Considering it's the USB connector, the one that Apple championed and was the first to use on all of their products,which they're now throwing under the bus with all of their devices upgraded with Thunderbolt and Lightning... yes.. it will take a year or longer(?) for OEM's both desktop and mobile to realize that once again... they've been run over(!).
Apple is not throwing USB under the bus, Lightening makes use of USB as a connection method. Beyond that they are adopting USB 3 on their hardware. What people don't grasp here is purpose, USB 3 and Thunderbolt serve dramatically different purposes and are not something that you should compare. It makes about as much sense as comparing an SD port with a SATA connection.
I'm particularly skeptical since this says it's ARMv7 - which is a Cortex core. I don't believe a cortex core at 1.02 GHz would have this performance.
A Cortex core is an implementation of ARMv7 it is not the definition of that instruction set. You don't even need a ARM core to implement ARMv7 which is apparently what Apple did here.
Google it seems is now resorting to threats and intimidation to keep Android forks (or is it just another Linux based system) out of the market. So much for "open", "Don't be evil", and all that. What's that you say? Yes, I know, but Google seems awfully upset that someone is, they claim, stealing their IP. Maybe they should just innovate, not intimidate.
This is off-topic, but it's important to respond.
Anyone is able to use Android in their products, and to modify it as they see fit. In this case, Alibaba introduced incompatible changes to Android. That's allowed. However, Acer announced they were going to ship a phone based on Alibaba, which they're not allowed to do since Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. One of the goals of the OHA is to ship compatible Android phones (phones that pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite). Alibaba fails the CTS. Amazon, for example, is not a member of the OHA, so they can ship Android-based products that don't pass the CTS.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This is a dual core chip clocked at around 1GHz, it is giving amazing performance when you consider what is in those Android phones. Not to mention is a physically smaller platform that actually is nice to it into your pocket.
Continue to post if you want but you are blazing a path here with pure ignorance of reality. As a long time Linux user and can safely say their is no better experience on the market right now than what one gets with iOS devices. The difference is dramatic and unquestionably in favor of Apples software.
Impressive by Apple standards, not so impressive against Android devices. By the same websites data the Samsung Galaxy S III (1628) and Asus Nexus 7 (1604) outperform the iPhone 5 score of 1601. If anything this shows just how lacking Apple hardware has been compared to Android options. The iPhone 4S got a 631… you realize how long Android devices have been much faster than that using this same data right? From this same website there are 27 Android devices with a score over 800. "no iOS device has surpassed the 800 mark, as last year's iPhone 4S netted a 631 while the third-generation iPad (CDMA) scored 734." There was a time that Apple set the bar, however Android has been moving at a much faster pace and Apple is now only playing catch-up.
Anyone is able to use Android in their products, and to modify it as they see fit. In this case, Alibaba introduced incompatible changes to Android. That's allowed. However, Acer announced they were going to ship a phone based on Alibaba, which they're not allowed to do since Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. One of the goals of the OHA is to ship compatible Android phones (phones that pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite). Alibaba fails the CTS. Amazon, for example, is not a member of the OHA, so they can ship Android-based products that don't pass the CTS.
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
Funny how the trolls never said that when the Galaxy S III started outselling the iPhone… Maybe… time has nothing to do with any argument?
I look at it this way if you buy a Samsung phone you are basically saying you approve of theft and thus have no character worth talking about.
1. Is the iPhone's not a "real" A15 chip?
If the information anandtech got is correct then no it isn't an A15 chip! A15 is an ARM implementation of ARMv7s if I remember correctly. It looks like this is Apple implementing their own implementation of ARMv7s. In other words a custom core.
2. How do you expect Android to perform any better when the software can't be written for the hardware?
Android sucks due to a number do design decisions that force the system to use a lot of CPU resources. You can write for the hardware if you want but you don't gain a lot.
No, lying is allowed. Just don't expect to be taken seriously after.
Yeah, how's that software update working for you? Certainly no "artificial limitations" happening on Android!
Android has been a joke from day one! It is an obvious rip off of Apples efforts and should be treated as such in the marketplace.
Because paid Samsung shills read this forum and others. Now the question is "Can any GSIII on the street, picked at random, still get this same score?"
Still doesn't matter at the end of the day the machine is still running Android. People should really be embarrassed to buy something that is clearly a rip off of somebody else's efforts. To me that says more about Android users than anything.
^^^the trolls really are trying hard to make themselves feel better.
What is really funny is that Apple and iPhone are just smoking any droid dork phone available.
Sales...smoked
performance....smoked
design...smoked
There is nothing for the droid dorks to do but try to rationalize the purchase and use of their lame ass phones.
Apple FTW, as usual...
They'll keep bringing that up because they have nothing else new to throw at Apple.
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
To repeat -- anyone can ship a product based on AOSP, or a modified version of AOSP. Alibaba is based on AOSP and has incompatible changes. However, Acer voluntarily agreed not to ship incompatible Android products when they joined the Open Handset Alliance. It's not bullying when Google points this out.
If another vendor, which isn't part of OHA, wants to ship Alibaba-based devices, they're free to do so.
To repeat -- anyone can ship a product based on AOSP, or a modified version of AOSP. Alibaba is based on AOSP and has incompatible changes. However, Acer voluntarily agreed not to ship incompatible Android products when they joined the Open Handset Alliance. It's not bullying when Google points this out.
If another vendor, which isn't part of OHA, wants to ship Alibaba-based devices, they're free to do so.
"Voluntarily", you mean after threats from Google?
I think Google/Android supporters have now lost all moral right to complain about Apple protecting its IP. Not that you had any right to begin with, really, but now you'll not be able to hide the hypocrisy of your position.
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
In other words, in Google Newspeak, the "Open Handset Alliance" is actually closed to Aliyun or whatever Android forks exist. I don't see the problem of Acer wanting to support Android and "other", but Google does because it supposedly claims it doesn't want Android "fragmentation" to occur (a specious argument given that Android handsets are not always upgradable to newer Android releases, but that's a different topic). I understand what the OHA original intent was: Google didn't want their manufacturing partners to fork and create completely different flavors of Android out of a self interest-driven need for product differentiation, despite Android's supposed open source nature, but to me, you can't have your moral high ground of open source and act like Microsoft at the same time.
Remember in the 90s when Microsoft was slapped with Antitrust litigation because they told their manufacturing partners that they have to buy a DOS/Windows license for every PC they make in order to get the best prices? It basically meant Microsoft was giving PC makers an economic incentive to not load Linux or any other competing OS on their machines, like DR-DOS. Google is in effect doing the same thing, except they're directly saying "no" to OHA members.
Google is the Emperor with No Clothes, except it's Google lackeys and Fandroids who still claim the Emperor is wearing "don't be evil" clothes.
In other words, in Google Newspeak, the "Open Handset Alliance" is actually closed to Aliyun or whatever Android forks exist. I don't see the problem of Acer wanting to support Android and "other", but Google does because it supposedly claims it doesn't want Android "fragmentation" to occur (a specious argument given that Android handsets are not always upgradable to newer Android releases, but that's a different topic). I understand what the OHA original intent was: Google didn't want their manufacturing partners to fork and create completely different flavors of Android out of a self interest-driven need for product differentiation, despite Android's supposed open source nature, but to me, you can't have your moral high ground of open source and act like Microsoft at the same time.
Remember in the 90s when Microsoft was slapped with Antitrust litigation because they told their manufacturing partners that they have to buy a DOS/Windows license for every PC they make in order to get the best prices? It basically meant Microsoft was giving PC makers an economic incentive to not load Linux or any other competing OS on their machines, like DR-DOS. Google is in effect doing the same thing, except they're directly saying "no" to OHA members.
Google is the Emperor with No Clothes, except it's Google lackeys and Fandroids who still claim the Emperor is wearing "don't be evil" clothes.
It is a lot like Microsoft's actions. And a lot, as mentioned above, like the Skyhook incident.
Basically, and contrary to derekmorr's attempt to portray it as an innocuous and benevolent act on Google's part, what's going on here is that Google is telling companies, if you want to be part of the "OHA", if you want access to information we give our OEM's, if you want to be able to use Android branding, not only do your "Android" phones have to comply with our arbitrary demands (such as not using Skyhook for location data), but thou shalt not make any other phones based on open source code, even if you don't want to brand those as Android, or we'll kick your teeth in, kneecap you, and pull your Android certification so fast you won't have a chance to blink.
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
I see a ton of people thieving software from the Android market and reselling it as their own on Alibaba's market. This is a completely separate issue yes, but it is also wrong. Google is reminding them of agreements they made and are expected to honor to retain membership. I don't see what the problem with that is. The OHSA is what is allowing OEMs to get the 3 month early access to Android updates so they can shorten the lead time on new updates for their phones right? It behooves Google as well as their OEM members to abide by the policies so the consumer actually gets more timely updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
It is a lot like Microsoft's actions. And a lot, as mentioned above, like the Skyhook incident.
Basically, and contrary to derekmorr's attempt to portray it as an innocuous and benevolent act on Google's part, what's going on here is that Google is telling companies, if you want to be part of the "OHA", if you want access to information we give our OEM's, if you want to be able to use Android branding, not only do your "Android" phones have to comply with our arbitrary demands (such as not using Skyhook for location data), but thou shalt not make any other phones based on open source code, even if you don't want to brand those as Android, or we'll kick your teeth in, kneecap you, and pull your Android certification so fast you won't have a chance to blink.
More specifically, they don't want those companies making other phones based on offshoots of THEIR software also being memebrs of the OHSA. Yes Android is ostensibly open source, but there are parts that are still protected and the software is not shared during the creation stages. They could choose to leave the OHSA and still go thru w/their plans relating to Alibaba, but it would have other consequences for their Android based phones, like access to the Google products IIRC. No one is forced to sign these agreements, but if they do, they are expected to abide by them.
Not the same as MS, MS was forcing the price of a Windows install for every computer OEMs sold, even if Windows was not on the system. Android is free. That kills your entire point right there.
I may be late to the game in this discussion but I feel that many people have missed a key point in all this chip versus performance debate. Android phones are using basically off-the-shelf processors, though I believe some are somewhat modified. Apple is using a highly customized, virtually unique chip optimized to do what the phone needs to do. Yes, this means there can be a massive performance difference. A dual-core chip can be faster, more efficient, than a quad-core.
I don't think it's that big a stretch to use high performance car engines to illustrate the point. A 2012 Ferrari California 30 F1 is a mighty street machine. It is a production car off the shelf at Maranello. It has a naturally aspirated V8, 4297cc, with a rated power of 489.7 PS @ 775rpm. But as impressive as these specs are, they pale in comparison to a truly custom built Ferrari F1 Tipo 056 racing engine used in Formula 1. A naturally aspirated V8 of 2400cc (about half as big as the California) putting out about 735 PS (about a third more) @ 18,000rpm. If such a wide performance gap can be accomplished with a mechanical engine, it certainly can be done with a digital one. It's all a matter of optimizing the design to maximize the performance for a particular set of desired functions.
Comments
^^^the trolls really are trying hard to make themselves feel better.
What is really funny is that Apple and iPhone are just smoking any droid dork phone available.
Sales...smoked
performance....smoked
design...smoked
There is nothing for the droid dorks to do but try to rationalize the purchase and use of their lame ass phones.
Apple FTW, as usual...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan
Impressive. If that is true, android must be really inefficient when they have quad core and 2 gb ram...
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS!
iOS on an iPod Touch ran on 128 mb of ram. And I had video wallpapers on iOS 3.1.3. It ran super smooth.
Safari crashed so you get the short answer! A process shrink takes care of your concerns nicely.
Originally Posted by mcrs
lol, trolling.
????
Apple is not throwing USB under the bus, Lightening makes use of USB as a connection method. Beyond that they are adopting USB 3 on their hardware. What people don't grasp here is purpose, USB 3 and Thunderbolt serve dramatically different purposes and are not something that you should compare. It makes about as much sense as comparing an SD port with a SATA connection.
A Cortex core is an implementation of ARMv7 it is not the definition of that instruction set. You don't even need a ARM core to implement ARMv7 which is apparently what Apple did here.
This is off-topic, but it's important to respond.
Anyone is able to use Android in their products, and to modify it as they see fit. In this case, Alibaba introduced incompatible changes to Android. That's allowed. However, Acer announced they were going to ship a phone based on Alibaba, which they're not allowed to do since Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. One of the goals of the OHA is to ship compatible Android phones (phones that pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite). Alibaba fails the CTS. Amazon, for example, is not a member of the OHA, so they can ship Android-based products that don't pass the CTS.
Andy Rubin's statement: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-benefits-importance-of-compatibility.html
OHA membership: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html
CTS docs: http://source.android.com/compatibility/
Continue to post if you want but you are blazing a path here with pure ignorance of reality. As a long time Linux user and can safely say their is no better experience on the market right now than what one gets with iOS devices. The difference is dramatic and unquestionably in favor of Apples software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
This is off-topic, but it's important to respond.
Anyone is able to use Android in their products, and to modify it as they see fit. In this case, Alibaba introduced incompatible changes to Android. That's allowed. However, Acer announced they were going to ship a phone based on Alibaba, which they're not allowed to do since Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. One of the goals of the OHA is to ship compatible Android phones (phones that pass the Android Compatibility Test Suite). Alibaba fails the CTS. Amazon, for example, is not a member of the OHA, so they can ship Android-based products that don't pass the CTS.
Andy Rubin's statement: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-benefits-importance-of-compatibility.html
OHA membership: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html
CTS docs: http://source.android.com/compatibility/
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
To raise your self-esteem and respectability among fellow gadget geeks as measured by the size and speed of your smartphone.
It's all about being more elite than your friends.
They'll keep bringing that up because they have nothing else new to throw at Apple.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
To repeat -- anyone can ship a product based on AOSP, or a modified version of AOSP. Alibaba is based on AOSP and has incompatible changes. However, Acer voluntarily agreed not to ship incompatible Android products when they joined the Open Handset Alliance. It's not bullying when Google points this out.
If another vendor, which isn't part of OHA, wants to ship Alibaba-based devices, they're free to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
To repeat -- anyone can ship a product based on AOSP, or a modified version of AOSP. Alibaba is based on AOSP and has incompatible changes. However, Acer voluntarily agreed not to ship incompatible Android products when they joined the Open Handset Alliance. It's not bullying when Google points this out.
If another vendor, which isn't part of OHA, wants to ship Alibaba-based devices, they're free to do so.
"Voluntarily", you mean after threats from Google?
I think Google/Android supporters have now lost all moral right to complain about Apple protecting its IP. Not that you had any right to begin with, really, but now you'll not be able to hide the hypocrisy of your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
One of the most recent RDF was when SJ explained the "death grip" issue of Iphone.
blah, blah, blah
You should see how the "death grip" affects the Galaxy S III, good thing it's irrelevant.
In other words, in Google Newspeak, the "Open Handset Alliance" is actually closed to Aliyun or whatever Android forks exist. I don't see the problem of Acer wanting to support Android and "other", but Google does because it supposedly claims it doesn't want Android "fragmentation" to occur (a specious argument given that Android handsets are not always upgradable to newer Android releases, but that's a different topic). I understand what the OHA original intent was: Google didn't want their manufacturing partners to fork and create completely different flavors of Android out of a self interest-driven need for product differentiation, despite Android's supposed open source nature, but to me, you can't have your moral high ground of open source and act like Microsoft at the same time.
Remember in the 90s when Microsoft was slapped with Antitrust litigation because they told their manufacturing partners that they have to buy a DOS/Windows license for every PC they make in order to get the best prices? It basically meant Microsoft was giving PC makers an economic incentive to not load Linux or any other competing OS on their machines, like DR-DOS. Google is in effect doing the same thing, except they're directly saying "no" to OHA members.
Google is the Emperor with No Clothes, except it's Google lackeys and Fandroids who still claim the Emperor is wearing "don't be evil" clothes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In other words, in Google Newspeak, the "Open Handset Alliance" is actually closed to Aliyun or whatever Android forks exist. I don't see the problem of Acer wanting to support Android and "other", but Google does because it supposedly claims it doesn't want Android "fragmentation" to occur (a specious argument given that Android handsets are not always upgradable to newer Android releases, but that's a different topic). I understand what the OHA original intent was: Google didn't want their manufacturing partners to fork and create completely different flavors of Android out of a self interest-driven need for product differentiation, despite Android's supposed open source nature, but to me, you can't have your moral high ground of open source and act like Microsoft at the same time.
Remember in the 90s when Microsoft was slapped with Antitrust litigation because they told their manufacturing partners that they have to buy a DOS/Windows license for every PC they make in order to get the best prices? It basically meant Microsoft was giving PC makers an economic incentive to not load Linux or any other competing OS on their machines, like DR-DOS. Google is in effect doing the same thing, except they're directly saying "no" to OHA members.
Google is the Emperor with No Clothes, except it's Google lackeys and Fandroids who still claim the Emperor is wearing "don't be evil" clothes.
It is a lot like Microsoft's actions. And a lot, as mentioned above, like the Skyhook incident.
Basically, and contrary to derekmorr's attempt to portray it as an innocuous and benevolent act on Google's part, what's going on here is that Google is telling companies, if you want to be part of the "OHA", if you want access to information we give our OEM's, if you want to be able to use Android branding, not only do your "Android" phones have to comply with our arbitrary demands (such as not using Skyhook for location data), but thou shalt not make any other phones based on open source code, even if you don't want to brand those as Android, or we'll kick your teeth in, kneecap you, and pull your Android certification so fast you won't have a chance to blink.
IPhone 5 1601
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202
2-core US Galaxy S3 (not overclocked): 1918
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1034550
4-core International Galaxy S3 (not overclocked): 2087
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038481
4-core Galaxy Note 2 (not overclocked): 2987
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench/103874
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, in other words, you are saying that it's important that Google protect its IP, and you condone threats and intimidation -- i.e., bullying -- as the appropriate method of doing so? This is morally superior to using, for example, the courts and established legal principles? That intimidation is morally superior to litigation? Better to behave like thugs than to hire lawyers?
What I see is the gangster mentality of Google at work. That and a bunch of hypocrites who support Google in this and criticize Apple for protecting its IP.
I see a ton of people thieving software from the Android market and reselling it as their own on Alibaba's market. This is a completely separate issue yes, but it is also wrong. Google is reminding them of agreements they made and are expected to honor to retain membership. I don't see what the problem with that is. The OHSA is what is allowing OEMs to get the 3 month early access to Android updates so they can shorten the lead time on new updates for their phones right? It behooves Google as well as their OEM members to abide by the policies so the consumer actually gets more timely updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
It is a lot like Microsoft's actions. And a lot, as mentioned above, like the Skyhook incident.
Basically, and contrary to derekmorr's attempt to portray it as an innocuous and benevolent act on Google's part, what's going on here is that Google is telling companies, if you want to be part of the "OHA", if you want access to information we give our OEM's, if you want to be able to use Android branding, not only do your "Android" phones have to comply with our arbitrary demands (such as not using Skyhook for location data), but thou shalt not make any other phones based on open source code, even if you don't want to brand those as Android, or we'll kick your teeth in, kneecap you, and pull your Android certification so fast you won't have a chance to blink.
More specifically, they don't want those companies making other phones based on offshoots of THEIR software also being memebrs of the OHSA. Yes Android is ostensibly open source, but there are parts that are still protected and the software is not shared during the creation stages. They could choose to leave the OHSA and still go thru w/their plans relating to Alibaba, but it would have other consequences for their Android based phones, like access to the Google products IIRC. No one is forced to sign these agreements, but if they do, they are expected to abide by them.
Not the same as MS, MS was forcing the price of a Windows install for every computer OEMs sold, even if Windows was not on the system. Android is free. That kills your entire point right there.
I may be late to the game in this discussion but I feel that many people have missed a key point in all this chip versus performance debate. Android phones are using basically off-the-shelf processors, though I believe some are somewhat modified. Apple is using a highly customized, virtually unique chip optimized to do what the phone needs to do. Yes, this means there can be a massive performance difference. A dual-core chip can be faster, more efficient, than a quad-core.
I don't think it's that big a stretch to use high performance car engines to illustrate the point. A 2012 Ferrari California 30 F1 is a mighty street machine. It is a production car off the shelf at Maranello. It has a naturally aspirated V8, 4297cc, with a rated power of 489.7 PS @ 775rpm. But as impressive as these specs are, they pale in comparison to a truly custom built Ferrari F1 Tipo 056 racing engine used in Formula 1. A naturally aspirated V8 of 2400cc (about half as big as the California) putting out about 735 PS (about a third more) @ 18,000rpm. If such a wide performance gap can be accomplished with a mechanical engine, it certainly can be done with a digital one. It's all a matter of optimizing the design to maximize the performance for a particular set of desired functions.