Huawei HiSilicon Kirin 980 more than a year behind Apple's A12 Bionic in performance

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 136
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.










    Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
    So. That's it? That's all you have?

    Wow!

    The spin is in the article. The 'damage control' (as you tried to claim) was also in the article.

    The article only existed to pull attention away from the reality. Huawei was getting a lot of attention for the right reasons. The iPhone Xs Max was used (along with the Samsung S9+) during the presentation to highlight the strengths of the Mate 20 series. Are you surprised?

    Well, the new 2018 iPhone didn't fair too well in front of those thousands who watched the presentation in the hall. Are you surprised?

    As with all presentations - including Apple's - what is NOT said, is often more interesting than what IS said but those details always float to the surface at some point so you can be sure that Huawei will squeeze all it can out of every event. Are you surprised?

    Now, if you offered iPhone users the choice of a new A12 model or an A11 model - but with a Mate 20 Pro feature set - most takers would be for the latter. Of that I am convinced and that is what you should be reflecting on.

    Along with why Apple only ships its new 1,000 dollar phones with 50 cent chargers and without headphone jack adaptors etc. Not even a plastic case or factory applied screen protector (standard on many Huawei phones).
    iPhone is a market in itself, and as part of Apple's ecosystem advantage, Apple doesn't need to expend effort adding all of those features that are needed to differentiate Android OS devices like the Chinese OEM's and Samsung have to do. Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines.

    I think that it's fine for Huawei to strive to obtain the best and most features in a device, and I expect that Samsung will response in kind, tit fo tat, but with an expected stronger processor than the Kirin 980.

    Meanwhile, I'm not noticing any substantial advantages to the Mate product line over the iPhone X models, whatever your list, and certainly a heck of a lot of advantages to iOS and Apple's ecosystem over Android OS. You still are in denial about iPhone X sales, and I'm expecting that you will be in denial when Apple announces its financials for this quarter in January. You have yet to acknowledge that Apple's business model is superior to it's competition.

    Still, I find it amusing that every manufacturer has to compare its products to Apple's. Funny how that works.
    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's.
    Uh no. Profit is the metric of health and superiority of a business model. Apple was months from bankruptcy, but now has vast holdings due to immense collection of profit. This is all the confirmation that is needed -- they have a superior business model. It's what put them into the position they're in now, not magic pixie dust.
    You are actually completely wrong on that. Profits are a simple indicator of current health.

    The business model - how you generate those profits - is different.

    Why not ask Imagination?

    Apple's business model became heavily weighted to mobile sales. When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile. We are literally in the middle of this change.
    I'm not wrong because Apple's business model is undeniably healthy. In twenty years it has amassed more profit and wealth than any other public corporation in history. It's not even arguable. Doing so is a troll's errand. No surprise that you're trying to.

    Even Apple's non-iPhone business segments are larger than most other fortune companies. Again, old news. Nobody is interested in pretending they're doing anything but killing it but you, because that's your troll trope agenda. 

    Guess it's easier for you than talking about how shitty your chinese knockoffs keep cloning iPhone and iOS. Cognitive dissonance FTW!


    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 136
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,568member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.










    Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
    So. That's it? That's all you have?

    Wow!

    The spin is in the article. The 'damage control' (as you tried to claim) was also in the article.

    The article only existed to pull attention away from the reality. Huawei was getting a lot of attention for the right reasons. The iPhone Xs Max was used (along with the Samsung S9+) during the presentation to highlight the strengths of the Mate 20 series. Are you surprised?

    Well, the new 2018 iPhone didn't fair too well in front of those thousands who watched the presentation in the hall. Are you surprised?

    As with all presentations - including Apple's - what is NOT said, is often more interesting than what IS said but those details always float to the surface at some point so you can be sure that Huawei will squeeze all it can out of every event. Are you surprised?

    Now, if you offered iPhone users the choice of a new A12 model or an A11 model - but with a Mate 20 Pro feature set - most takers would be for the latter. Of that I am convinced and that is what you should be reflecting on.

    Along with why Apple only ships its new 1,000 dollar phones with 50 cent chargers and without headphone jack adaptors etc. Not even a plastic case or factory applied screen protector (standard on many Huawei phones).
    iPhone is a market in itself, and as part of Apple's ecosystem advantage, Apple doesn't need to expend effort adding all of those features that are needed to differentiate Android OS devices like the Chinese OEM's and Samsung have to do. Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines.

    I think that it's fine for Huawei to strive to obtain the best and most features in a device, and I expect that Samsung will response in kind, tit fo tat, but with an expected stronger processor than the Kirin 980.

    Meanwhile, I'm not noticing any substantial advantages to the Mate product line over the iPhone X models, whatever your list, and certainly a heck of a lot of advantages to iOS and Apple's ecosystem over Android OS. You still are in denial about iPhone X sales, and I'm expecting that you will be in denial when Apple announces its financials for this quarter in January. You have yet to acknowledge that Apple's business model is superior to it's competition.

    Still, I find it amusing that every manufacturer has to compare its products to Apple's. Funny how that works.
    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's.
    Uh no. Profit is the metric of health and superiority of a business model. Apple was months from bankruptcy, but now has vast holdings due to immense collection of profit. This is all the confirmation that is needed -- they have a superior business model. It's what put them into the position they're in now, not magic pixie dust.
    You are actually completely wrong on that. Profits are a simple indicator of current health.

    The business model - how you generate those profits - is different.

    Why not ask Imagination?

    Apple's business model became heavily weighted to mobile sales. When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile. We are literally in the middle of this change.
    Best answer to what Apple's business model is:

    "Owning the Consumer"

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015599821300032X

    You literally haven't a clue how Apple works.

    Apple has been evolving new products since they became a company, yet you state that "When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile".

    That's just silly, and completely untrue. You postulate that Apple wasn't sufficiently proactive that they got caught when the market flattened, and yet here they are, continuing the same growth pattern that they have had for decades, providing new products and services to expand the Apple ecosystem. 

    If anything, companies, including Huawei, want to copy Apple, and Apple's "internal machine" for creating new products.

    Good luck with that.

    I added this;

    https://www.ft.com/content/20aad4d4-d2ba-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5

    A nice interview with Jony
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
  • Reply 64 of 136
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,568member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    No. From the X series you drop down to the 8 series. From the 8 series you drop down to the 7 series and the SE is still available in all configurations but under the radar through select resellers (at least at the moment).

    The biggest potential problem is the lower you go, the older the hardware gets. There is nothing new in those bands 
  • Reply 66 of 136
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,568member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    No. From the X series you drop down to the 8 series. From the 8 series you drop down to the 7 series and the SE is still available in all configurations but under the radar through select resellers (at least at the moment).

    The biggest potential problem is the lower you go, the older the hardware gets. There is nothing new in those bands 
    Hence, why 70% of Apple sales will be the new iPhone X's followed by the 8's, and 7's, and 6s's, and interestingly enough, that's where the profit lies, and Apple will still sell some 215 million units a year. Great margins, great ASP. That's right at 150 million of the current new models per year.

    I haven't found anything priced in the U.S. (new) below $449 for the iPhone 6s, though there still maybe a few SE's in the channel somewhere.

    See how that works?

    It's not the same as how Android OS Device makers have to sell.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    No. From the X series you drop down to the 8 series. From the 8 series you drop down to the 7 series and the SE is still available in all configurations but under the radar through select resellers (at least at the moment).

    The biggest potential problem is the lower you go, the older the hardware gets. There is nothing new in those bands 
    Hence, why 70% of Apple sales will be the new iPhone X's followed by the 8's, and 7's, and 6s's, and interestingly enough, that's where the profit lies, and Apple will still sell some 215 million units a year. Great margins, great ASP. That's right at 150 million of the current new models per year.

    I haven't found anything priced in the U.S. (new) below $449 for the iPhone 6s, though there still maybe a few SE's in the channel somewhere.

    See how that works?

    It's not the same as how Android OS Device makers have to sell.
    If it's 215 million it will be another flat year.

    Cheapest iPhone from Apple for my part of the world is 529€ (inc sales tax). That's iPhone 7.

    From select resellers, that drops to 299€ for the SE.

    iPhone Xr starts at 859€ for a paltry 64GB. Next step up is touching 1,000€.


  • Reply 68 of 136
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,568member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    No. From the X series you drop down to the 8 series. From the 8 series you drop down to the 7 series and the SE is still available in all configurations but under the radar through select resellers (at least at the moment).

    The biggest potential problem is the lower you go, the older the hardware gets. There is nothing new in those bands 
    Hence, why 70% of Apple sales will be the new iPhone X's followed by the 8's, and 7's, and 6s's, and interestingly enough, that's where the profit lies, and Apple will still sell some 215 million units a year. Great margins, great ASP. That's right at 150 million of the current new models per year.

    I haven't found anything priced in the U.S. (new) below $449 for the iPhone 6s, though there still maybe a few SE's in the channel somewhere.

    See how that works?

    It's not the same as how Android OS Device makers have to sell.
    If it's 215 million it will be another flat year.

    Cheapest iPhone from Apple for my part of the world is 529€ (inc sales tax). That's iPhone 7.

    From select resellers, that drops to 299€ for the SE.

    iPhone Xr starts at 859€ for a paltry 64GB. Next step up is touching 1,000€.


    Apple has embraced "flat" and adopted a longer lifecycle for iPhone, and much, much longer support than Android OS device makers.

    Meanwhile, Android sales are flat, and users will keep their phones longer; seems like a recipe for an Android OS device maker disaster.
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:

    tht said:
    brucemc said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.

    And the answer is always the same.  Of course "performance" matters - it always has.

    As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation.
    - number of transistors
    - clock speed
    - amount of RAM

    This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.

    rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.

    What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.

    Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.

    And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
    Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.

    you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
    Mel - Let us be realistic. Ever since cameras are available in phones, the vast majority of photos being taken are by amateurs and quality is also amateur. The quantity of professional photos being taken is a very small minority now. This was not the case even 2 decades back. Given this situation, it is not surprising that amateurs end up reviewing the quality of cameras in smartphones, instead of professionals. That would give a realistic picture of how the photos taken by common people would look like, right?
    I think that all of the flagship phones take excellent photos in daylight, and a few do better than the others in low light. Certainly there are people pining for even better IQ and features, but for the most part, phones have been "good enough" for the typical smartphone user for a couple of years. It's good for halo products and bragging rights to have the "best" still images compared to the competition, though I'm not sure if it really translates to increased sales.
    I pretty much agree with this. Especially as you drop down the price bands and effectively get a great deal on key elements.

    Screens don't have to be OLED, LCD is more than good enough for most people. 3D Depth sensing isn't a must for biometrics. A fast fingerprint scanner is more than good enough for secure biometrics. Throw in 2D facial recognition as a plus and people are even happier. The same applies to audio. For the camera, more of the same. They are plenty good for most people.

    Things change when you hit shell design, the battery and how it charges, storage, WiFi, 4G and connection issues. People look for decent battery life, fast charging and strong signal strength in attractive designs. They don't want a phone that lags either.

    If a phone is plastic or not can be overcome by price and decent design.

    However, all that changes when things move into the expensive bands. Then people start looking at what their money will get them (even if they never ever use a certain feature) and they pay more attention to marketing (even if they don't understand the terminology).

    That's where brands have to work hard to get the sale and that's when having a great camera (according to reviews), a spectacular battery system etc come into play.

    As there is so much reliance on reviews nowadays, getting good reviews is an essential part of 'the sale'. 'Influencers' play an essential role for younger generations too. As does brand recognition and of course price.

    Brand loyalty comes later.

    For cameras specifically, there is little doubt in my mind that in the plus 500€ band, a large proportion of sales can be swung on camera quality (provided the 'no compromise' areas are covered).

    That said, any 1,000€ phone (Android or iOS) is going to be a very hard sell in the first place so it's essential to have good phones in the lower bands to pick up those who can't be tempted into ultra premium land.
    Apple doesn't have an iPhone in the lower band, so it would be "essential" only for Android OS device makers, true?
    No. From the X series you drop down to the 8 series. From the 8 series you drop down to the 7 series and the SE is still available in all configurations but under the radar through select resellers (at least at the moment).

    The biggest potential problem is the lower you go, the older the hardware gets. There is nothing new in those bands 
    Hence, why 70% of Apple sales will be the new iPhone X's followed by the 8's, and 7's, and 6s's, and interestingly enough, that's where the profit lies, and Apple will still sell some 215 million units a year. Great margins, great ASP. That's right at 150 million of the current new models per year.

    I haven't found anything priced in the U.S. (new) below $449 for the iPhone 6s, though there still maybe a few SE's in the channel somewhere.

    See how that works?

    It's not the same as how Android OS Device makers have to sell.
    If it's 215 million it will be another flat year.

    Cheapest iPhone from Apple for my part of the world is 529€ (inc sales tax). That's iPhone 7.

    From select resellers, that drops to 299€ for the SE.

    iPhone Xr starts at 859€ for a paltry 64GB. Next step up is touching 1,000€.


    Apple has embraced "flat" and adopted a longer lifecycle for iPhone, and much, much longer support than Android OS device makers.

    Meanwhile, Android sales are flat, and users will keep their phones longer; seems like a recipe for an Android OS device maker disaster.
    Apple hasn't embraced flat at all. That's why it wants in on India and other developing areas. It wants unit growth. 

    Android may be flat but some handset makers definitely aren't. Huawei says it hopes to sell over 40,000,000 more units this year. That is gigantic YoY growth.

    I can't see that kind of growth extending far into the future but they say Samsung is the one they want to beat so to reach that goal there is plenty of wiggle room left on paper.

    Can they do it? I have no idea. Without access to the US (world's second largest handset market) they are at a serious disadvantage but rumours say they are planning a new entry into the US for next year.
  • Reply 70 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.










    Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
    So. That's it? That's all you have?

    Wow!

    The spin is in the article. The 'damage control' (as you tried to claim) was also in the article.

    The article only existed to pull attention away from the reality. Huawei was getting a lot of attention for the right reasons. The iPhone Xs Max was used (along with the Samsung S9+) during the presentation to highlight the strengths of the Mate 20 series. Are you surprised?

    Well, the new 2018 iPhone didn't fair too well in front of those thousands who watched the presentation in the hall. Are you surprised?

    As with all presentations - including Apple's - what is NOT said, is often more interesting than what IS said but those details always float to the surface at some point so you can be sure that Huawei will squeeze all it can out of every event. Are you surprised?

    Now, if you offered iPhone users the choice of a new A12 model or an A11 model - but with a Mate 20 Pro feature set - most takers would be for the latter. Of that I am convinced and that is what you should be reflecting on.

    Along with why Apple only ships its new 1,000 dollar phones with 50 cent chargers and without headphone jack adaptors etc. Not even a plastic case or factory applied screen protector (standard on many Huawei phones).
    iPhone is a market in itself, and as part of Apple's ecosystem advantage, Apple doesn't need to expend effort adding all of those features that are needed to differentiate Android OS devices like the Chinese OEM's and Samsung have to do. Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines.

    I think that it's fine for Huawei to strive to obtain the best and most features in a device, and I expect that Samsung will response in kind, tit fo tat, but with an expected stronger processor than the Kirin 980.

    Meanwhile, I'm not noticing any substantial advantages to the Mate product line over the iPhone X models, whatever your list, and certainly a heck of a lot of advantages to iOS and Apple's ecosystem over Android OS. You still are in denial about iPhone X sales, and I'm expecting that you will be in denial when Apple announces its financials for this quarter in January. You have yet to acknowledge that Apple's business model is superior to it's competition.

    Still, I find it amusing that every manufacturer has to compare its products to Apple's. Funny how that works.
    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's.
    Uh no. Profit is the metric of health and superiority of a business model. Apple was months from bankruptcy, but now has vast holdings due to immense collection of profit. This is all the confirmation that is needed -- they have a superior business model. It's what put them into the position they're in now, not magic pixie dust.
    You are actually completely wrong on that. Profits are a simple indicator of current health.

    The business model - how you generate those profits - is different.

    Why not ask Imagination?

    Apple's business model became heavily weighted to mobile sales. When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile. We are literally in the middle of this change.
    I'm not wrong because Apple's business model is undeniably healthy. In twenty years it has amassed more profit and wealth than any other public corporation in history. It's not even arguable. Doing so is a troll's errand. No surprise that you're trying to.

    Even Apple's non-iPhone business segments are larger than most other fortune companies. Again, old news. Nobody is interested in pretending they're doing anything but killing it but you, because that's your troll trope agenda. 

    Guess it's easier for you than talking about how shitty your chinese knockoffs keep cloning iPhone and iOS. Cognitive dissonance FTW!


    No one is disputing amassed profits.

    Those profits largely rose off the back of ONE product. A dangerous situation to be in. Again, look at Imagination.

    When sales of that product flattened out, they began to focus more on services (last three years) and try to reduce dependence on iPhone.

    The business model is changing to such a degree that it is investing literally billions into at least two areas where it has no experience at all. Content creation and cars.

    In fact, if the car project turns out to be a software project, the future of Apple might be far more non-hardware related than at any point in the history of the company.
  • Reply 71 of 136
    I really love my iPhone XS max but this article wrong in many areas and sounds like and advertisement for Apple. I will also explain why I switched from Androind to iPhone XS Max but before that : 

    1) Show me one task where iPhone XS Max is faster than Galaxy Note 8 or Note 9 or Mate 20 pro ? 
         a) Apps open with nearly indetical speeds 
         b) web pages load with identical speeds to Note 8 ( average is 2 seconds ) and slightly behind galaxy note 9 (using google chrome on both iOS and Androind ). 
          c) application installation time is the Same as Note 8 or Note 9 
               THATS WHY I CAN CARE LESS WHAT BENCH MARKS SCORE MEAN.  

    Now I will explain why I switched to IOS only now.  
    1) finally iPhone display size is normal and not small 
    2) finally iPhone’s modem is up to date and matching the speed of galaxy Note 8 modem. 
    3) IOS web rendering engine is not perfect (
    ( there are few websites here and there that won’t display properly) but still better than 
    Android’s web rendering engine that has more websites that don’t render properly 
    4) IOS keeps the system more clean. 
     It doesn’t allow third party apps like WhatsApp and Viber to create duplicate contacts in phone’s contacts. Android does allow it which sometimes leads to confusion when you delete or rename one contact and then you see it reappear again in your contacts because it synced from WhatsApp or Viber.  
    5) iPhone XS max design is superb!!!
          ( no curved screen , evenly thin bazels from all sides ) 
    6) Apple reduced saturation of Samsung’s OLED display and made it brighter to match LCD brightness. So displays brightness and saturation is exactly like on IPHONES Wide gamut LCD.  This is very smart to prevent OLED visual affects. 

    gatorguy
  • Reply 72 of 136
    DazzXPDazzXP Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Thats not a Samsung Note 9 SD845... thats clearly the Exynos version!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 136
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,701member
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    I can only figure that Huawei is beating the iPhoneXS in China for two anti-Huawei editorials.   I was expecting an Anti Google Pixel Review where he doesn't actually use the phone but spends 100 pages reviewing the sins of Google.   But most reviewers are now saying that the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL are much better phones than last year with camera's still better than Apple's.

    That said, Nilay Patel basically said that even  the Pixels phones slow down (despite android being optimize for it) after 6 to 9 months.   The Pixel's scratch really easily and definitely need cases.   I'll stick to my iPhone 8Plus (ATT) and iPhone 7Plus(verizon) because I don't want to be stuck with intel modems despite really wanting to move up to the iPhoneXS Plus.       Apple has their cheaper modems, why didn't they lower the Prices of the XS and XSplus for Consumers?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 74 of 136
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,731member
    I’m amused that Avon is betting on iPhone X sales having dropped quarter after quarter - after having been released in time for the holiday quarter, and the last quarter being summer, which is known (in any business) as the time when money is spent on vacation, and where everybody is fully aware of new models looming in September/October. 
    That’s some rocket science there. 

    I’m equally amused by the notion that Apple should include a plastic case or a screen protector with their flagship phones, like Huawei is apparently doing in some cases in some markets. Uh, yeah. I design something really nice and immediately encourage people to opt for cheap plastic instead. Do I distrust them, or do I distrust my engineering? 
    “Here’s a luxury leather couch at the upper end of the market. We’re shipping it with a polyester cover — of course. People wouldn’t want to ruin the luxury leather, would they. And it’s not like we’re cheap and want people to think we’re skimping.” 



    I DO get the idea that they should include an analog audio adapter, but from experience, most users never actually connect their phones to anything other than included earphones (and they are still included), with more and more users who want something else going the wireless route. 

    I’m a musician, so I bought two aftermarket D/A stages (Belkin), with one installed in the car, which doesn’t do wireless music, and the other in my bag. The one Apple used to include sounded bad and didn’t allow for charging, so I would not have used that one, anyway.  

    I have not used the second adapter yet, in a month of ownership. At all. 
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 136
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,701member
    melgross said:
    Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
    Still trolling DED, I see... Knowingly, too -- since we explained this to you a year ago. Specs don't matter more when the hardware & UX is poor. When the hardware & UX is better (Apple) *and* its specs are better (A12), that's noteworthy and a triumph. Why does that bother you so much? Why does DED recognizing Apple's achievements compel you to whine? It's not like you're getting paid to counter his opinion column.

    ----------------

    https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/iphone_x_event_thoughts_and_observations

    You can’t bring this up in public without a certain segment of Android fans losing their goddamn minds over it. “I thought specs don’t matter?” they say, and point to articles I (or whoever else brings this up) wrote in the past arguing that specs aren’t the only thing that matters. [...]

    So iPhone users get the best in both regards: they get the iOS experience and Apple-designed hardware, and they get the vastly superior CPU and GPU. And Android users who want industry-leading performance are shit out of luck. This is unprecedented in computing history. Windows users who want the best CPUs have always had that option. Android users don’t, because the best chips, by far, are Apple’s, and they’re proprietary.

    The specs aren’t what matters — the effects are what matters. But the specs are what we can measure, and the faster the chips are, the better the effects are in the user experience.

    ----------------

    Why do you keep pretending you don't know this? It's like this personally butthurts you somehow.
    I don’t remember who said it, but early this year, a writer said that Android products are rated on a curve. That’s generally true. Often we’ll see a review of a flagship model, and we’ll read that it’s the fastest smartphone, usually they do say that it’s the fastest Android smartphone. But that gets lost, as most readers just see the “fastest” portion, because they’re not thinking about the iPhone at all, or think that fastest Android smartphone means fastest smartphone.

    but admittedly, most Android users don’t buy flagship phones, even with the buy one get one free that usually starts right after the new phone is introduced. So, for them, the specs don’t matter, because they’re not doing anything on those mid line phones that requires a high performance device.
    Yep, or they don't mention how bad certain things are about a particular phone.    Now Dieter Bohn from theVerge will tell the truth on how bad the Pixel2XL's screen was last year - so what is he failing to mention this year - NOTch ONE THING.   Unfortunately I know i don't want to move to android, but don't want to move to XSplus because of the intel modems.
  • Reply 76 of 136
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,701member
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.








    I would sooner switch to a Samsung Galaxy than a Hauwei or other Chinese spyware platform.   Atleast with Galaxy S9 I could get a beautiful OLED screen
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 136
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,701member
    gatorguy said:
    The Verge actually ran a very timely and very good article about the Chinese phone makers here:
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17988564/chinese-phone-software-android-iphone-copy-ui

    Explains why the OS looks like it does, the photos are color-tuned and/or smoothed as they are, why the UI's are so intricate rather than simple. Very worthwhile reading. 
    Thanks for the article.    I come away thinking that if i ever get a Chinese phone it won't be Hauwei.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 78 of 136
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,701member
    avon b7 said:

    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's. Apple sits on the last step of mobile communications, handsets (that represents a huge part of its income). That is in fact a very unbalanced situation and is why Apple is desperately trying to alter its business model over the last 24 months and into the future (car tech and content creation for example).

    Huawei sits on every step of mobile communications and Apple pays millions to Huawei for use of its patents. Handsets are not even Huawei's core business.

    "Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines."


    I will agree that Apple should have invested more research and direct manufacturing capacity into components like OLED screens that they have to get from Samsung.   But Hauwie's networking gear is about as significant as Cisco's   which was expected to be the first trillion dollar company back in the 2000 but really is just another hardware manufacturer.    5G mobile equipment will have its day hour and then won't matter.   But Trump was right to keep the HuuWii spy gear out of our country.(millions in patents is a trifle at Apple's scale).   I stay with Apple because of the full econo system that I trust with my iPads and watch.   And when Apple finally ditches Intel and comes out with the SuperOS for their Computers, I'll be even happier.
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 136
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,568member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.










    Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
    So. That's it? That's all you have?

    Wow!

    The spin is in the article. The 'damage control' (as you tried to claim) was also in the article.

    The article only existed to pull attention away from the reality. Huawei was getting a lot of attention for the right reasons. The iPhone Xs Max was used (along with the Samsung S9+) during the presentation to highlight the strengths of the Mate 20 series. Are you surprised?

    Well, the new 2018 iPhone didn't fair too well in front of those thousands who watched the presentation in the hall. Are you surprised?

    As with all presentations - including Apple's - what is NOT said, is often more interesting than what IS said but those details always float to the surface at some point so you can be sure that Huawei will squeeze all it can out of every event. Are you surprised?

    Now, if you offered iPhone users the choice of a new A12 model or an A11 model - but with a Mate 20 Pro feature set - most takers would be for the latter. Of that I am convinced and that is what you should be reflecting on.

    Along with why Apple only ships its new 1,000 dollar phones with 50 cent chargers and without headphone jack adaptors etc. Not even a plastic case or factory applied screen protector (standard on many Huawei phones).
    iPhone is a market in itself, and as part of Apple's ecosystem advantage, Apple doesn't need to expend effort adding all of those features that are needed to differentiate Android OS devices like the Chinese OEM's and Samsung have to do. Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines.

    I think that it's fine for Huawei to strive to obtain the best and most features in a device, and I expect that Samsung will response in kind, tit fo tat, but with an expected stronger processor than the Kirin 980.

    Meanwhile, I'm not noticing any substantial advantages to the Mate product line over the iPhone X models, whatever your list, and certainly a heck of a lot of advantages to iOS and Apple's ecosystem over Android OS. You still are in denial about iPhone X sales, and I'm expecting that you will be in denial when Apple announces its financials for this quarter in January. You have yet to acknowledge that Apple's business model is superior to it's competition.

    Still, I find it amusing that every manufacturer has to compare its products to Apple's. Funny how that works.
    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's.
    Uh no. Profit is the metric of health and superiority of a business model. Apple was months from bankruptcy, but now has vast holdings due to immense collection of profit. This is all the confirmation that is needed -- they have a superior business model. It's what put them into the position they're in now, not magic pixie dust.
    You are actually completely wrong on that. Profits are a simple indicator of current health.

    The business model - how you generate those profits - is different.

    Why not ask Imagination?

    Apple's business model became heavily weighted to mobile sales. When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile. We are literally in the middle of this change.
    I'm not wrong because Apple's business model is undeniably healthy. In twenty years it has amassed more profit and wealth than any other public corporation in history. It's not even arguable. Doing so is a troll's errand. No surprise that you're trying to.

    Even Apple's non-iPhone business segments are larger than most other fortune companies. Again, old news. Nobody is interested in pretending they're doing anything but killing it but you, because that's your troll trope agenda. 

    Guess it's easier for you than talking about how shitty your chinese knockoffs keep cloning iPhone and iOS. Cognitive dissonance FTW!


    No one is disputing amassed profits.

    Those profits largely rose off the back of ONE product. A dangerous situation to be in. Again, look at Imagination.

    When sales of that product flattened out, they began to focus more on services (last three years) and try to reduce dependence on iPhone.

    The business model is changing to such a degree that it is investing literally billions into at least two areas where it has no experience at all. Content creation and cars.

    In fact, if the car project turns out to be a software project, the future of Apple might be far more non-hardware related than at any point in the history of the company.
    Read more, post less.
     
    http://www.asymco.com/2018/09/13/lasts-longer/

    "To emphasize the second point she said Apple now strives to design and build durable products that last as long as possible. That means long-lasting hardware coupled with long-lasting software. She pointed out that iOS 12 runs even on iPhone 5S, now five years old. Because iPhones last longer, you can keep using them or pass them on to someone who will continue to use them after you upgrade.

    She said that “keeping iPhones in use” is the best thing for the planet.

    At this point in the presentation I wondered if everyone would rush out of the room and call their broker to sell Apple shares. One premise of investing in durable goods hardware companies is that value depends on frequency of upgrades. If products are not replaced frequently they do not generate revenues and the company selling them ends up growing very slowly if at all after markets saturate. The smartphone business is certainly approaching saturation and the implication of making Apple products more durable would imply lower revenues from replacements. This anxiety around replacement rates and extended lives is used by analysts to discount future cash flows and if those lifespans are extended price targets come down.

    So why would Apple want to do this?  What is the logic of this durability focus as a business model? It may be good for the environment but is it good for the bottom line?

    Of course, there would be not much business without an environment and we should all strive for sustainability.  But this is an existential observation, and it’s defensive. The important call to make is that Apple is making a bet that sustainability is a growth business.

    Fundamentally, Apple is betting on having customers not selling them products.

    The purpose of Apple as a firm is to create and preserve customers and to create and preserve products. This is fundamental and not fully recognized.

    To understand how this works, if you look at the pricing graph below, you can read it as a story of increasing prices for a decreasing market share. But if you understand that each advance in products increases absorbable[1] utility then the cost per use remains steady or declines."



  • Reply 80 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,489member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    This is incorrect:

    "Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap

    Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"

    Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen. 

    This is also incorrect:

    "But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."

    Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.

    What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.

    That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.

    40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
    15W wireless charging
    Reverse charging
    Tri Camera
    3x optical zoom
    5x hybrid zoom
    3D object modelling
    Cat 21 modem
    Ultra fast wi-fi
    Dual frequency GPS
    AIIS 
    Night Mode
    Expandable storage
    True dual SIM
    In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
    Wireless desktop mode
    Balong 5000 compatibility

    The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.

    The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch. 

    Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.

    Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster? 

    Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.

    As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.

    The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!

    Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.

    And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.

    Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!

    While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took  only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.

    ''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.

    Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

    Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.

    Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.

    One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:

    'Can't innovate, my ass!'

    But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!

    Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.

    Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.

    As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:

    https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300

    Which is basically tied to this in some ways

    https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208

    That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?

    The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.










    Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
    So. That's it? That's all you have?

    Wow!

    The spin is in the article. The 'damage control' (as you tried to claim) was also in the article.

    The article only existed to pull attention away from the reality. Huawei was getting a lot of attention for the right reasons. The iPhone Xs Max was used (along with the Samsung S9+) during the presentation to highlight the strengths of the Mate 20 series. Are you surprised?

    Well, the new 2018 iPhone didn't fair too well in front of those thousands who watched the presentation in the hall. Are you surprised?

    As with all presentations - including Apple's - what is NOT said, is often more interesting than what IS said but those details always float to the surface at some point so you can be sure that Huawei will squeeze all it can out of every event. Are you surprised?

    Now, if you offered iPhone users the choice of a new A12 model or an A11 model - but with a Mate 20 Pro feature set - most takers would be for the latter. Of that I am convinced and that is what you should be reflecting on.

    Along with why Apple only ships its new 1,000 dollar phones with 50 cent chargers and without headphone jack adaptors etc. Not even a plastic case or factory applied screen protector (standard on many Huawei phones).
    iPhone is a market in itself, and as part of Apple's ecosystem advantage, Apple doesn't need to expend effort adding all of those features that are needed to differentiate Android OS devices like the Chinese OEM's and Samsung have to do. Apple adds features when it fits their roadmap, and when it can add those same features in volume across its product lines.

    I think that it's fine for Huawei to strive to obtain the best and most features in a device, and I expect that Samsung will response in kind, tit fo tat, but with an expected stronger processor than the Kirin 980.

    Meanwhile, I'm not noticing any substantial advantages to the Mate product line over the iPhone X models, whatever your list, and certainly a heck of a lot of advantages to iOS and Apple's ecosystem over Android OS. You still are in denial about iPhone X sales, and I'm expecting that you will be in denial when Apple announces its financials for this quarter in January. You have yet to acknowledge that Apple's business model is superior to it's competition.

    Still, I find it amusing that every manufacturer has to compare its products to Apple's. Funny how that works.
    Apple's business model is not superior to Huawei's.
    Uh no. Profit is the metric of health and superiority of a business model. Apple was months from bankruptcy, but now has vast holdings due to immense collection of profit. This is all the confirmation that is needed -- they have a superior business model. It's what put them into the position they're in now, not magic pixie dust.
    You are actually completely wrong on that. Profits are a simple indicator of current health.

    The business model - how you generate those profits - is different.

    Why not ask Imagination?

    Apple's business model became heavily weighted to mobile sales. When iPhone sales flattened out, Apple changed its makeup and began to look beyond mobile. We are literally in the middle of this change.
    I'm not wrong because Apple's business model is undeniably healthy. In twenty years it has amassed more profit and wealth than any other public corporation in history. It's not even arguable. Doing so is a troll's errand. No surprise that you're trying to.

    Even Apple's non-iPhone business segments are larger than most other fortune companies. Again, old news. Nobody is interested in pretending they're doing anything but killing it but you, because that's your troll trope agenda. 

    Guess it's easier for you than talking about how shitty your chinese knockoffs keep cloning iPhone and iOS. Cognitive dissonance FTW!


    No one is disputing amassed profits.

    Those profits largely rose off the back of ONE product. A dangerous situation to be in. Again, look at Imagination.

    When sales of that product flattened out, they began to focus more on services (last three years) and try to reduce dependence on iPhone.

    The business model is changing to such a degree that it is investing literally billions into at least two areas where it has no experience at all. Content creation and cars.

    In fact, if the car project turns out to be a software project, the future of Apple might be far more non-hardware related than at any point in the history of the company.
    Read more, post less.
     
    http://www.asymco.com/2018/09/13/lasts-longer/

    "To emphasize the second point she said Apple now strives to design and build durable products that last as long as possible. That means long-lasting hardware coupled with long-lasting software. She pointed out that iOS 12 runs even on iPhone 5S, now five years old. Because iPhones last longer, you can keep using them or pass them on to someone who will continue to use them after you upgrade.

    She said that “keeping iPhones in use” is the best thing for the planet.

    At this point in the presentation I wondered if everyone would rush out of the room and call their broker to sell Apple shares. One premise of investing in durable goods hardware companies is that value depends on frequency of upgrades. If products are not replaced frequently they do not generate revenues and the company selling them ends up growing very slowly if at all after markets saturate. The smartphone business is certainly approaching saturation and the implication of making Apple products more durable would imply lower revenues from replacements. This anxiety around replacement rates and extended lives is used by analysts to discount future cash flows and if those lifespans are extended price targets come down.

    So why would Apple want to do this?  What is the logic of this durability focus as a business model? It may be good for the environment but is it good for the bottom line?

    Of course, there would be not much business without an environment and we should all strive for sustainability.  But this is an existential observation, and it’s defensive. The important call to make is that Apple is making a bet that sustainability is a growth business.

    Fundamentally, Apple is betting on having customers not selling them products.

    The purpose of Apple as a firm is to create and preserve customers and to create and preserve products. This is fundamental and not fully recognized.

    To understand how this works, if you look at the pricing graph below, you can read it as a story of increasing prices for a decreasing market share. But if you understand that each advance in products increases absorbable[1] utility then the cost per use remains steady or declines."



    Hmmmn. Sorry but thar doesn't change anything. Apple has been pushing services hard for the last few years in an attempt to balance its revenue spread. That push shows its importance and services revenue is growing as a result. To maintain revenues Apple widened its product spread and increased prices (iPhone X). 

    The key to Apple's revenues was largely iPhone hardware and continued unit growth. When unit growth flattened out, more focus was put on alternative areas of revenue growth (services and for the future, content creation and 'titan' etc).

    Put simply, the age of the golden goose of iPhone hardware growth seems to have passed and Apple is adapting to this.
Sign In or Register to comment.