The rumors are making the 6s sound like the least significant new model yet.
Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
The difference between the 5 and 5s was much bigger -- the 5s got touchID and cyclone, along with a better camera. ForceTouch doesn't seem to be nearly as big of a deal as touchID, and I'm guessing the A9 won't offer nearly as large a performance as improvement relative to the A8 as the A7 did relative to the A6.
Actually A9 has huge potential if it makes it to 14 nm. It might not be improved in the way you want but 14 nm could allow Apple to integrate much of the external circuitry now seen on iPhone motherboards. This would lead to lower power usage, increased space for battery and flash and greater performance.
Eventually iPhone will become a mature product line and you won't see massive improvements. Once you hit 12 mp for example the pay off for more pixels is minimal for point and shoot users.
I bet this will result in more people saying that Apple can't innovate.... but the the iPhone 7 will come out with dual cameras (or whatever), and blow everybody away.
What do you care? Seriously ignore the idiots that say such things.
Could be that the best feature of the 6s will be to create a buying opportunity for AAPL investors....
I don't have any 4K hardware but I do have 4K software. I'm planning to go 4K when the next Mac Pro is released. But back to the discussion about color: If you record in 4K and then watch it down sampled to a 1080 screen, the color will be better than recording in 1080 to start with because the chroma subsampling will be 4:4:4 since 4K is 4x 1080, the pixel subsampling is evenly divisible.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
I wish people would stop fixating on this "needs more RAM" nonsense. Sure, more RAM would be nice, but one can not ignore the cost of that... software that no longer runs at all with less RAM. By Apple keeping a tight ship, they are doing everyone a huge favour – both customers and developers. Because as soon as they add 2GB of RAM, then people will start clamouring for 4GB... and then it never ends.
So, what would 2GB do for you that you can't do right now? Allow you to leave more web pages open in Safari that you'll never view again?
I can't believe people are actually arguing that one gigabyte RAM is good enough. Yes I'd love to be able to have multiple tabs open in Safari without them constantly refreshing. It's not perfect with Air 2 but much better than Air 1. At least now I can start typing something here, go to another website, come back and not have lost everything I typed because the page refreshed. And what about when Apple does introduce split screen multitasking? Would that work smoothly with just one gigabyte RAM?
I'm sorry but Apple is not doing me a favor when the performance of my device is worse because they're stingy with RAM.
I've never seen Apple mention the iPhone's RAM in their marketing. How would their non-mention of it help Apple to sell more iPhones?
Anybody with a clue when it comes to computer technology realizes that iOS devices need more RAM. If I phone adds more RAM Apple wouldn't need to advertise the fact as the news would spread like wildfire.
Are you talking about Bayer filtering artifacts? Or something else?
No. the sensor layout has already been superseded by the image processing algorithms in the camera software. Once the device pixels are recorded to the file, it is optimal that the screen output be some evenly divisible by a factor of four or one to one of the original resolution.
I wish people would stop fixating on this "needs more RAM" nonsense. Sure, more RAM would be nice, but one can not ignore the cost of that... software that no longer runs at all with less RAM. By Apple keeping a tight ship, they are doing everyone a huge favour – both customers and developers. Because as soon as they add 2GB of RAM, then people will start clamouring for 4GB... and then it never ends.
So, what would 2GB do for you that you can't do right now? Allow you to leave more web pages open in Safari that you'll never view again?
I can say that, on my iPad at least, I find it extremely annoying when switching between browser tabs and having to wait for the page to reload from scratch. If more RAM would fix this I'm all for it.
When you look a a high contrast scenes with certain colors, they can look very unnatural. I notice this a lot when people are wearing blue jeans in the video. The blues are often too bright. Good color is more important than super high resolution.
I agree completely that good color trumps super high res, which is why I chuckle when I hear Galaxy owners brag about their "superior" AMOLED displays. The thing is, I really don't spend any time watching movies on my iPhone. The only time I watch movies away from home is when traveling. Otherwise, the only video I watch on my iPhone is limited to home movie and online video clips. None of these are going to benefit from a 4K screen.
Not to the normal people, to the diehards. The ones who gladly splurge for the 128GB model. Personally I'm fine with 1GB but I know some people want 2. (To be fair, it's more of an issue on the iPads)
Okay, this I can agree with... offer an "option" with 2GB of RAM and give people a choice, but it will still have the same effect... developers targeting the more powerful platform of the two
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I can't believe people are actually arguing that one gigabyte RAM is good enough. Yes I'd love to be able to have multiple tabs open in Safari without them constantly refreshing. It's not perfect with Air 2 but much better than Air 1. At least now I can start typing something here, go to another website, come back and not have lost everything I typed because the page refreshed. And what about when Apple does introduce split screen multitasking? Would that work smoothly with just one gigabyte RAM?
I'm sorry but Apple is not doing me a favor when the performance of my device is worse because they're stingy with RAM.
Fair points, but is the problem a lack of RAM or software not designed to work with the RAM that the device offers? There's two ways to solve the problems that you describe, not just one.
If your vehicle is not getting the mileage that you want on a tank of gas, do you demand that car makes build in bigger tanks for gas, or do you want them to focus on making the engines run more efficiently? Do you buy a vehicle based on its mileage or how much gas it can haul around?
I'm not against the idea of more RAM, but I do recognize that it's not the ideal solution in today's world of "more, more, more". I'm a software engineer, and while I don't have the "lazy" bone in my body, I'm not blind to how throwing bigger RAM at developers leads to bloated software in general.
I hope you are letting Apple know about your concerns with how Safari works via their feedback forms.
Anybody with a clue when it comes to computer technology realizes that iOS devices need more RAM. If I phone adds more RAM Apple wouldn't need to advertise the fact as the news would spread like wildfire.
No, I don't buy that argument. That's BYOPC thinking. That's Windows users' logic.
Nobody complains their Sony PS3 only has 256MB of RAM because the PS3 software is designed with the hardware in mind. Software developers aren't shooting for some random hardware target when they code for the PS3. It means learning to work within the limits of the hardware. The iPad is no different. If you were writing software for the iPad, you didn't exceed its limits. You may not realize this, but PS3 games, like iOS apps don't list "minimum specs" like Windows PC games, because they don't have to.
The fact they don't mention it just shows they know they're sticking the absolute minimum necessary in ios devices and getting away with it. I mean my god the original iPad came with 256MB RAM. No wonder Tim Cook once said Apple was a bit embarrassed over the original iPad.
The rumors are that with iOS 9 Apple started with the core OS that will work across a range of devices and then add on features. So basically bottoms up rather than top down. Consdering that Apple is still selling A5 devices (for marketing and financial reasons) those devices will have to support iOS 9 so I'm glad Apple is working to make iOS 9 perform better on older devices. But I feel bad for Apple software engineers that have to deal with low RAM constraints. They don't device how much RAM an iPhone or iPad has.
Apple doesn't advertise specs because that's the fool's game that their competitors have always played. Apple markets the user experience. They will say the device is fast, looks and sounds great, is easy to use, and can let you do X easier than ever. This is not about saving a couple of bucks in the bill of materials. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of Apple's business strategy.
Adding RAM comes at a performance cost: more RAM uses up more battery and processing power. So Apple tries to strike the right balance.
I wish people would stop fixating on this "needs more RAM" nonsense. Sure, more RAM would be nice, but one can not ignore the cost of that... software that no longer runs at all with less RAM.
The direction is always forward, if you don't keep moving you get bypassed. As for software that won't run I'm still running an iPhone 4, lots of modern software doesn't run there. Would you insist that Apple not add new feature just so my old phone can run those new features? I hope not.
What you don't seem to realize is that the lack of RAM is a serious problem on iOS devices especially the iPhone. Even Apple supplied software like Safari suffers from the lack of RAM.
By Apple keeping a tight ship, they are doing everyone a huge favour – both customers and developers. Because as soon as they add 2GB of RAM, then people will start clamouring for 4GB... and then it never ends.
That is possibly the most asinine view of the RAM issue I've every seen.
So, what would 2GB do for you that you can't do right now? Allow you to leave more web pages open in Safari that you'll never view again?
It allows for smother flipping between apps without the lost of data. Safari reloads are a real pain in the ass especially if you are filling out a form and need to reference data elsewhere. Will RAM solve every issue with Safari - nope - but it would go a long ways to making the system work better.
I can say that, on my iPad at least, I find it extremely annoying when switching between browser tabs and having to wait for the page to reload from scratch. If more RAM would fix this I'm all for it.
With Apple it is all about balance, or compromise, depending on your perspective. More RAM uses more battery to keep it powered. They tend to establish a baseline for typical users and then optimize the experience based on that. Perhaps having lots of browser tabs active was not part of the typical user experience, especially if those tabs contain heavy elements like animated ads.
What you don't seem to realize is that the lack of RAM is a serious problem on iOS devices especially the iPhone. Even Apple supplied software like Safari suffers from the lack of RAM.
That is possibly the most asinine view of the RAM issue I've every seen.
How is it asinine? I have an iPhone 4, as well. I'm painfully aware that it's not up to the requirements of today's software.
It's not asinine for one very clear reason — when iOS devices only had 512MB of RAM, everyone felt that 1GB would solve everything! Well, here we are at 1GB, and now everybody wants 2GB. Remind me again how my view is asinine? Maybe you think that 2GB is the sweet spot?
I manage over a dozen servers online, and code my own software to run on those servers. I watch resource consumption _very_ carefully. I work painstakingly hard to get the resource usage of my software _down_ so that it runs quickly and more efficiently for my clients. I could have a very different motivation – strictly adding features, and having to rent beefier servers just to power them. But that would be doing my business, and my clients, a disservice. My software is 100x more capable than it was 10 years ago, and yet consumes less RAM and takes up less CPU than the software from those older days. How? Through careful and considerate design, not by tossing more hardware at the problem. So I'm keenly aware that more RAM is not the only solution. It's one solution, just not the only solution.
All of that said, I'll be a very happy camper when I finally retire my iPhone 4 later this year and join the modern crowd, with bigger screens, more features, and more RAM. :P
This sounds like reporting from the "Luddite Daily Recorder".
The direction is always forward, if you don't keep moving you get bypassed. As for software that won't run I'm still running an iPhone 4, lots of modern software doesn't run there.
Dude, if you're still using an iPhone 4 you might want to focus more on upgrading to a new model rather than worrying about how much RAM they come with.
Many people are just gullible. I've held off upgrading my iPhone simply because the lack of RAM rubs me the wrong way. It is a very real case of Apple being stingy at the detriment of its customers.
I can't believe people are actually arguing that one gigabyte RAM is good enough. Yes I'd love to be able to have multiple tabs open in Safari without them constantly refreshing. It's not perfect with Air 2 but much better than Air 1. At least now I can start typing something here, go to another website, come back and not have lost everything I typed because the page refreshed. And what about when Apple does introduce split screen multitasking? Would that work smoothly with just one gigabyte RAM?
I'm sorry but Apple is not doing me a favor when the performance of my device is worse because they're stingy with RAM.
The iPad is another matter altogether you really need 4GB of RAM on that machine if some of the rumors about future iOS capabilities are true. In general though I have to wonder just how people are using their iOS devices if they believe 1GB is enough, like I said elsewhere it is obvious to anybody with a background in computer science that the devices are being limited due to the lack of RAM.
With Apple it is all about balance, or compromise, depending on your perspective. More RAM uses more battery to keep it powered. They tend to establish a baseline for typical users and then optimize the experience based on that. Perhaps having lots of browser tabs active was not part of the typical user experience, especially if those tabs contain heavy elements like animated ads.
Speaking of animated ads, I'll tell you what I'd love way more than extra RAM... extension support on Mobile Safari. If I could install uBlock on my iPhone's Safari browser and eliminate all the annoying ads like I do on my Macs, I'd be in heaven.
No, I don't buy that argument. That's BYOPC thinking. That's Windows users' logic.
It has nothing to do with Windows! It has to do with understanding how iOS works.
Nobody complains their Sony PS3 only has 256MB of RAM because the PS3 software is designed with the hardware in mind.
Nobody complains because those that know better game on a PC built for that purpose.
Software developers aren't shooting for some random hardware target when they code for the PS3. It means learning to work within the limits of the hardware. The iPad is no different. If you were writing software for the iPad, you didn't exceed its limits.
Exactly! Developer have to work within the limits of the device and this is the problem the device doesn't have enough RAM for advanced apps.
You may not realize this, but PS3 games, like iOS apps don't list "minimum specs" like Windows PC games, because they don't have to.
That is a bit of baloney. Many modern iPad games for example can't run on older iPad hardware.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
Edit: typo.
I would say you're probably as knowledgable as you can be. Distribution is where the bottleneck is in this new brave world. Satellite, cable and even FIOS have it to some varying degree. There's no other way to get 500 channels into your house, not to mention phone and internet down the same pipe. In fact, over-the-air HD broadcasting is about the closest to 1080i uncompressed as you're going to get. Forget 4K there. At this point the only way you're going to see 4K programming in your house is to have the screen and the content stored locally in your living room. Digital movie theaters are the best places to see 4K otherwise, until 8K becomes more affordable.
The first Bentley commercial made with the iPhone was in black and white and intended for viewing in 1080p.
Can an iPhone even record in grayscale? I would assume that they would record in color and then use effects to create the grayscale look. Grayscale is only 8-bit so it is much more advantageous to use all 24 bits to have better shadow detail and dynamic range. In my opinion if you have a high end client like Bentley, you should spare no expense on your equipment. That said, Apple is a pretty high end client too and if they are the ones paying for it to be shot on an iPhone, then that is the right thing to do.
Comments
The point is that the colors will shift maybe slightly or significantly when the hardware pixels are interpolated, depending on the scene.
Are you talking about Bayer filtering artifacts? Or something else?
Eventually iPhone will become a mature product line and you won't see massive improvements. Once you hit 12 mp for example the pay off for more pixels is minimal for point and shoot users. What do you care? Seriously ignore the idiots that say such things.
The best feature would likely be more RAM!
I don't have any 4K hardware but I do have 4K software. I'm planning to go 4K when the next Mac Pro is released. But back to the discussion about color: If you record in 4K and then watch it down sampled to a 1080 screen, the color will be better than recording in 1080 to start with because the chroma subsampling will be 4:4:4 since 4K is 4x 1080, the pixel subsampling is evenly divisible.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
Edit: typo.
I can't believe people are actually arguing that one gigabyte RAM is good enough. Yes I'd love to be able to have multiple tabs open in Safari without them constantly refreshing. It's not perfect with Air 2 but much better than Air 1. At least now I can start typing something here, go to another website, come back and not have lost everything I typed because the page refreshed. And what about when Apple does introduce split screen multitasking? Would that work smoothly with just one gigabyte RAM?
I'm sorry but Apple is not doing me a favor when the performance of my device is worse because they're stingy with RAM.
Anybody with a clue when it comes to computer technology realizes that iOS devices need more RAM. If I phone adds more RAM Apple wouldn't need to advertise the fact as the news would spread like wildfire.
Are you talking about Bayer filtering artifacts? Or something else?
No. the sensor layout has already been superseded by the image processing algorithms in the camera software. Once the device pixels are recorded to the file, it is optimal that the screen output be some evenly divisible by a factor of four or one to one of the original resolution.
I wish people would stop fixating on this "needs more RAM" nonsense. Sure, more RAM would be nice, but one can not ignore the cost of that... software that no longer runs at all with less RAM. By Apple keeping a tight ship, they are doing everyone a huge favour – both customers and developers. Because as soon as they add 2GB of RAM, then people will start clamouring for 4GB... and then it never ends.
So, what would 2GB do for you that you can't do right now? Allow you to leave more web pages open in Safari that you'll never view again?
I can say that, on my iPad at least, I find it extremely annoying when switching between browser tabs and having to wait for the page to reload from scratch. If more RAM would fix this I'm all for it.
When you look a a high contrast scenes with certain colors, they can look very unnatural. I notice this a lot when people are wearing blue jeans in the video. The blues are often too bright. Good color is more important than super high resolution.
I agree completely that good color trumps super high res, which is why I chuckle when I hear Galaxy owners brag about their "superior" AMOLED displays. The thing is, I really don't spend any time watching movies on my iPhone. The only time I watch movies away from home is when traveling. Otherwise, the only video I watch on my iPhone is limited to home movie and online video clips. None of these are going to benefit from a 4K screen.
Not to the normal people, to the diehards. The ones who gladly splurge for the 128GB model. Personally I'm fine with 1GB but I know some people want 2. (To be fair, it's more of an issue on the iPads)
Okay, this I can agree with... offer an "option" with 2GB of RAM and give people a choice, but it will still have the same effect... developers targeting the more powerful platform of the two
I can't believe people are actually arguing that one gigabyte RAM is good enough. Yes I'd love to be able to have multiple tabs open in Safari without them constantly refreshing. It's not perfect with Air 2 but much better than Air 1. At least now I can start typing something here, go to another website, come back and not have lost everything I typed because the page refreshed. And what about when Apple does introduce split screen multitasking? Would that work smoothly with just one gigabyte RAM?
I'm sorry but Apple is not doing me a favor when the performance of my device is worse because they're stingy with RAM.
Fair points, but is the problem a lack of RAM or software not designed to work with the RAM that the device offers? There's two ways to solve the problems that you describe, not just one.
If your vehicle is not getting the mileage that you want on a tank of gas, do you demand that car makes build in bigger tanks for gas, or do you want them to focus on making the engines run more efficiently? Do you buy a vehicle based on its mileage or how much gas it can haul around?
I'm not against the idea of more RAM, but I do recognize that it's not the ideal solution in today's world of "more, more, more". I'm a software engineer, and while I don't have the "lazy" bone in my body, I'm not blind to how throwing bigger RAM at developers leads to bloated software in general.
I hope you are letting Apple know about your concerns with how Safari works via their feedback forms.
www.apple.com/feedback
Anybody with a clue when it comes to computer technology realizes that iOS devices need more RAM. If I phone adds more RAM Apple wouldn't need to advertise the fact as the news would spread like wildfire.
No, I don't buy that argument. That's BYOPC thinking. That's Windows users' logic.
Nobody complains their Sony PS3 only has 256MB of RAM because the PS3 software is designed with the hardware in mind. Software developers aren't shooting for some random hardware target when they code for the PS3. It means learning to work within the limits of the hardware. The iPad is no different. If you were writing software for the iPad, you didn't exceed its limits. You may not realize this, but PS3 games, like iOS apps don't list "minimum specs" like Windows PC games, because they don't have to.
The fact they don't mention it just shows they know they're sticking the absolute minimum necessary in ios devices and getting away with it. I mean my god the original iPad came with 256MB RAM. No wonder Tim Cook once said Apple was a bit embarrassed over the original iPad.
The rumors are that with iOS 9 Apple started with the core OS that will work across a range of devices and then add on features. So basically bottoms up rather than top down. Consdering that Apple is still selling A5 devices (for marketing and financial reasons) those devices will have to support iOS 9 so I'm glad Apple is working to make iOS 9 perform better on older devices. But I feel bad for Apple software engineers that have to deal with low RAM constraints. They don't device how much RAM an iPhone or iPad has.
Apple doesn't advertise specs because that's the fool's game that their competitors have always played. Apple markets the user experience. They will say the device is fast, looks and sounds great, is easy to use, and can let you do X easier than ever. This is not about saving a couple of bucks in the bill of materials. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of Apple's business strategy.
Adding RAM comes at a performance cost: more RAM uses up more battery and processing power. So Apple tries to strike the right balance.
The direction is always forward, if you don't keep moving you get bypassed. As for software that won't run I'm still running an iPhone 4, lots of modern software doesn't run there. Would you insist that Apple not add new feature just so my old phone can run those new features? I hope not.
What you don't seem to realize is that the lack of RAM is a serious problem on iOS devices especially the iPhone. Even Apple supplied software like Safari suffers from the lack of RAM. That is possibly the most asinine view of the RAM issue I've every seen.
It allows for smother flipping between apps without the lost of data. Safari reloads are a real pain in the ass especially if you are filling out a form and need to reference data elsewhere. Will RAM solve every issue with Safari - nope - but it would go a long ways to making the system work better.
I can say that, on my iPad at least, I find it extremely annoying when switching between browser tabs and having to wait for the page to reload from scratch. If more RAM would fix this I'm all for it.
With Apple it is all about balance, or compromise, depending on your perspective. More RAM uses more battery to keep it powered. They tend to establish a baseline for typical users and then optimize the experience based on that. Perhaps having lots of browser tabs active was not part of the typical user experience, especially if those tabs contain heavy elements like animated ads.
What you don't seem to realize is that the lack of RAM is a serious problem on iOS devices especially the iPhone. Even Apple supplied software like Safari suffers from the lack of RAM.
That is possibly the most asinine view of the RAM issue I've every seen.
How is it asinine? I have an iPhone 4, as well. I'm painfully aware that it's not up to the requirements of today's software.
It's not asinine for one very clear reason — when iOS devices only had 512MB of RAM, everyone felt that 1GB would solve everything! Well, here we are at 1GB, and now everybody wants 2GB. Remind me again how my view is asinine? Maybe you think that 2GB is the sweet spot?
I manage over a dozen servers online, and code my own software to run on those servers. I watch resource consumption _very_ carefully. I work painstakingly hard to get the resource usage of my software _down_ so that it runs quickly and more efficiently for my clients. I could have a very different motivation – strictly adding features, and having to rent beefier servers just to power them. But that would be doing my business, and my clients, a disservice. My software is 100x more capable than it was 10 years ago, and yet consumes less RAM and takes up less CPU than the software from those older days. How? Through careful and considerate design, not by tossing more hardware at the problem. So I'm keenly aware that more RAM is not the only solution. It's one solution, just not the only solution.
All of that said, I'll be a very happy camper when I finally retire my iPhone 4 later this year and join the modern crowd, with bigger screens, more features, and more RAM. :P
This sounds like reporting from the "Luddite Daily Recorder".
The direction is always forward, if you don't keep moving you get bypassed. As for software that won't run I'm still running an iPhone 4, lots of modern software doesn't run there.
Dude, if you're still using an iPhone 4 you might want to focus more on upgrading to a new model rather than worrying about how much RAM they come with.
The iPad is another matter altogether you really need 4GB of RAM on that machine if some of the rumors about future iOS capabilities are true. In general though I have to wonder just how people are using their iOS devices if they believe 1GB is enough, like I said elsewhere it is obvious to anybody with a background in computer science that the devices are being limited due to the lack of RAM.
With Apple it is all about balance, or compromise, depending on your perspective. More RAM uses more battery to keep it powered. They tend to establish a baseline for typical users and then optimize the experience based on that. Perhaps having lots of browser tabs active was not part of the typical user experience, especially if those tabs contain heavy elements like animated ads.
Speaking of animated ads, I'll tell you what I'd love way more than extra RAM... extension support on Mobile Safari. If I could install uBlock on my iPhone's Safari browser and eliminate all the annoying ads like I do on my Macs, I'd be in heaven.
That is a bit of baloney. Many modern iPad games for example can't run on older iPad hardware.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
Edit: typo.
I would say you're probably as knowledgable as you can be. Distribution is where the bottleneck is in this new brave world. Satellite, cable and even FIOS have it to some varying degree. There's no other way to get 500 channels into your house, not to mention phone and internet down the same pipe. In fact, over-the-air HD broadcasting is about the closest to 1080i uncompressed as you're going to get. Forget 4K there. At this point the only way you're going to see 4K programming in your house is to have the screen and the content stored locally in your living room. Digital movie theaters are the best places to see 4K otherwise, until 8K becomes more affordable.
The first Bentley commercial made with the iPhone was in black and white and intended for viewing in 1080p.
Can an iPhone even record in grayscale? I would assume that they would record in color and then use effects to create the grayscale look. Grayscale is only 8-bit so it is much more advantageous to use all 24 bits to have better shadow detail and dynamic range. In my opinion if you have a high end client like Bentley, you should spare no expense on your equipment. That said, Apple is a pretty high end client too and if they are the ones paying for it to be shot on an iPhone, then that is the right thing to do.