I respectfully disagree with you. Selling high priced, highly subsidized phablets through carriers, generating huge profits, is a real market innovation. As said, my personal guess is that Samsung discovered this quite by accident. They kept increasing the screen size on their phones, because they could, and they kept selling more. And my guess is that it surprised the heck out of them. But it is an innovation regardless. And to give Samsung credit where due, so is building very large, very high resolution OLED screens in very large quantities. Which is why Apple, I think, was held back from entering this market earlier. No other supplier could match Samsung's screen innovation.
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
I don't believe Apple does "something they can afford that works". That's a "truck" in Steve Jobs' parlance. Apple doesn't do trucks. iPhones are cars.
The Lenovo's/Xiaomi's/Huwei's of the world will make the trucks.
no. You're misrepresenting Steve's words.
Those are Yugos. or Geo Trackers. or Matadors. Built Cheap and sold cheap. Built to be marketed, not sought after because of quality of workmanship, duty life, resale value.
A 'Truck' is a heavy duty computing platform. A PC. expandable. 'manual' transmission (windows keyboard mouse CLI, bat files, compilers, etc.). Something a professional needs, but consumers have grown up thinking they need, because it was all that was available in an earlier market.
The 'car' analogy was: Running with the Audi Line (I don't own one, but let me riff for a bit...)
iPhones are small agile cars (Audi A3, A4s)
the 6 series is just a Audi 6 and 8L
iPads are smaller agile SUVs, built on a car chassis and beefed up drivetrain: the SQ5, Q7
Jumping to the truck market.... I'll switch to the GMC family (forgive the quality inequality):
MacBook Pro Series are the Yukon/Suburban XLs of the world (small frame trucks)...
and the S10 would be the Macbook Air, just 'truck' enough but small, agile... enough for people who need to haul small stuff, but really are just to get from here to there.
Mac Pros the GMC 3500 (Big ass duellie truck).
The new iMac... that's your Hummer(probably more escalade) with an engine that is larger than the 3500, but chrome... lots of chrome;-).
Ah yes, Apple will go nuclear to drive down Samsung, with factories in democratic South Korea. But it has no problem making its own products in cheap-labor China, a brutally repressive, single-party dictatorship. I've come to suspect that the company of "think different" doesn't think at all%u2014at least about democracy and freedom. Its obsession with profit extends all the way down to the corporate bedrock and its ideas about virtues never go beyond putting solar panels up.
Well, Apple is also trying to do some work on "democracy and freedom"—your phrase—in Alabama, where it's really needed as well.
To be fair, things did improve a bit after the federal government and many civil rights workers moved in. I can still hear George Wallace saying "segregation fo'evah" in his lovely Alabama accent. It's burned into millions of minds that lived through the period.
Everything is relative. Think about how to work with different people at different stages of development. And I'm not joking about the lovely accent part. It can be very genteel. Governor Wallace also came around in the end, didn't he?
IMO what Sog35 said is absolutely correct as far as all evidence shows, that i can see at any rate. Can you show evidence that a large smart phone was a success prior to iPhone 6 and 6+? It seems reasonable to believe Tim that Apple had to wait till technologies advanced to a point where they could produce a successful larger phone that met Apple's own high benchmarks. Not a POS just to sate a media clamoring, well of course we all know that clamoring media were paid by Sammy in the first place to say that ... kind of a funny vicious circle in hindsight. Or spiral of death to call it by another name.
Sammy should have had a performance clause in those media payouts.
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
You eloquently highlighted one of Samsung management's greatest mistakes. They copied much of Apple's business models and missed one of the most profound.
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
+1.
Nailed it.
Apple lets the market do market research for it. The iPod line evolved behind just about everyone. The iPhone wasn't the first touch screen phone. The iPad Mini was 'lowering the umbrella' to keep competitors out from under. Adding cameras, etc. Heck... NFC. Apple wasn't the first, but it used the market to determine if there was a 'quality' people wanted, apple added it with a complete consumer solution, instead of a 'spec check' item.
Apple early on was a 'big' phone (the screen on the original iPhone was huge compared to most blackberry's out there.. The market reacted and thought 'bigger was better'. 4.5, 5, 6, 7 inch phones promulgated.
The only surprising thing I see was two larger phone in the iPhone 6 class. I was certain it was to maintain a 4" size and then a 'bigger' size. Apple must be reading the tea leaves that 4.7 is the new 'central' spot in the line. With the Aging of 'wealth', that could be the case (bad eyes in older people), or the fact that they feel you need more real estate now to do the mobile computing you need. Or they see the gradual adoption and price lowering of Apple Watch, so your phone will be less required outside of the pocket (you gotta figure this time next year, there will be a $199 watch, and 2 years after that a $99 watch... I'm just tracking the iPod pricing lifecycle).
But back on point. Apple 'used' Samsung against itself. It's less thermonuclear, and more adaptive evolution.
The new iMac... that's your Hummer(probably more escalade) with an engine that is larger than the 3500, but chrome... lots of chrome;-).
Your analogy fails the taste test. There isn't a gram of waste in or on an iMac, least of all what you call chrome, which on those American wannabe pimpmobiles is plastic with an aluminized coating. Escalades are the most vicious things ever made by the wastemakers of what used to be Detroit. Yech! End of rant.
You said ultimately Xiaomi would kill off Samsung. That is false.
Samsung could lose all bottom/mid range phone sales to Xiaomi but if they keep strong top end sales they would be the most profitable Android maker. It is Apple stealing top end sales that will kill Samsung. Xiaomi has NOTHING to do with Samsungs collapse in profits.
Wrong! They have a lot to do with it! Having lived in China for the last 6 years I can tell you that xiaomei is rapidly replacing Samsung, especially with younger buyers. And xiaomei is accelerating this trend by expanding sales throughout Asia, and adding a new focus on the West.
I don't think Apple went thermonuclear on Samsung. Apple was doing what Apple does; nothing they have done in bringing products to market strikes me as focused on going after Samsung. Samsung's business model, tied as it is to Google, isn't effective by comparison.
Apple's pricing has always been on the high end, and their market share on the low end. In order to charge higher prices and make higher profits Apple makes products that must be perceived as of higher value.
Samsung and other competitors experience side effects from Apple's competition. The result is what we see.
You will have to give me time to try to figure out the connection between what i write and your responses this morning, I'm not seeing them. Perhaps i need more coffee.
My point is I can understand why Google build Android. It took its mobile fate into its own hands instead of relying on Apple, or anyone else. If Android didn't exist then Windows would have probably been the OS used by the other manufacturers. In the long run Google might have found itself completely shut out of the mobile realm.
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
What sweet spot would that be? 4.7 or 5.5? The screen sizes for the SGS and Notes rarely remained static. The move to bigger screens was not started by Samsung, but by HTC, and Motorola. Samsung just made it popular but it was not their idea.
There is no such match, since Samsung clubs together a whole slew of products such as semiconductors and consumer electronics with their mobile phones sales.
The 74% drop DED is referring to was in mobile-handsets only If you read around. The division as a whole dropped 48%. So in this case yes you can guestimate iPhone profit to Samsung handset profit, if one were curious enough.
Many at Apple have stated they had to wait for the right technologies to be available to be able to do a larger screen 'right'. They could have done one far sooner had they simply been reactive to ... what was that company that used to be in this business again... mmm.. Oh Samsung, I remember now.
Those are Yugos. or Geo Trackers. or Matadors. Built Cheap and sold cheap. Built to be marketed, not sought after because of quality of workmanship, duty life, resale value.
A 'Truck' is a heavy duty computing platform. A PC. expandable. 'manual' transmission (windows keyboard mouse CLI, bat files, compilers, etc.). Something a professional needs, but consumers have grown up thinking they need, because it was all that was available in an earlier market.
The 'car' analogy was: Running with the Audi Line (I don't own one, but let me riff for a bit...)
iPhones are small agile cars (Audi A3, A4s)
the 6 series is just a Audi 6 and 8L
iPads are smaller agile SUVs, built on a car chassis and beefed up drivetrain: the SQ5, Q7
Jumping to the truck market.... I'll switch to the GMC family (forgive the quality inequality):
MacBook Pro Series are the Yukon/Suburban XLs of the world (small frame trucks)...
and the S10 would be the Macbook Air, just 'truck' enough but small, agile... enough for people who need to haul small stuff, but really are just to get from here to there.
Mac Pros the GMC 3500 (Big ass duellie truck).
The new iMac... that's your Hummer(probably more escalade) with an engine that is larger than the 3500, but chrome... lots of chrome;-).
You read more into it than I did. I took the "truck" to mean a utility vehicle (not an SUV) that is necessary to get the job done but has no sizzle nor emotion. A beige box PC. A Lenovo smartphone.
The "car" is more personal and personalizable. An iMac or iPhone.
I'd like to find the clip of Jobs' making this analogy (I can't do that at work now). I forget the details of his analogy.
So how is Apple evolving its product line in a rational manner going after Samsung as if they even bothered to target Samsung? More so I'd be a bit worried about Apple because they have fallen into the large cell phone fad and have left the small end unprotected. Forgetting about performance and features in smaller cell phones is pretty stupid on Apples part.
I think for a bit (still possibly), and in the US anyway, it's been reported that the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus and iPhone 5s were the top 3 selling phones across the 4 major carriers.
I got an iPhone 6, but still really like how my iPhone 5 feels/felt in my hand (size, I do prefer the 6's slightly rolled screen/edges) and I'm hoping that Apple keeps all 3 forms/sizes. So... I think Apple didn't forget about performance and features in the smaller cell phones. It's just that the 5s is a really good small enough option at the moment. The major thing it doesn't have that the bigger ones have is NFC. As reported the A7 can hold its own, 1 year later, when compared to a lot of what everyone else is just shipping now.
Comments
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
I don't believe Apple does "something they can afford that works". That's a "truck" in Steve Jobs' parlance. Apple doesn't do trucks. iPhones are cars.
The Lenovo's/Xiaomi's/Huwei's of the world will make the trucks.
no. You're misrepresenting Steve's words.
Those are Yugos. or Geo Trackers. or Matadors. Built Cheap and sold cheap. Built to be marketed, not sought after because of quality of workmanship, duty life, resale value.
A 'Truck' is a heavy duty computing platform. A PC. expandable. 'manual' transmission (windows keyboard mouse CLI, bat files, compilers, etc.). Something a professional needs, but consumers have grown up thinking they need, because it was all that was available in an earlier market.
The 'car' analogy was: Running with the Audi Line (I don't own one, but let me riff for a bit...)
iPhones are small agile cars (Audi A3, A4s)
the 6 series is just a Audi 6 and 8L
iPads are smaller agile SUVs, built on a car chassis and beefed up drivetrain: the SQ5, Q7
Jumping to the truck market.... I'll switch to the GMC family (forgive the quality inequality):
MacBook Pro Series are the Yukon/Suburban XLs of the world (small frame trucks)...
and the S10 would be the Macbook Air, just 'truck' enough but small, agile... enough for people who need to haul small stuff, but really are just to get from here to there.
Mac Pros the GMC 3500 (Big ass duellie truck).
The new iMac... that's your Hummer(probably more escalade) with an engine that is larger than the 3500, but chrome... lots of chrome;-).
Well, Apple is also trying to do some work on "democracy and freedom"—your phrase—in Alabama, where it's really needed as well.
To be fair, things did improve a bit after the federal government and many civil rights workers moved in. I can still hear George Wallace saying "segregation fo'evah" in his lovely Alabama accent. It's burned into millions of minds that lived through the period.
Everything is relative. Think about how to work with different people at different stages of development. And I'm not joking about the lovely accent part. It can be very genteel. Governor Wallace also came around in the end, didn't he?
IMO what Sog35 said is absolutely correct as far as all evidence shows, that i can see at any rate. Can you show evidence that a large smart phone was a success prior to iPhone 6 and 6+? It seems reasonable to believe Tim that Apple had to wait till technologies advanced to a point where they could produce a successful larger phone that met Apple's own high benchmarks. Not a POS just to sate a media clamoring, well of course we all know that clamoring media were paid by Sammy in the first place to say that ... kind of a funny vicious circle in hindsight. Or spiral of death to call it by another name.
Sammy should have had a performance clause in those media payouts.
right ...
You eloquently highlighted one of Samsung management's greatest mistakes. They copied much of Apple's business models and missed one of the most profound.
[/quote]
The only innovation Samsung can be credited with is figuring out the sweet spot for smartphone size, thus driving down the prices for screens of those sizes, which in turn everyone took advantage of.
Apple, for all the things it does, is most risk-adverse to product line dilution (eg making 300 varieties of the same thing with only trivial changes like Samsung does.) An iPhone made today works on all carriers worldwide. That owes a lot to having factory-unlocked models available.
Samsung meanwhile has NINE lines attached to the Samsung Galaxy name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ) and released 24 devices in 2013. By comparison Apple released only 2 iPhone models (With the only price difference being the NAND capacity) iPad Air 2, and iPad Mini 3 this year. Last year they did exactly the same. There has been no further iPod Touch versions since 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S has 5 different screen resolutions across 2 different sizes. Why is that even necessary? 4 different CPU's, 2 different capacity sizes, and variants therein. It's a wonder that people buy it at all when users get dramatically different experiences from a product with the same brand.
I remember when the RAZR came out, everyone wanted tiny flip phones. That's why everyone moved to clamshell designs (the last hold out being Nokia, who was so late to the game that the Smart phones came out and blindsided them when they were just releasing it.)
+1.
Nailed it.
Apple lets the market do market research for it. The iPod line evolved behind just about everyone. The iPhone wasn't the first touch screen phone. The iPad Mini was 'lowering the umbrella' to keep competitors out from under. Adding cameras, etc. Heck... NFC. Apple wasn't the first, but it used the market to determine if there was a 'quality' people wanted, apple added it with a complete consumer solution, instead of a 'spec check' item.
Apple early on was a 'big' phone (the screen on the original iPhone was huge compared to most blackberry's out there.. The market reacted and thought 'bigger was better'. 4.5, 5, 6, 7 inch phones promulgated.
The only surprising thing I see was two larger phone in the iPhone 6 class. I was certain it was to maintain a 4" size and then a 'bigger' size. Apple must be reading the tea leaves that 4.7 is the new 'central' spot in the line. With the Aging of 'wealth', that could be the case (bad eyes in older people), or the fact that they feel you need more real estate now to do the mobile computing you need. Or they see the gradual adoption and price lowering of Apple Watch, so your phone will be less required outside of the pocket (you gotta figure this time next year, there will be a $199 watch, and 2 years after that a $99 watch... I'm just tracking the iPod pricing lifecycle).
But back on point. Apple 'used' Samsung against itself. It's less thermonuclear, and more adaptive evolution.
The hunter became the hunted.
Your analogy fails the taste test. There isn't a gram of waste in or on an iMac, least of all what you call chrome, which on those American wannabe pimpmobiles is plastic with an aluminized coating. Escalades are the most vicious things ever made by the wastemakers of what used to be Detroit. Yech! End of rant.
Wrong! They have a lot to do with it! Having lived in China for the last 6 years I can tell you that xiaomei is rapidly replacing Samsung, especially with younger buyers. And xiaomei is accelerating this trend by expanding sales throughout Asia, and adding a new focus on the West.
Apple's pricing has always been on the high end, and their market share on the low end. In order to charge higher prices and make higher profits Apple makes products that must be perceived as of higher value.
Samsung and other competitors experience side effects from Apple's competition. The result is what we see.
My point is I can understand why Google build Android. It took its mobile fate into its own hands instead of relying on Apple, or anyone else. If Android didn't exist then Windows would have probably been the OS used by the other manufacturers. In the long run Google might have found itself completely shut out of the mobile realm.
"thermonuclear"....please.
What sweet spot would that be? 4.7 or 5.5? The screen sizes for the SGS and Notes rarely remained static. The move to bigger screens was not started by Samsung, but by HTC, and Motorola. Samsung just made it popular but it was not their idea.
There is no such match, since Samsung clubs together a whole slew of products such as semiconductors and consumer electronics with their mobile phones sales.
The 74% drop DED is referring to was in mobile-handsets only If you read around. The division as a whole dropped 48%. So in this case yes you can guestimate iPhone profit to Samsung handset profit, if one were curious enough.
Originally Posted by Wisely
...
From this current quarter onwards, with iphone 6 and 6 plus, the real "thermonuclear" is coming.
Spot on.
Many at Apple have stated they had to wait for the right technologies to be available to be able to do a larger screen 'right'. They could have done one far sooner had they simply been reactive to ... what was that company that used to be in this business again... mmm.. Oh Samsung, I remember now.
Still waiting for them to do AppleTV right.
no. You're misrepresenting Steve's words.
Those are Yugos. or Geo Trackers. or Matadors. Built Cheap and sold cheap. Built to be marketed, not sought after because of quality of workmanship, duty life, resale value.
A 'Truck' is a heavy duty computing platform. A PC. expandable. 'manual' transmission (windows keyboard mouse CLI, bat files, compilers, etc.). Something a professional needs, but consumers have grown up thinking they need, because it was all that was available in an earlier market.
The 'car' analogy was: Running with the Audi Line (I don't own one, but let me riff for a bit...)
iPhones are small agile cars (Audi A3, A4s)
the 6 series is just a Audi 6 and 8L
iPads are smaller agile SUVs, built on a car chassis and beefed up drivetrain: the SQ5, Q7
Jumping to the truck market.... I'll switch to the GMC family (forgive the quality inequality):
MacBook Pro Series are the Yukon/Suburban XLs of the world (small frame trucks)...
and the S10 would be the Macbook Air, just 'truck' enough but small, agile... enough for people who need to haul small stuff, but really are just to get from here to there.
Mac Pros the GMC 3500 (Big ass duellie truck).
The new iMac... that's your Hummer(probably more escalade) with an engine that is larger than the 3500, but chrome... lots of chrome;-).
You read more into it than I did. I took the "truck" to mean a utility vehicle (not an SUV) that is necessary to get the job done but has no sizzle nor emotion. A beige box PC. A Lenovo smartphone.
The "car" is more personal and personalizable. An iMac or iPhone.
I'd like to find the clip of Jobs' making this analogy (I can't do that at work now). I forget the details of his analogy.
So how is Apple evolving its product line in a rational manner going after Samsung as if they even bothered to target Samsung? More so I'd be a bit worried about Apple because they have fallen into the large cell phone fad and have left the small end unprotected. Forgetting about performance and features in smaller cell phones is pretty stupid on Apples part.
I think for a bit (still possibly), and in the US anyway, it's been reported that the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus and iPhone 5s were the top 3 selling phones across the 4 major carriers.
I got an iPhone 6, but still really like how my iPhone 5 feels/felt in my hand (size, I do prefer the 6's slightly rolled screen/edges) and I'm hoping that Apple keeps all 3 forms/sizes. So... I think Apple didn't forget about performance and features in the smaller cell phones. It's just that the 5s is a really good small enough option at the moment. The major thing it doesn't have that the bigger ones have is NFC. As reported the A7 can hold its own, 1 year later, when compared to a lot of what everyone else is just shipping now.