ADD, should be making an extra effort to get out and be with people, and not become recluses with our tech toys.

The signs are certainly out there. You only need to walk into a restaurant to see supposedly mature adults at tables mindlessly texting or "liking" and sharing, rather than engaging in focused conversation with each other.

You only need to go to a public park and watch people stare at their tablets or phones rather than take in a beautiful summer's day watching the marvels of nature or to people watch. Or ignoring priceless works of art displayed at a museum, instead fixated on their business calendars and corporate emails when they are on vacation.

You only need to observe your own children at family gatherings who would rather be texting peers of their own age — frequently in the same room with each other — than having to communicate verbally with anyone.

Is this the society we want to create for ourselves? For our children? Or are we doomed to transform our great civilization into a sea of stupid? Talk back and let me know.