I've said it before, 70% of the US economy is driven by the "consumer," but 50% of the US economy is driven by the wealthiest top 10% of the consumers!
Apple knows this.
Google/Android, MS/Windows make crap software.
HP/Samsung/Sony, etc., make crap hardware.
Combine crap software and crap hardware and you get what you deserve....crap!
The wealthiest top 10% don't buy squat. They have their needs covered and their wants aren't fixated on the latest tech. The statement, ``Rich people don't pay for anything,'' is in reference to the fact rich people who are famous never appear anywhere unless paid, who are powerful know they pay for nothing and who are just old money have no need to show up.
The Middle Class is what drives these latest gadgets. Kids are prioritizing their material needs around smartphones/tablets first. As kids we blew thousands per year going to video arcades. Now they blow it on wasting time IM'ing one another.
Apple isn't going to utilize more power efficient chips because they are the market leader? WTF?! Do you know we're talking about Apple, right? The company that likes nothing more than make products more power efficient so they make them smaller and lighter with each iteration?
You missed the previous sentence about higher cost and development. Yes, they would have an even better device, but with a lower profit margin. Again there is still the factor of the 2 core software optimization.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.</span>
More like the increased power will cause innovative developers to see what capabilities they can bring to the smartphone that they previously couldn't.
If I was interviewing software developers to hire and I got a response like yours I'd dump their resume into the trash bin at the conclusion of our interview.
I suspect that most of the hardware advances for Apple's Ax chips will be on the iPad... Much more opportunity!
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
More like the increased power will cause innovative developers to see what capabilities they can bring to the smartphone that they previously couldn't.
If I was interviewing software developers to hire and I got a response like yours I'd dump their resume into the trash bin at the conclusion of our interview.
You're jumping late to the conversation. I started this by expressing my interest in what types of evolution the industry would undergo to keep consumer interest and create demand beyond what is currently being offered.
You missed the previous sentence about higher cost and development. Yes, they would have an even better device, but with a lower profit margin. Again there is still the factor of the 2 core software optimization.
You missed where Apple bough PA Semi and have been building their own chips, not to mention their other HW designs all which cost money they didn't have to spend if their plan was to act like a CEO only thinning about the next quarter bonus.
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
You missed where Apple bough PA Semi and have been building their own chips, not to mention their other HW designs all which cost money they didn't have to spend if their plan was to act like a CEO only thinning about the next quarter bonus.
Designing is part of the process, even if they have someone to design the chips for them in house, it still costs additional money. The manufacturing of a more complex design also costs more money. Again you're still forgetting the jump from 2 cores to 4 cores for their software to utilize the advances of a 4 core SoC.
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
Where have you been?
The links are there... Surf DEC, DataGeneral, Rockwell, PDP... All revolutions that failed.. then there is ... You pick 'em...
BTW, for a great read.. read Soul of a New Machine
Computers have changed since 1981, when Tracy Kidder memorably recorded the drama, comedy, and excitement of one companys efforts to bring a new microcomputer to market. What has not changed is the feverish pace of the high-tech industry, the go-for-broke approach to business that has caused so many computer companies to win big (or go belly up), and the cult of pursuing mind-bending technological innovations. The Soul of a New Machine is an essential chapter in the history of the machine that revolutionized the world in the twentieth century.
Designing is part of the process, even if they have someone to design the chips for them in house, it still costs additional money. The manufacturing of a more complex design also costs more money. Again you're still forgetting the jump from 2 cores to 4 cores for their software to utilize the advances of a 4 core SoC.
Oh, so Apple is saving money but not using the latest Cortex designed by ARM but other vendors are instead foolishly throwing away money? :rolleyes: Either way, you're arguing against your own point when you said "there is no reason to utilize [ppwer efficient] if they're already the market leader."
I know why I, as a 25-year Mac user, read AppleInsider. I have strong doubts about the sincerity of Android fans dropping in here to snipe. Likely they are paid for their drivel by Apple's competitors -as if their efforts will sway Apple loyalists.
Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they’re already the market leader…
This nonsense again? If you’re wondering why people aren’t listening to you, it’s because your argument is based in absolute lies that have never been correct.
Originally Posted by st88
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
Yeah, see, it’s stuff like this that gets you dismissed as a loony or a troll. YOU haven’t given one, but look at any market leading device released ever and you’ll see that technology itself is our example. In fact, not only couldn’t you be more incorrect, really the only time that devices AREN’T sufficiently updated between iterations is when the company in question is… NOT the market leader. Look at IBM. Why do you think Apple left them for Intel? Guess what the ratio of PowerPC to X86 personal computers was in aught five.
Let’s see… The iPod has had at least 70% PMP marketshare since, what, 2005? I guess Apple hasn’t updated the iPod since then, huh.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
Hold it! I'm not talking about tablets, Bay Trail has already proven the types of capabilities you can have from a tablet or 2-in-1.
Getting back to mobile as discussed in my previous comment (look way back!).
Here's an example. Portable music players. Over 5~10 years they became smaller in size, they could hold more music, utilize different playback features, improved quality etc. The majority of the market has been taken over by the current mobile market (as everyone here knows).
Hence my original comment that is being ignored by multiple users:
"I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough."
Oh, so Apple is saving money but not using the latest Cortex designed by ARM but other vendors are instead foolishly throwing away money? Either way, you're arguing against your own point when you said "there is no reason to utilize [ppwer efficient] if they're already the market leader."
Apple is using the latest ARMv8 design. I'm discussing the jump from 2 to 4 cores for Apple. I have no clue what sort of tangent you are going off on.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
Hold it! I'm not talking about tablets, Bay Trail has already proven the types of capabilities you can have from a tablet or 2-in-1.
Getting back to mobile as discussed in my previous comment (look way back!).
Here's an example. Portable music players. Over 5~10 years they became smaller in size, they could hold more music, utilize different playback features, improved quality etc. The majority of the market has been taken over by the current mobile market (at everyone here knows).
Hence my original comment that is being ignored by multiple users:
"I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough."
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
Or some users like to pick and choose parts of my discussion and ride it aimlessly into a different direction.
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
Or some users like to pick and choose parts of my discussion and ride it aimlessly into a different direction.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
If you feel I'm dodging someone's comments then point it out as I have full intention to respond to someone that is capable of having a reasonable conversation.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
If you feel I'm dodging someone's comments then point it out as I have full intention to respond to someone that is capable of having a reasonable conversation.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Comments
I've said it before, 70% of the US economy is driven by the "consumer," but 50% of the US economy is driven by the wealthiest top 10% of the consumers!
Apple knows this.
Google/Android, MS/Windows make crap software.
HP/Samsung/Sony, etc., make crap hardware.
Combine crap software and crap hardware and you get what you deserve....crap!
The wealthiest top 10% don't buy squat. They have their needs covered and their wants aren't fixated on the latest tech. The statement, ``Rich people don't pay for anything,'' is in reference to the fact rich people who are famous never appear anywhere unless paid, who are powerful know they pay for nothing and who are just old money have no need to show up.
The Middle Class is what drives these latest gadgets. Kids are prioritizing their material needs around smartphones/tablets first. As kids we blew thousands per year going to video arcades. Now they blow it on wasting time IM'ing one another.
Apple isn't going to utilize more power efficient chips because they are the market leader? WTF?! Do you know we're talking about Apple, right? The company that likes nothing more than make products more power efficient so they make them smaller and lighter with each iteration?
You missed the previous sentence about higher cost and development. Yes, they would have an even better device, but with a lower profit margin. Again there is still the factor of the 2 core software optimization.
I suspect that most of the hardware advances for Apple's Ax chips will be on the iPad... Much more opportunity!
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
More like the increased power will cause innovative developers to see what capabilities they can bring to the smartphone that they previously couldn't.
If I was interviewing software developers to hire and I got a response like yours I'd dump their resume into the trash bin at the conclusion of our interview.
You're jumping late to the conversation. I started this by expressing my interest in what types of evolution the industry would undergo to keep consumer interest and create demand beyond what is currently being offered.
You missed where Apple bough PA Semi and have been building their own chips, not to mention their other HW designs all which cost money they didn't have to spend if their plan was to act like a CEO only thinning about the next quarter bonus.
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Vague and you couldn't even be bothered to provide a comparable example.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
You missed where Apple bough PA Semi and have been building their own chips, not to mention their other HW designs all which cost money they didn't have to spend if their plan was to act like a CEO only thinning about the next quarter bonus.
Designing is part of the process, even if they have someone to design the chips for them in house, it still costs additional money. The manufacturing of a more complex design also costs more money. Again you're still forgetting the jump from 2 cores to 4 cores for their software to utilize the advances of a 4 core SoC.
Where have you been?
The links are there... Surf DEC, DataGeneral, Rockwell, PDP... All revolutions that failed.. then there is ... You pick 'em...
BTW, for a great read.. read Soul of a New Machine
Oh, so Apple is saving money but not using the latest Cortex designed by ARM but other vendors are instead foolishly throwing away money? :rolleyes: Either way, you're arguing against your own point when you said "there is no reason to utilize [ppwer efficient] if they're already the market leader."
Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they’re already the market leader…
This nonsense again? If you’re wondering why people aren’t listening to you, it’s because your argument is based in absolute lies that have never been correct.
Yeah, see, it’s stuff like this that gets you dismissed as a loony or a troll. YOU haven’t given one, but look at any market leading device released ever and you’ll see that technology itself is our example. In fact, not only couldn’t you be more incorrect, really the only time that devices AREN’T sufficiently updated between iterations is when the company in question is… NOT the market leader. Look at IBM. Why do you think Apple left them for Intel? Guess what the ratio of PowerPC to X86 personal computers was in aught five.
Let’s see… The iPod has had at least 70% PMP marketshare since, what, 2005? I guess Apple hasn’t updated the iPod since then, huh.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
Hold it! I'm not talking about tablets, Bay Trail has already proven the types of capabilities you can have from a tablet or 2-in-1.
Getting back to mobile as discussed in my previous comment (look way back!).
Here's an example. Portable music players. Over 5~10 years they became smaller in size, they could hold more music, utilize different playback features, improved quality etc. The majority of the market has been taken over by the current mobile market (as everyone here knows).
Hence my original comment that is being ignored by multiple users:
"I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough."
Oh, so Apple is saving money but not using the latest Cortex designed by ARM but other vendors are instead foolishly throwing away money?
Apple is using the latest ARMv8 design. I'm discussing the jump from 2 to 4 cores for Apple. I have no clue what sort of tangent you are going off on.
Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue? Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware? There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
Hold it! I'm not talking about tablets, Bay Trail has already proven the types of capabilities you can have from a tablet or 2-in-1.
Getting back to mobile as discussed in my previous comment (look way back!).
Here's an example. Portable music players. Over 5~10 years they became smaller in size, they could hold more music, utilize different playback features, improved quality etc. The majority of the market has been taken over by the current mobile market (at everyone here knows).
Hence my original comment that is being ignored by multiple users:
"I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough."
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
Or some users like to pick and choose parts of my discussion and ride it aimlessly into a different direction.
If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention. Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
Or some users like to pick and choose parts of my discussion and ride it aimlessly into a different direction.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
If you feel I'm dodging someone's comments then point it out as I have full intention to respond to someone that is capable of having a reasonable conversation.
The Moto G is trying to change that. It's a inexpensive phone that will get timely OS updates.
Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
If you feel I'm dodging someone's comments then point it out as I have full intention to respond to someone that is capable of having a reasonable conversation.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.