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?
I covered that in my previous point. It is GREAT from an AAPL shareholder point of view. Not so great, from an end user point of view. From whose point of view that you are talking from? Avon is talking from an end user point of view. I assume you are talking from a shareholder point of view. This is where the disconnect is.
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?
I covered that in my previous point. It is GREAT from an AAPL shareholder point of view. Not so great, from an end user point of view. From whose point of view that you are talking from? Avon is talking from an end user point of view. I assume you are talking from a shareholder point of view. This is where the disconnect is.
The phone market is maturing, and even though Apple is shifting more to services, Apple will still need today's revenue to drive tomorrow's new products and services. It's great for all parties that Apple has reserves that they can count on to get through lean times, like, you know, global recessions. It's especially great for users because they will continue to have the best ecosystem possible and the longest lifecycles for there Apple devices. Even the much maligned Siri benefits from more money and talent thrown at it.
Why you and Avon b7 think that this is an issue is beyond me. Most users don't care about Apple's financial prowess.
Back around the recession in 2000, Steve Jobs made a point of noting that Apple had spend time and money acquiring talent, and were not going to lay off anyone. If anything, Apple drove new products forward at a faster pace. Apple's income from the iPod and Mac served them well for the development of the iPhone.
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?
You are still skirting.
Responding to Strange Days comment on 'money, money, money' I contrasted it with a different perspective: the user.
You have since tried, with each successive post, to pull my comment into a corporate realm which is exactly where I excised it from and refuse to even accommodate that users might be paying more than they need to (yes, we know its up to them how much they are willing to pay - that isn't the point).
I'm in no way remotely suggesting they shouldn't have cash for a rainy day. 200 billion plus would seem to be enough don't you think?
I think rainy days aren't a problem.
And while it is purely anecdotal, it seems almost as if all the new or updated product rumours on AI lately revolve around entry level, cheaper, low cost products.
Cheaper HomePod Revised Air or similar low cost MacBook iPhone SE2 Tim Cook said the Mini wasn't dead so it wouldn't be far fetched to imagine a refresh this year.
All that on top of Apple's broadest iPhone product spread ever and rumours that the X has peaked.
I prefer to focus on reality but I hope you will agree that this start to the year in terms of rumours has been curious to say the least.
And this report (quite fair in my opinion) pegs the Samsung Flagship as a viable option worth looking into. Good to see competition. And we aren't finished with the flsgships. The P20 series will be here in just over a week plus another Honor effort a few months after that. The heat is on and it's a good thing.
Maybe for Apple users too if more low cost updates are released during the year.
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?
You are still skirting.
Responding to Strange Days comment on 'money, money, money' I contrasted it with a different perspective: the user.
You have since tried, with each successive post, to pull my comment into a corporate realm which is exactly where I excised it from and refuse to even accommodate that users might be paying more than they need to (yes, we know its up to them how much they are willing to pay - that isn't the point).
I'm in no way remotely suggesting they shouldn't have cash for a rainy day. 200 billion plus would seem to be enough don't you think?
I think rainy days aren't a problem.
And while it is purely anecdotal, it seems almost as if all the new or updated product rumours on AI lately revolve around entry level, cheaper, low cost products.
Cheaper HomePod Revised Air or similar low cost MacBook iPhone SE2 Tim Cook said the Mini wasn't dead so it wouldn't be far fetched to imagine a refresh this year.
All that on top of Apple's broadest iPhone product spread ever and rumours that the X has peaked.
I prefer to focus on reality but I hope you will agree that this start to the year in terms of rumours has been curious to say the least.
And this report (quite fair in my opinion) pegs the Samsung Flagship as a viable option worth looking into. Good to see competition. And we aren't finished with the flsgships. The P20 series will be here in just over a week plus another Honor effort a few months after that. The heat is on and it's a good thing.
Maybe for Apple users too if more low cost updates are released during the year.
You are very resistant to reality, with a heavy does of perception bias on top of that.
" Above Avalon's Neil Cybart notes that Apple is on track to spend $14 billion on research and development in its 2018 fiscal year, nearly double the amount it spent on R&D just four years ago. $14 billion would also be more than the amount Apple spent on R&D from 1998 to 2011 combined.
My theory on the dramatic rise in Apple R&D expenditures is that management is becoming more ambitious. Apple's future is found in new industries. Just as Apple moved from desktops/laptops to personal music players, smartphones, and watches, the company will need to enter new industries to remain relevant. This is not a company that is holding onto the iPhone as tight as possible for fear of change. Apple management is investigating new ideas and processes in order to support future moves into new industries.
Commentary: Apple's dramatic increase in R&D spending likely signals the company's interest in a number of new areas. Cybart believes that two new items on Apple's roadmap that are driving the recent surge in expenditures include augmented reality glasses and a Netflix-like streaming video service."
I have a galaxy note 8 and iphone 7 plus. Love them both for different reasons. I'm big on gaming and will never put faith into an android phone for that. My iphone 6 always performed better than my note 5 in games. My note 8 easily gets better benchmarks for cpu and graphics than my iphone 7 plus, but the iphone still performs noticeably better in games. The graphics settings are the same, but frame rates are better just by looking, no need for tests. I fully expect this to be the case with the newest models of these phones.
If you are into gaming (and i have all the most demanding games graphically), the iphone is definitely the way to go regardless of synthetic benches.
It's nice to see unbiased reviews, I've been on apple hardware since 4S -7. I have just recently switched to S9+ it was a learning curve but seeing some of the things I've been missing out. Scummvm comes to mind and realizing I can hook up a bluetooth mouse flawlessly for point and click games. That's not all I do. Around great phone, apple wanted an extra $200 NZD for their X
Comments
I covered that in my previous point. It is GREAT from an AAPL shareholder point of view. Not so great, from an end user point of view. From whose point of view that you are talking from? Avon is talking from an end user point of view. I assume you are talking from a shareholder point of view. This is where the disconnect is.
Why you and Avon b7 think that this is an issue is beyond me. Most users don't care about Apple's financial prowess.
Back around the recession in 2000, Steve Jobs made a point of noting that Apple had spend time and money acquiring talent, and were not going to lay off anyone. If anything, Apple drove new products forward at a faster pace. Apple's income from the iPod and Mac served them well for the development of the iPhone.
Responding to Strange Days comment on 'money, money, money' I contrasted it with a different perspective: the user.
You have since tried, with each successive post, to pull my comment into a corporate realm which is exactly where I excised it from and refuse to even accommodate that users might be paying more than they need to (yes, we know its up to them how much they are willing to pay - that isn't the point).
I'm in no way remotely suggesting they shouldn't have cash for a rainy day. 200 billion plus would seem to be enough don't you think?
I think rainy days aren't a problem.
And while it is purely anecdotal, it seems almost as if all the new or updated product rumours on AI lately revolve around entry level, cheaper, low cost products.
Cheaper HomePod
Revised Air or similar low cost MacBook
iPhone SE2
Tim Cook said the Mini wasn't dead so it wouldn't be far fetched to imagine a refresh this year.
All that on top of Apple's broadest iPhone product spread ever and rumours that the X has peaked.
I prefer to focus on reality but I hope you will agree that this start to the year in terms of rumours has been curious to say the least.
And this report (quite fair in my opinion) pegs the Samsung Flagship as a viable option worth looking into. Good to see competition. And we aren't finished with the flsgships. The P20 series will be here in just over a week plus another Honor effort a few months after that. The heat is on and it's a good thing.
Maybe for Apple users too if more low cost updates are released during the year.
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/16/quick-takes-apple-pencil-2-and-more/?utm_source=osx&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=front
" Above Avalon's Neil Cybart notes that Apple is on track to spend $14 billion on research and development in its 2018 fiscal year, nearly double the amount it spent on R&D just four years ago. $14 billion would also be more than the amount Apple spent on R&D from 1998 to 2011 combined.Commentary: Apple's dramatic increase in R&D spending likely signals the company's interest in a number of new areas. Cybart believes that two new items on Apple's roadmap that are driving the recent surge in expenditures include augmented reality glasses and a Netflix-like streaming video service."
If you are into gaming (and i have all the most demanding games graphically), the iphone is definitely the way to go regardless of synthetic benches.