I would consider this instead of the Galaxy 8 if I couldn't get an iPhone. Always admired the note line. The pencil support is huge for me. I'd love an iPhone Plus with pencil support.
That's one reason why an iPhone could start at over $1000. A good digitizer is relative pricey component.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
Or avon's come-back on another thread when discussing innovation and TouchID (which blew away everything before it): "But but but Apple *bought* AuthenTec!" as if that somehow made the final integration and implementation less innovative or better than all the crap products before it.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might be the best with something.
Oh dear! Who did the meat and potatoes work on that? Without that purchase, Touch ID would have taken a lot longer than it did to arrive. A lot, lot longer.
Remember, I have not criticised the acquisitions, just questioned the people who regurgitate the 'only Apple innovates' spin and then give examples where Apple didn't do the innovation, they did the integration.
Nice try at quoting me out context though.
I didn't quote you out of context -- you big come back to the TouchID innovation was "But they bought it!" As if that mattered for some reason. And I'm very clearly saying that's among the stupidest claims to anti-innovation I've ever heard. There's nothing wrong with acquiring talent and tech. Those employees being newly hired doesn't somehow make it not-Apple and doesn't make it any less innovative. When people talk about the first *useful* fingerprint biometric phone, they aren't going to put an asterisk next to TouchID stating "Note: Apple didn't invent this tech and instead acquired it then implemented it."
No, complaining about acquisitions is just another troll trope -- a weak last-ditch attempt to discredit Apple and push an agenda that your knockoffs are just as good, just as innovative, etc.
Apparently to certain posters and certain companies it's really important.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
The issue is that most people here don't realize that Apple wasn't first. Then if someone else comes up with a feature they immediately think that Apple is being copied. You can't be harsh on the competitors for introducing a feature that Apple copied themselves.
You can because typically the "first!" implementation sucks, the Apple implementation gets it right, and then the knockoffs copy Apple's implementation.
Remember, ideas are the easy part. Talent isn't having a great idea ("fingerprint biometrics"), talent is building the idea in a value-adding way (TouchID). Apple often performs the heavy lifting here and shines the light on the proper way to do a thing. See iPhone. iPad. iPod. MacBooks. Macintosh. etc...
Really????
Google had great maps. Few complaints. Developed over time.
Apple bought some mapping companies, kludged things together, released it as a star feature and it was a disaster of perhaps unprecedented proportions. No! Wait! There was Mobile Me before that. Another, this time, home brewed disaster. ;-)
Silly nonsense with a point I can't even begin to grasp. Apple had to ditch the original iPhone OS mapping solution because Google refused to give up vector tiles unless Apple granted them access to user data, so Google could mine it for advertising proposes in typical google fashion. Apple, understanding who their customers are, refused. W/o vector maps from Google they had to quickly devise their own solution. Obviously it wasn't as polished as Google's out of the gate, because things take time. But that short-term pain was surely worth it over the long-run, as now nobody cares anymore since Apple Maps is just as good as Google Maps.
Apparently to certain posters and certain companies it's really important.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
The issue is that most people here don't realize that Apple wasn't first. Then if someone else comes up with a feature they immediately think that Apple is being copied. You can't be harsh on the competitors for introducing a feature that Apple copied themselves.
Apple was indeed the first to implement a dual camera system for its "telephoto" and "bokeh" (portrait mode) features, and it was a smashing success. The fact that you can't acknowledge this is an indication of your bias, not others on this forum.
Should Samsung implement a dual camera system on the Note 8 and not implement these features, then I will agree that Samsung was not a copy-cat in this case. We shall see.
I think you're splitting hairs here. Huawei beat Apple to dual lens (and I don't think they were even first anyway).
If you are now trying to whittle things down to specific features of a dual lens implementation I can't really see the point in that.
Well yeah, of course there's a point. The value-add of "two lenses" isn't the fact that there are two lenses in the phone body -- who cares. The value-add is what you can do with them as a consumer. Apple gave seamless telephoto and a sweet portrait bokeh effect. That's the value-add. Not that there is "two lenses". You're getting hung up on specs and ignoring value -- very typical for Apple critics. Being spec-driven is why critics are blind to what Apple actually does best, why they simply don't get/value what Apple does and they you feel the knockoffs are just as good.
Apparently to certain posters and certain companies it's really important.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
The issue is that most people here don't realize that Apple wasn't first. Then if someone else comes up with a feature they immediately think that Apple is being copied. You can't be harsh on the competitors for introducing a feature that Apple copied themselves.
Apple was indeed the first to implement a dual camera system for its "telephoto" and "bokeh" (portrait mode) features, and it was a smashing success. The fact that you can't acknowledge this is an indication of your bias, not others on this forum.
Should Samsung implement a dual camera system on the Note 8 and not implement these features, then I will agree that Samsung was not a copy-cat in this case. We shall see.
I think you're splitting hairs here. Huawei beat Apple to dual lens (and I don't think they were even first anyway).
If you are now trying to whittle things down to specific features of a dual lens implementation I can't really see the point in that.
The fact that YOU can't see the point isn't relevant. If YOU can't understand that implementing a specific h/w component for completely different reasons (read features) is not copying, then your point is worthless.
I was being balanced in my reply to you. Let me put it another way. The original issue was on if Huawei delivered 'dual lens' before Apple. NOT if they delivered some specific characteristics of dual lens implememtations. Your comment had nothing to with the original point and if you push me on this, might not even be completely correct. The Huawei system basically does the same as Apple's but with a different approach. I haven't checked the nitty gritty of that question because your point in itself had little bearing on the original issue, which is why I said it didn't really matter. You were splitting hairs.
Apparently to certain posters and certain companies it's really important.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
The issue is that most people here don't realize that Apple wasn't first. Then if someone else comes up with a feature they immediately think that Apple is being copied. You can't be harsh on the competitors for introducing a feature that Apple copied themselves.
You can because typically the "first!" implementation sucks, the Apple implementation gets it right, and then the knockoffs copy Apple's implementation.
Remember, ideas are the easy part. Talent isn't having a great idea ("fingerprint biometrics"), talent is building the idea in a value-adding way (TouchID). Apple often performs the heavy lifting here and shines the light on the proper way to do a thing. See iPhone. iPad. iPod. MacBooks. Macintosh. etc...
Really????
Google had great maps. Few complaints. Developed over time.
Apple bought some mapping companies, kludged things together, released it as a star feature and it was a disaster of perhaps unprecedented proportions. No! Wait! There was Mobile Me before that. Another, this time, home brewed disaster. ;-)
I don't think anyone here will say that Apple shouldn't have started working on Maps sooner, but if you recall that the issue there was Steve Jobs trusting Eric Schmidt, and then had to scramble to make a very complex system that Google had a 2 decade head start (which included buying companies).
So, yeah, Apple screwed themselves there at the expense of keeping their word to the customer by not resigning with Google which would've required allowing them access to a lot more personal data. That last year or two with ads in Google Maps was bad enough.
BTW, Apple Maps wasn't great start, but it was still worlds ahead of the original release of Google Maps in terms of features and capabilities.
Agreed Soli. No quibbles with your answer but I only gave that as one example because people were claiming that Apple doesn't release things before they are ready for prime time.
Apparently to certain posters and certain companies it's really important.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
The issue is that most people here don't realize that Apple wasn't first. Then if someone else comes up with a feature they immediately think that Apple is being copied. You can't be harsh on the competitors for introducing a feature that Apple copied themselves.
Apple was indeed the first to implement a dual camera system for its "telephoto" and "bokeh" (portrait mode) features, and it was a smashing success. The fact that you can't acknowledge this is an indication of your bias, not others on this forum.
Should Samsung implement a dual camera system on the Note 8 and not implement these features, then I will agree that Samsung was not a copy-cat in this case. We shall see.
I think you're splitting hairs here. Huawei beat Apple to dual lens (and I don't think they were even first anyway).
If you are now trying to whittle things down to specific features of a dual lens implementation I can't really see the point in that.
My opinion is that your myopia leaves you unable discriminate the different technologies involved between the two implementations of dual lenses. The point being that Apple's implementation is used to create a focus stack at varying depths of field that can be used for creating a decent "faux" bokeh effect, something that benefits from the realtime performance that the A Series processor provides that you are so willing to cede as "unimportant" to users.
You are welcome to your opinion but it is wrong.
The point was if Huawei delivered dual lens cameras before Apple. That and nothing else.
The point is NOT what the implementations do or do not do.
I truly hope you can see that.
I have already mentioned, as an aside, that both implementations do basically the same things (Yes, including 'portrait mode') but through different approaches.
Oh, and the Kirin processor in the Huawei also has an inbuilt ISP.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might not be first or best with something.
Most people here understand that Apple is rarely first to market, and yet it's the same "…bu-bu-but Apple wasn't first" comments when Apple does something better than the competition.
Or avon's come-back on another thread when discussing innovation and TouchID (which blew away everything before it): "But but but Apple *bought* AuthenTec!" as if that somehow made the final integration and implementation less innovative or better than all the crap products before it.
I'm beginning to think some people just can't accept that Apple might be the best with something.
Oh dear! Who did the meat and potatoes work on that? Without that purchase, Touch ID would have taken a lot longer than it did to arrive. A lot, lot longer.
Remember, I have not criticised the acquisitions, just questioned the people who regurgitate the 'only Apple innovates' spin and then give examples where Apple didn't do the innovation, they did the integration.
Nice try at quoting me out context though.
I didn't quote you out of context -- you big come back to the TouchID innovation was "But they bought it!" As if that mattered for some reason. And I'm very clearly saying that's among the stupidest claims to anti-innovation I've ever heard. There's nothing wrong with acquiring talent and tech. Those employees being newly hired doesn't somehow make it not-Apple and doesn't make it any less innovative. When people talk about the first *useful* fingerprint biometric phone, they aren't going to put an asterisk next to TouchID stating "Note: Apple didn't invent this tech and instead acquired it then implemented it."
No, complaining about acquisitions is just another troll trope -- a weak last-ditch attempt to discredit Apple and push an agenda that your knockoffs are just as good, just as innovative, etc.
You are quoting me out of context my reply (in that case)' was to people were not only singing the praises of Apple's innovation but giving the fingerprint scanner as an example.
'But they bought it!" As if that mattered for some reason'
Of course it mattered. No purchase. No fingerprint scanner (unless they wanted to buy the components and see competitors keep using then in their own products).
It mattered a lot in that context. In another context, the fact that they bought the company (or any other) isn't an issue.
The issue is seeing someone claim Apple innovated with something when in reality they didn't. They bought a technological foundation with real shipping products and integrated it into their own plans.
Comments
No, complaining about acquisitions is just another troll trope -- a weak last-ditch attempt to discredit Apple and push an agenda that your knockoffs are just as good, just as innovative, etc.
Silly nonsense with a point I can't even begin to grasp. Apple had to ditch the original iPhone OS mapping solution because Google refused to give up vector tiles unless Apple granted them access to user data, so Google could mine it for advertising proposes in typical google fashion. Apple, understanding who their customers are, refused. W/o vector maps from Google they had to quickly devise their own solution. Obviously it wasn't as polished as Google's out of the gate, because things take time. But that short-term pain was surely worth it over the long-run, as now nobody cares anymore since Apple Maps is just as good as Google Maps.
Well yeah, of course there's a point. The value-add of "two lenses" isn't the fact that there are two lenses in the phone body -- who cares. The value-add is what you can do with them as a consumer. Apple gave seamless telephoto and a sweet portrait bokeh effect. That's the value-add. Not that there is "two lenses". You're getting hung up on specs and ignoring value -- very typical for Apple critics. Being spec-driven is why critics are blind to what Apple actually does best, why they simply don't get/value what Apple does and they you feel the knockoffs are just as good.
The point was if Huawei delivered dual lens cameras before Apple. That and nothing else.
The point is NOT what the implementations do or do not do.
I truly hope you can see that.
I have already mentioned, as an aside, that both implementations do basically the same things (Yes, including 'portrait mode') but through different approaches.
Oh, and the Kirin processor in the Huawei also has an inbuilt ISP.
'But they bought it!" As if that mattered for some reason'
Of course it mattered. No purchase. No fingerprint scanner (unless they wanted to buy the components and see competitors keep using then in their own products).
It mattered a lot in that context. In another context, the fact that they bought the company (or any other) isn't an issue.
The issue is seeing someone claim Apple innovated with something when in reality they didn't. They bought a technological foundation with real shipping products and integrated it into their own plans.