Watch: iPhone X takes on Samsung's Galaxy S9+ in benchmarking bonanza

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    Love the old iMac sitting on the shelf there. A sentimental favourite.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 66
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    Everyone, Apple included, is limited by where the technology itself is at any given time. Apple simply can’t be off the charts compared to everyone else. In fact, Apple tends to hold back from bleeding edge tech, while others jump into it quickly. A critical issue for Apple is when can the newest tech be delivered in the quantity and quality necessary. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,075member
    lkrupp said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    It’s quite apparent that Samsung is the apple of your eye, the thing that makes your heart flutter. Samsung FTW! Right?
    Nope.   I've never owned or used a Samsung.   My last android phone was the original Moto X (it was my second phone).   My current phones are an iPhone 7+ and iPhone 8+ along with a cellular watch 3 series.   Have you even upgraded to an 7 or 8, I thought you said you used some old 6 to 6s.   But I will say this Siri is probably still better than Bixby.   Maybe I should have bought a Samsung because I'm having problems with my Kenmore washer.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,075member
    jcs2305 said:
    lkrupp said:
    jcs2305 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    What exactly does that have to do with this article? I personally didn't forget a thing, I just don't care what Samsung makes in the way of profit.  Do you own shares of Samsung Electronics Co ltd?  If so your comment makes a bit more sense, it still has nothing to do with the article you are commenting on, but I would understand you saying that more if you did own shares with them.
    There are quite few in this forum who for some reason continually fawn over Samsung and Google. And they call Apple fans a cult, a religion or clueless lemmings. That they have a need to constantly reinforce their non-Apple choices on an Apple centric blog is creepy.
    Don’t forget sheep. Hahaha.  I also couldn’t agree with you more. All the flailing defensive responses that just don’t make sense. It’s truly bizarre to me. 
    I never heard of Samsung fanatics, but there definitely are Google fanatics who will forgive any and everything with Google or Android (Just look at the adoration shown over the Pixel2XL despite its many documented problems).    The people I know who like their Samsung phones aren't into phones and like them because they are cheap.
    Gosh one of my friends has an Galaxy S3 and likes it because its smaller and has a removable battery.   I couldn't imagine using it because its so small, but he doesn't like surfing the web or using apps.
  • Reply 45 of 66
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    sflocal said:
    mtbnut said:
    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 
    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 

    Wrong.  You actually have it backwards, and then some.  Apple is using less cores, and less RAM then Samsung's offering and it STILL passes Samsung on just about everything.

    If anything, your analogy is more like Apple being the Toyota with a smaller motor passing Samsung's Porsche knockoff.
    Good analogy. IPhone X, smaller but turbocharged power. Sammy, you got burned..
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 66
    netmagenetmage Posts: 314member
    mtbnut said:
    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    There's disingenuous and then there is dishonesty,and that was a lot closer to the latter.

    This isn't comparing the iPhone X to the $200 Samsung economy model, this is comparing it to the just released flagship Samsung phone, which would be like comparing your GT3 to the Lexus LFA. Should Porsche be ashamed they are barely beating a Toyota?
    edited March 2018
  • Reply 47 of 66
    Look at how the Galaxy S9 plus gets demolished!
    Why do Samsung even bother?


    edited March 2018
  • Reply 48 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Does DynamIQ allow for al 8 cores to be used at once? If not, I wish these reviewers would note that as it means the iPhone X is a trie hexacore device while that Galaxy S9 Plus can only ever be a quadcore device at any given moment.
    edited March 2018
  • Reply 49 of 66
    I know right?
    It's like they just don't listen and the whole world is screaming at them but they carry on like it will all work itself out. 
    The then dynastat retaining clip can't take anymore and finally breaks.
    They were warned......they were warned.
    edited March 2018
  • Reply 50 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,625member
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    edited March 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 51 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no different than Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    You're funny! All I see for most of the competition's R&D efforts is faux notches. Notably, MWC provided little in the way of phone innovation, according to many who were there.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS and its ecosystem.

    More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation the reduces value. Mostly though, the reason that pricing power doesn't exist in the Android OS ecosystem is lack of differentiation between competitors.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's, so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    edited March 2018
  • Reply 52 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,625member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no difference that Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    Your funny! All I see for most of the competitions efforts is faux notches.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS. More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's. so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    Would the value of the ecosystem be less if iPhones were cheaper? No. Not all.

    Of course the user decides how much a phone is 'worth' to him or her with regards to pricing and Apple has a different business model to Google but neither factor has anything to do with what I was pointing out.
  • Reply 53 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    That was a good review...   But these kind of reviews bother me because they tell a lie by telling the truth -- or rather, part of the truth...

    Yes, comparing hardware performance is important and valid.  But it's only part of the user experience.
    I thought he was going to redeem himself at the end when he said:  the decision on which to buy comes down to "features and OS"...

    But again, while that's true, it's only part of the truth...

    What sets the iPhone apart from the Samsung more than any hardware, features or OS is the Apple ecosystem.  Which, unfortunately, is hard to define.   But it consists of a tangled web of things that promote usability, functionality, security, dependability, reliability and user confidence and satisfaction -- partly by minimizing bad experiences....

    Maybe an analogy can be made in automobiles:   20-30 years ago the U.S. auto industry was struggling while the Japanese auto industry was growing by leaps and bounds.  The difference was not in the hardware or even the features.  American cars were just as big, just as fast and had even more features than the Japanese cars.  But, the difference was in the fact that the American cars lacked the dependability and reliability of the Japanese cars.  Chevy's broke.  Toyota's were described as "bullet proof".
  • Reply 54 of 66
    MrSafari said:
    Look at how the Galaxy S9 plus gets demolished!
    Why do Samsung even bother?


    I guess you did NOT read the article!!! This is one of the very balanced articles for which AI should be appreciated. Few lines from the very same article that you are commenting on:

    Performance on both devices has reached a point where it should no longer affect your decision-making process when deciding between an iPhone and a Galaxy device.

    If you're trying to figure out which phone to buy, we recommend basing your decision on the features and operating system you like the most, as raw performance is no longer a determining factor.

    gatorguy
  • Reply 55 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no difference that Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    Your funny! All I see for most of the competitions efforts is faux notches.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS. More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's. so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    Would the value of the ecosystem be less if iPhones were cheaper? No. Not all.

    Of course the user decides how much a phone is 'worth' to him or her with regards to pricing and Apple has a different business model to Google but neither factor has anything to do with what I was pointing out.
    I'm guessing that Apple would heartily disagree with your assumption, and the Apple Watch, as an example, or AirPods, would be the "fruits" from the revenue of iPhone that increases value in the ecosystem, and happily for Apple, generates even more revenue! I would also note that Apple provides its own operating system, iOS, at a substantial cost, which all of those less expensive devices rely on Google for.

    Maybe though, the value is due to Apple not competing in the low end of the market, which has the effect of driving down pricing power for Android OS device makers. 

    Frankly, I still don't understand the point about Apple's "excessive" revenue. I assure you that Apple is exhaustive in looking for new products and services to throw money at, but decidedly has opted out of high cost M&A, so far anyway. How would I or anyone else know of what Apple's roadmap and future plans are that may require that revenue stream?
  • Reply 56 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,075member
    Soli said:
    k2kw said:
    I would like to see how both phones compare in LTE upload and download Speeds.  preferably on at least one GSM network and one CDMA network.  
    While Apple having hobbled their faster, mobile broadband chips from Qualcomm to be inline with the Intel, I'd like to see those results, too.
    I think my verizon iPhone 7+ is a better phone phone than my ATT iPhone8+.   My Previously ATT 5S was fine.    I'm thinking its poorer performance is due to Intel chips.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,625member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no difference that Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    Your funny! All I see for most of the competitions efforts is faux notches.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS. More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's. so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    Would the value of the ecosystem be less if iPhones were cheaper? No. Not all.

    Of course the user decides how much a phone is 'worth' to him or her with regards to pricing and Apple has a different business model to Google but neither factor has anything to do with what I was pointing out.
    I'm guessing that Apple would heartily disagree with your assumption, and the Apple Watch, as an example, or AirPods, would be the "fruits" from the revenue of iPhone that increases value in the ecosystem, and happily for Apple, generates even more revenue! I would also note that Apple provides its own operating system, iOS, at a substantial cost, which all of those less expensive devices rely on Google for.

    Maybe though, the value is due to Apple not competing in the low end of the market, which has the effect of driving down pricing power for Android OS device makers. 

    Frankly, I still don't understand the point about Apple's "excessive" revenue. I assure you that Apple is exhaustive in looking for new products and services to throw money at, but decidedly has opted out of high cost M&A, so far anyway. How would I or anyone else know of what Apple's roadmap and future plans are that may require that revenue stream?
    Why are you skirting the issue?

    Yes, we all know Apple is very happy. 'thrilled' no doubt. My point was centred on the user!

    Yes, Apple's revenues pay for everything. That isn't the point either as even lumping all that in, they still have billions leftover laying around looking for a home. 

    Your point actually strengthens mine, ;-)
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 58 of 66
    k2kw said:
    I never heard of Samsung fanatics, but there definitely are Google fanatics who will forgive any and everything with Google or Android (Just look at the adoration shown over the Pixel2XL despite its many documented problems).    The people I know who like their Samsung phones aren't into phones and like them because they are cheap.
    Gosh one of my friends has an Galaxy S3 and likes it because its smaller and has a removable battery.   I couldn't imagine using it because its so small, but he doesn't like surfing the web or using apps.

    Actually Samsung marketing has convinced you that Pixel phones are terrible, when the reality is the exact opposite!!! Tech media appreciates Pixel phones for a reason, the main one being software quality. Software quality in Pixel phones (stock android) is miles ahead of Samsung's software (Touchwiz/Grace UX/whatever_it_is_called), in terms of stability/reliability/performance. Of course, stock android lacks many functionalities which are present in Samsung's/Huawei's/Xiaomi's custom skins. But when it comes to consistent performance/stability/reliability, stock android is the best and tech media knows it. You may want to go through the long term reviews by GSMArena for Samsung Galaxy Note 8 and Pixel 2 XL to understand what I am talking about.

    https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_8_long_term-review-1724.php

    https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_2_xl_long_term-review-1705.php


    edited March 2018
  • Reply 59 of 66
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no difference that Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    Your funny! All I see for most of the competitions efforts is faux notches.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS. More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's. so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    Would the value of the ecosystem be less if iPhones were cheaper? No. Not all.

    Of course the user decides how much a phone is 'worth' to him or her with regards to pricing and Apple has a different business model to Google but neither factor has anything to do with what I was pointing out.
    I'm guessing that Apple would heartily disagree with your assumption, and the Apple Watch, as an example, or AirPods, would be the "fruits" from the revenue of iPhone that increases value in the ecosystem, and happily for Apple, generates even more revenue! I would also note that Apple provides its own operating system, iOS, at a substantial cost, which all of those less expensive devices rely on Google for.

    Maybe though, the value is due to Apple not competing in the low end of the market, which has the effect of driving down pricing power for Android OS device makers. 

    Frankly, I still don't understand the point about Apple's "excessive" revenue. I assure you that Apple is exhaustive in looking for new products and services to throw money at, but decidedly has opted out of high cost M&A, so far anyway. How would I or anyone else know of what Apple's roadmap and future plans are that may require that revenue stream?
    Why are you skirting the issue?

    Yes, we all know Apple is very happy. 'thrilled' no doubt. My point was centred on the user!

    Yes, Apple's revenues pay for everything. That isn't the point either as even lumping all that in, they still have billions leftover laying around looking for a home. 

    Your point actually strengthens mine, ;-)
    There is a "conflict of interest" (Shareholder Vs End user) for the majority of people who are posting in this forum. People post from a AAPL shareholder point of view (even though they are long time customers as well), which at times conflicts with Apple's customer point of view. Many people have the capability to differentiate the two POVs and post balanced comments. But there are few (no, @TMay is not one of them) who are ultra aggressive in defending AAPL because they think it is their duty to do so.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Nah, that’s just what you tell yourself to sleep at night. Apple makes way more money on every iphone sold than some commodity parts maker. It’s laughable that you’re even trying to equate the two, and very telling about your own agenda. 
    Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?

    How does making way more money on every phone benefit the user? If it were being ploughed back into the product lines I might be a little sympathetic but the fact that they have billions sitting around - and accumulating - says shareholders are probably seeing a benefit but users aren't seeing the same. If there are better phones (as subjective as that may be) out there than iPhone X that report profits back to the manufacturer, does it actually matter in the slightest to the purchasers of those phones that the manufacturers make way less money off each one?

    Ignoring of course that Apple (unlike Samsung) makes nothing from component sales to third parties and that Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little.

    If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D.
    "Can I conclude that as a result of that, users are paying more than they should?"

    Of course, you can conclude anything you want, but this conclusion of yours would be in error based on the marketplace. You are making a value judgement, no difference that Apple users do, with regard to iPhone cost. 

    "If someone is laughing all the way to the bank and at my expense, while it is obviously great for them,  I don't see why it's so great for me if competitors are producing just as good phones that also earn them enough money to be profitable and plough money into R&D."

    Your funny! All I see for most of the competitions efforts is faux notches.

    The difference between you and Apple users, is that you consistently look only at the phone rather than the ecosystem, where much of the value is. Of course, you also fail to acknowledge that Apple has a completely different business model than Google's advertising model, the purveyors of Android OS. More to the point, "...competitors are producing just as good of phones..." isn't true according to the marketplace; competitors phones aren't designed to work well or at all in Apple's ecosystem, and that is a limitation.

    I would add that "...Samsung sells way more phones than Apple does which helps balance out the 'margins per iPhone' line of argument even if only a little." is accurate, but you should mention that those phones currently are sold at an ASP one third of Apple's. so the balance is, frankly, greatly in Apple's favor.

    Would the value of the ecosystem be less if iPhones were cheaper? No. Not all.

    Of course the user decides how much a phone is 'worth' to him or her with regards to pricing and Apple has a different business model to Google but neither factor has anything to do with what I was pointing out.
    I'm guessing that Apple would heartily disagree with your assumption, and the Apple Watch, as an example, or AirPods, would be the "fruits" from the revenue of iPhone that increases value in the ecosystem, and happily for Apple, generates even more revenue! I would also note that Apple provides its own operating system, iOS, at a substantial cost, which all of those less expensive devices rely on Google for.

    Maybe though, the value is due to Apple not competing in the low end of the market, which has the effect of driving down pricing power for Android OS device makers. 

    Frankly, I still don't understand the point about Apple's "excessive" revenue. I assure you that Apple is exhaustive in looking for new products and services to throw money at, but decidedly has opted out of high cost M&A, so far anyway. How would I or anyone else know of what Apple's roadmap and future plans are that may require that revenue stream?
    Why are you skirting the issue?

    Yes, we all know Apple is very happy. 'thrilled' no doubt. My point was centred on the user!

    Yes, Apple's revenues pay for everything. That isn't the point either as even lumping all that in, they still have billions leftover laying around looking for a home. 

    Your point actually strengthens mine, ;-)
    So, having cash available for a rainy day, or a good deal, is a bad thing?

Sign In or Register to comment.