The argument about Qualcomm chips being used in Samsung in North America is uninformed - they are used because Qualcomm has a monopoly on the cellular baseband chips required for several of the carriers in North America, and it is better power to use Qualcomm's all-in-one than to use Qualcomm's baseband only chip with Samsung's Exynos. Several companies have done this, including Samsung's S3, so nothing new to see here.
What I do not understand, is why an website with great jornalists that do great and well thought articles (like this one) can destroy it's own reputation by publishing rumours from digitimes and everything that was being said by analysts.
Please AI, stop that. Invest more on these editorials that create great content.
Aspire to be more like Anandtech (with focus on Apple) and less like Engadget, Cnet or Mac rumours. Put a little of The Verge in your website. Create a loyal and informed base, the masses (the ones that matter, not the trash) will come.
Apple is the only one truly innovating since 98. In fact, they are the most important company (regarded innovation) since they were created. Fantastic. **** you Samsung with your yakuza-wannabees and absolutly retarded S4 buyers (factual. Ignorant people).
What I do not understand, is why an website with great jornalists that do great and well thought articles (like is one) can destroy it's own reputation by publishing rumours from digitimes and everything that was being said by analysts.
Please AI, stop that. Invest more on these editorials that create great content.
Aspire to be more like Anandtech (with focus on Apple) and less like Engadget, Cnet or Mac rumours. Put a little of The Verge in your website. Create a loyal and informed base, the masses (the ones that matter, not the trash) will come.
Apple is the only one truly innovating since 98. In fact, they are the most important company (regarded innovation) since they were created. Fantastic. **** you Samsung with your yakuza-wannabees and absolutly retarded S4 buyers (factual. Ignorant people).
edited to be more accurate - I see appleinsider as the opposite Anandtech - good for news and business insights, not so good on technical details. Stick to what you're good at and don't try to throw in tech details you don't really understand.
The argument about Qualcomm chips being used in Samsung in North America is uninformed - they are used because Qualcomm has a monopoly on the cellular baseband chips required for several of the carriers in North America, and it is better power to use Qualcomm's all-in-one than to use Qualcomm's baseband only chip with Samsung's Exynos. Several companies have done this, including Samsung's S3, so nothing new to see here.
They are used for a variaty of reasons.
The most important is that exynos sucks and is murdered in quality/price/drivers/support/benchmarks(real world, fair benchmarks) by qualcomm and Apple's SOC.
Then you have the LTE argument.
Basically Samsung is embarassing at anything related to engineering and software.
It's just a company that has criminals on charge with the media and south korea on their pockets that happens to be great at manufacturing and shameful about laws and respect.
A company that should be exterminated or a necessary evil... that's the question.
"Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise. Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise."
This bears repeating. Over and over.
Basically the ultimate rebuke to every single troll nonsense comment made here since the 10th.
Well said sir.
Apple is once again pushing the industry in a certain direction with the implementation of the A7. If it weren't significant samscum wouldn't be so quick to come out with a statement with intent to copy the move.
And I also agree that it's about their roadmap for future products.
Great article. I was really tired of reading sites with so many negative articles about Apple's shift to 64 bit now.
Another spot on, informed and eloquent analysis, Daniel. May you and Appleinsider get increasingly more exposure; a welcome melody of truth-based tech journalism to counteract the static, the parroted shameful crap, that is being perpetuated out there.
It would be fascinating to get insight - fat chance - into Apple's internal structure and processes in developing new technologies like the A7 for their products. You have to figure that Bob Mansfield is in the very middle of all of it, but how do they make the decisions like Samsung vs. TSMC as a supplier, etc. All kinds of parameters from cost, risk, product schedules, and much else come into play. Enormously tricky.
One thing that strikes me is that this does not seem to have the earmarks of a committee process. It looks to me more like the result of a single strong person visionary who can lead the company along his view of the future. Apple certainly has a precedent for that, now gone. But are any of the obvious candidates - Mansfield? Cook? Ive? Someone else? - that person?
Again, would be fascinating to get a glimpse into what goes on Cupertino, but of course it's not in the cards.
This article is full of useful information and good reporting BUT you badly need and editor. The article's structure and tone are all over the place. You bury the most important bits in bad paragraph structure, awkward sentences and uneven rhythm.
This should have been at least two articles, maybe three.
Try this for starters: Have someone read your copy aloud. If they stumble, so will your reader.
Again, all the parts of a solid article exist within here, but it needs work.
For me the biggest distractions are the duplicated sentences. It is like reading the first and second draft at the same time. Annoying waste of time. After half a dozen in the article, the otherwise witty sarcasm begins to lose its punch.
Wow - amazing article and some really eye-opening perspectives. Some of the best Apple reporting I've seen all year. Kudos to you, Daniel, and to Apple Insider for providing some truly original and compelling content.
Samsung must not have doing the A7 or they would not have been caught flatfooted by Apple's 64-Bit launch. They probably had the contract for the 5C soc and thought that was all Apple was doing.
"Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise. Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise."
This bears repeating. Over and over.
Basically the ultimate rebuke to every single troll nonsense comment made here since the 10th.
I was going to call this out but you beat me to it. This is why every tiresome banalyst (banal, syn: vapid, unimaginative, stale, worn out, etc.) who thinks they know best what Apple should be selling where and at what price is peddling a pile of fool's horses*it.
Yes.
Sim free iPhone 5s in UK Apple Store £549.00
Sim free Samsung Galaxy S4 in Argos £599.95 although it does have £50 off at the moment making it only 95 pence more expensive than the 5s.
It would be fascinating to get insight - fat chance - into Apple's internal structure and processes in developing new technologies like the A7 for their products. You have to figure that Bob Mansfield is in the very middle of all of it, but how do they make the decisions like Samsung vs. TSMC as a supplier, etc. All kinds of parameters from cost, risk, product schedules, and much else come into play. Enormously tricky.
One thing that strikes me is that this does not seem to have the earmarks of a committee process. It looks to me more like the result of a single strong person visionary who can lead the company along his view of the future. Apple certainly has a precedent for that, now gone. But are any of the obvious candidates - Mansfield? Cook? Ive? Someone else? - that person?
Of course it's Cook, the most underrated CEO in the world. Cook is no Jobs, nobody is, but after working side by side with Cook for several years, you think Jobs would have picked him to takeover as Apple CEO if he were anything but top class?
Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer, don't write apps for any platform. I'm simply friends with someone who does.
Just an anecdote from my programmer friend. We were watching the liveblog and chatting during it. He's a programmer that builds rich content websites and has written a few apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone 8. His preferred phone was a WP8 Nokia but his current company is Google everything so he has an Android model right now. His background is mostly Microsoft.
His comment when they revealed the 64-bit thing was that it was a "huge development" and that it was a really big deal for developers regardless of whether it took full advantage of larger amounts of RAM. It was a "big time leap forward" for Apple to make that move. He was thoroughly impressed.
Samsung must not have doing the A7 or they would not have been caught flatfooted by Apple's 64-Bit launch. They probably had the contract for the 5C soc and thought that was all Apple was doing.
Haha!
Amazing piece of misdirection by Apple. Fooled not only the whole banalyst community but their own first tier component suppliers.
Samsung S2, S3, S4 all came out with Qualcomm Snapdragon (mostly US) and Samsung Exynos (international), while Samsung used Samsung Exynos, Qualcomm Snapdragon, Intel Atom chips (Galaxy Tab 3 10.1) for tablets. Samsung Chromebooks are also powered by dual-core Exynos.
Samsung is doomed. LOL!
Notice how you're the only one saying anything like this whatsoever.
Comments
All of Apple's apps will be, for starters.
At the other end of the spectrum, even my app will be, before the end of the year.
The argument about Qualcomm chips being used in Samsung in North America is uninformed - they are used because Qualcomm has a monopoly on the cellular baseband chips required for several of the carriers in North America, and it is better power to use Qualcomm's all-in-one than to use Qualcomm's baseband only chip with Samsung's Exynos. Several companies have done this, including Samsung's S3, so nothing new to see here.
Thank you, DED.
What I do not understand, is why an website with great jornalists that do great and well thought articles (like this one) can destroy it's own reputation by publishing rumours from digitimes and everything that was being said by analysts.
Please AI, stop that. Invest more on these editorials that create great content.
Aspire to be more like Anandtech (with focus on Apple) and less like Engadget, Cnet or Mac rumours. Put a little of The Verge in your website. Create a loyal and informed base, the masses (the ones that matter, not the trash) will come.
Apple is the only one truly innovating since 98. In fact, they are the most important company (regarded innovation) since they were created. Fantastic. **** you Samsung with your yakuza-wannabees and absolutly retarded S4 buyers (factual. Ignorant people).
Thank you, DED.
What I do not understand, is why an website with great jornalists that do great and well thought articles (like is one) can destroy it's own reputation by publishing rumours from digitimes and everything that was being said by analysts.
Please AI, stop that. Invest more on these editorials that create great content.
Aspire to be more like Anandtech (with focus on Apple) and less like Engadget, Cnet or Mac rumours. Put a little of The Verge in your website. Create a loyal and informed base, the masses (the ones that matter, not the trash) will come.
Apple is the only one truly innovating since 98. In fact, they are the most important company (regarded innovation) since they were created. Fantastic. **** you Samsung with your yakuza-wannabees and absolutly retarded S4 buyers (factual. Ignorant people).
edited to be more accurate - I see appleinsider as the opposite Anandtech - good for news and business insights, not so good on technical details. Stick to what you're good at and don't try to throw in tech details you don't really understand.
The argument about Qualcomm chips being used in Samsung in North America is uninformed - they are used because Qualcomm has a monopoly on the cellular baseband chips required for several of the carriers in North America, and it is better power to use Qualcomm's all-in-one than to use Qualcomm's baseband only chip with Samsung's Exynos. Several companies have done this, including Samsung's S3, so nothing new to see here.
They are used for a variaty of reasons.
The most important is that exynos sucks and is murdered in quality/price/drivers/support/benchmarks(real world, fair benchmarks) by qualcomm and Apple's SOC.
Then you have the LTE argument.
Basically Samsung is embarassing at anything related to engineering and software.
It's just a company that has criminals on charge with the media and south korea on their pockets that happens to be great at manufacturing and shameful about laws and respect.
A company that should be exterminated or a necessary evil... that's the question.
Well said sir.
Apple is once again pushing the industry in a certain direction with the implementation of the A7. If it weren't significant samscum wouldn't be so quick to come out with a statement with intent to copy the move.
And I also agree that it's about their roadmap for future products.
Great article. I was really tired of reading sites with so many negative articles about Apple's shift to 64 bit now.
It would be fascinating to get insight - fat chance - into Apple's internal structure and processes in developing new technologies like the A7 for their products. You have to figure that Bob Mansfield is in the very middle of all of it, but how do they make the decisions like Samsung vs. TSMC as a supplier, etc. All kinds of parameters from cost, risk, product schedules, and much else come into play. Enormously tricky.
One thing that strikes me is that this does not seem to have the earmarks of a committee process. It looks to me more like the result of a single strong person visionary who can lead the company along his view of the future. Apple certainly has a precedent for that, now gone. But are any of the obvious candidates - Mansfield? Cook? Ive? Someone else? - that person?
Again, would be fascinating to get a glimpse into what goes on Cupertino, but of course it's not in the cards.
This article is full of useful information and good reporting BUT you badly need and editor. The article's structure and tone are all over the place. You bury the most important bits in bad paragraph structure, awkward sentences and uneven rhythm.
This should have been at least two articles, maybe three.
Try this for starters: Have someone read your copy aloud. If they stumble, so will your reader.
Again, all the parts of a solid article exist within here, but it needs work.
For me the biggest distractions are the duplicated sentences. It is like reading the first and second draft at the same time. Annoying waste of time. After half a dozen in the article, the otherwise witty sarcasm begins to lose its punch.
Haha!
"Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise. Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise."
This bears repeating. Over and over.
Basically the ultimate rebuke to every single troll nonsense comment made here since the 10th.
I was going to call this out but you beat me to it. This is why every tiresome banalyst (banal, syn: vapid, unimaginative, stale, worn out, etc.) who thinks they know best what Apple should be selling where and at what price is peddling a pile of fool's horses*it.
Yes.
Sim free iPhone 5s in UK Apple Store £549.00
Sim free Samsung Galaxy S4 in Argos £599.95 although it does have £50 off at the moment making it only 95 pence more expensive than the 5s.
It would be fascinating to get insight - fat chance - into Apple's internal structure and processes in developing new technologies like the A7 for their products. You have to figure that Bob Mansfield is in the very middle of all of it, but how do they make the decisions like Samsung vs. TSMC as a supplier, etc. All kinds of parameters from cost, risk, product schedules, and much else come into play. Enormously tricky.
One thing that strikes me is that this does not seem to have the earmarks of a committee process. It looks to me more like the result of a single strong person visionary who can lead the company along his view of the future. Apple certainly has a precedent for that, now gone. But are any of the obvious candidates - Mansfield? Cook? Ive? Someone else? - that person?
Of course it's Cook, the most underrated CEO in the world. Cook is no Jobs, nobody is, but after working side by side with Cook for several years, you think Jobs would have picked him to takeover as Apple CEO if he were anything but top class?
Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer, don't write apps for any platform. I'm simply friends with someone who does.
Just an anecdote from my programmer friend. We were watching the liveblog and chatting during it. He's a programmer that builds rich content websites and has written a few apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone 8. His preferred phone was a WP8 Nokia but his current company is Google everything so he has an Android model right now. His background is mostly Microsoft.
His comment when they revealed the 64-bit thing was that it was a "huge development" and that it was a really big deal for developers regardless of whether it took full advantage of larger amounts of RAM. It was a "big time leap forward" for Apple to make that move. He was thoroughly impressed.
TIFWIW.
Samsung must not have doing the A7 or they would not have been caught flatfooted by Apple's 64-Bit launch. They probably had the contract for the 5C soc and thought that was all Apple was doing.
Haha!
Amazing piece of misdirection by Apple. Fooled not only the whole banalyst community but their own first tier component suppliers.
Samsung is finally being exposed since Apple has fallen from the tree.
Samsung S2, S3, S4 all came out with Qualcomm Snapdragon (mostly US) and Samsung Exynos (international), while Samsung used Samsung Exynos, Qualcomm Snapdragon, Intel Atom chips (Galaxy Tab 3 10.1) for tablets. Samsung Chromebooks are also powered by dual-core Exynos.
Samsung is doomed. LOL!
Notice how you're the only one saying anything like this whatsoever.
Wonder if there's a reason for that.