or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

Those charts you're showing are really screwed up. They don't match anything else. In particular, Samsung's marketshare is now about 25% worldwide, and Apple's is about 16%. The processor scores are also screwed up. Just go to Anandtech for real comparisons. Samsung's processors are not great performers, which is why they use them in markets that care less about that, and Qualcomm's in markets where they do care. That chart's a real humdinger.Xiaomi is not the biggest...
I think the number is higher than that, likely over 500 million smartphones were sold last year other than Samsung and Apple. Most were Android phones. 80% of Android phones use Qualcomm chips.But this will put a dent in Qualcomm's reputation. I wonder if this will give a chance to the Nvidia X-1, when it comes out.
I use a Canon 5D mkIII and "L" lenses. I also use my iPhone's. Can I see a difference? Sure I can. But for most photo uses, my iPhone is just dandy. My new 6+ is great! The stabilization is about as good as my best lenses. While the density range isn't as good, with HDR, it's pretty good. The only thing we need is a good optical zoom. Seriously, 8MP is good enough for most photos. I remember when Canon sent me the 6D to test in my lab (I ran a commercial photo lab for...
Apple has made it very clear that they are on a biannual schedule with their phones. You can't look at the first year as being meaningful. But, even then most of the 3G, the first iPhone we bought, was the same as the original model.But, the addition of 3G, GPS and some other minor features was a major upgrade. It also required that the back go from metal to plastic, something that was discussed almost endlessly. It was also the beginning of the biannual cycle.Does Apple...
I've seen estimates for Apple's SoCs anywhere from $25 - $32. If we assume an average price for all of them, including the oldest, possible an average would be around $23, I believe. If that's 250 million SoCs a year right now, that would be be $5.75 billion. That ain't chump change, and it is growing. If the manufacturer gets, say, 10% net from that, it's close to $600 million profit. Not bad at all. That why Samsung wanted Apple's business back so badly. Analysts said...
They do.
Nobody can get around them if they sell in a country where patents are enforced, which is most of the developed world. All those companies have their own patents, and license SEPs where they need to. There is no way around this.
It's similar to the problem Microsoft is having in offering their wares to non Windows OSs. While they had to support the Mac, for various reasons, that's not true for anything else. As long as they see this Windows product as being central to the companys future, they couldn't offer product anywhere else. That's now changed, to a certain extent. The market has opened their eyes.This is the problem Intel has. ARM SoCs are much less expensive than any x86 design, even the...
They're still two steps behind intel. Even moving to 28nm on some of their chips doesn't change the fact that foundry wise, and therefor chip design wise, they are years behind. I have no faith that anything AMD says about upcoming designs are going to match the actual product. They haven't, for years. I really don't care who is in charge of the company. They are circling the drain.
Apple's sales were increasing nicely before the switch. The fear at the time is that sales would slow down because of it. I remember the talk about that very well. What actually happened was that they sped up.Our friend Rob Enderely, in an article that I chided him about, said that the move to x86 would cause the increasing Mac sales to "tank". I still bother him about that when we correspond.
New Posts  All Forums: