<ul style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-left:0px;margin-top:1em;padding-left:35px;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">It runs Android 5.0 and will receive timely OS updates from Google. Lollipop is nice, it's pretty, and it adds a lot of cool new features to Android for users and developers alike.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">For a Nexus device, the screen is pretty good. Not amazing, but totally respectable.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">It's just the right size to type on. I think 8.9" is the sweet spot for software keyboards, at least for my hands.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">A better Gmail experience, better notification handling, multi-user support, better sharing between apps, and always-on voice commands that work extremely well. Basically, Android - it has the advantages Android has.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Did I mention multi-user? Multi-user is great. Apple can't ignore this on the iPad forever.</li>
<ul style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-left:0px;margin-top:1em;padding-left:35px;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Build quality / quality control issues that border on embarrassing. Light bleed, back flex, snapping noises, and a general feeling of low-cost hardware. It's not just me, either, complaints are <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nexus+9+build+quality" style="border-bottom-style:dashed;border-bottom-width:1px;color:rgb(30,50,70);font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;" target="_blank">increasingly common</a>
.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">K1 Denver just does not seem to be shaping up as the performance powerhouse we hoped it would be, the Nexus 9 stutters and lags at times, and generally is just kind of rough around the edges.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Battery life isn't fantastic. My Nexus 9 seems to have particularly bad issues with longevity, but standby drain is still an issue Android can't seem to nail down.</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Tablet content is still spotty at times, even in Google's own apps - look at Hangouts on a Nexus 9. <em style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Yeesh.</em>
</li>
<li style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-top:.2em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Chrome is an utter and complete <em style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">dog</em>
compared to Mobile Safari in terms of smoothness, web browsing on the Nexus 9 is just lamentable.</li>
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
the rest of your apologia might make some sense IF the latest HTC Nexus 9 tablet wasn't such an utter dog, as outlined by no less than Android Police in my post above. if that is "reference hardware," boy, Google really is in deep do-do. its only advantage is to be first with Lollipop until Samsung and the rest have it for their tablets in a few months. but "highlighting" its new OS on a piece of shit hardware is just about the worst way in the world for Google to do that. if that were their intent, it surely has "flopped" in that regard already.
Releasing it and slashing the price to $199 at launch for a "sale" was a great show of confidence in the product, that's for sure.
If everyone else is supposed to take those and make a better product, why don't they?.
They do.
That's why most would choose (and do) an LG G3, or an HTC One or a Galaxy S, or a Sony Experia over a Nexus model with very limited storage options whose only real claim to fame is stock Android and thus fast OS updates. That much should have been obvious.
Why do you think those few "die-hard Android fans" committed to Nexus models are doing so much hand-wringing this past week over some non-Nexus models beating them to the punch with Android 5.0 (ie Moto X, LG G3). Read the comments and you'll find the biggest reason they bought their Nexus was to get the latest and greatest OS faster than anyone else. For them it wasn't about the hardware or unique features. That makes them a tiny, nonetheless important, segment of the Android marketplace
But, say, Apple developers ... or Apple/IBM developers targeting Apple mobile devices ... or IT developers targeting Apple Mobile Devices ...
If you look at it, most web server-side application programs are written in Java, PHP, Perl, ColdFusion.JavaScript (or equivalent scripting language), etc. ...
These programs are mingled with and generate markup (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, JSON) that is sent to the client.
The client doesn't see or [need to] know what generated the markup.
But, If you have an IBM or Apple server communicating with Apple mobile devices -- Swift is a powerful and efficient alternative in this situation!
Your infatuation with Swift has apparently clouded your objectivity. A proprietary IBM/Apple corporate environment is certainly not a ubiquitous web browser platform. Your first remarks seemed to infer that Swift could be a general purpose replacement for all standard client browser implementations which of course is ridiculous. Not in Apple's best interest, not in the consumer's best interest and not in W3C standards best interest. In a proprietary corporate network, who cares, it is inconsequential to the Internet at large.
I never said it was ubiquitous!
If you you look at the context of the posts I replied to:
Just think of the halo effect of having the mammoth App Store incorporating the Mac! It'll be so cool when you can buy a universal app that works on your iPhone, iPad and iMac.
Eventually they'll finalize HTML5. Web-apps will be the way forward IMHO.
Not that old canard.
Web apps have been the way forward for seven years or longer. There's a place for them on the Mac, but every single app I've used on the iPhone or iPad that makes use of HTML5 in the interests of cross-platform compatibility (ie to save money) has been a dog.
The discussion involved:
universal iOS/OSX apps
general-purpose web apps as an alternative to universal iOS/OSX apps
I merely suggested a third alternative -- a server-side Swift web app -- could serve to a client-side Swift-aware Browser or Swift app on Apple Macs or iDevices ... and gain functionality and efficiency.
Out of curiosity:
What server-side programming language do you prefer?
What client-side scripting language do you prefer?
It runs Android 5.0 and will receive timely OS updates from Google. Lollipop is nice, it's pretty, and it adds a lot of cool new features to Android for users and developers alike.
For a Nexus device, the screen is pretty good. Not amazing, but totally respectable.
It's just the right size to type on. I think 8.9" is the sweet spot for software keyboards, at least for my hands.
A better Gmail experience, better notification handling, multi-user support, better sharing between apps, and always-on voice commands that work extremely well. Basically, Android - it has the advantages Android has.
Did I mention multi-user? Multi-user is great. Apple can't ignore this on the iPad forever.
Nexus 9: Cons
Build quality / quality control issues that border on embarrassing. Light bleed, back flex, snapping noises, and a general feeling of low-cost hardware. It's not just me, either, complaints are increasingly common.
K1 Denver just does not seem to be shaping up as the performance powerhouse we hoped it would be, the Nexus 9 stutters and lags at times, and generally is just kind of rough around the edges.
Battery life isn't fantastic. My Nexus 9 seems to have particularly bad issues with longevity, but standby drain is still an issue Android can't seem to nail down.
Tablet content is still spotty at times, even in Google's own apps - look at Hangouts on a Nexus 9. Yeesh.
Chrome is an utter and complete dog compared to Mobile Safari in terms of smoothness, web browsing on the Nexus 9 is just lamentable.
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
the rest of your apologia might make some sense IF the latest HTC Nexus 9 tablet wasn't such an utter dog, as outlined by no less than Android Police in my post above. if that is "reference hardware," boy, Google really is in deep do-do. its only advantage is to be first with Lollipop until Samsung and the rest have it for their tablets in a few months. but "highlighting" its new OS on a piece of shit hardware is just about the worst way in the world for Google to do that. if that were their intent, it surely has "flopped" in that regard already.
It's almost like Google has written off Android tablets completely. "Screw it, let's just move to Chrome earlier than planned. None of the OEM's can afford to make decent hardware for tablets anymore. No profit."
That's why most would choose (and do) an LG G3, or an HTC One or a Galaxy S, or a Sony Experia over a Nexus model with very limited storage options whose only real claim to fame is stock Android and thus fast OS updates. That much should have been obvious.
Why do you think those few "die-hard Android fans" committed to Nexus models are doing so much hand-wringing this past week over some non-Nexus models beating them to the punch with Android 5.0 (ie Moto X, LG G3). Read the comments and you'll find the biggest reason they bought their Nexus was to get the latest and greatest OS faster than anyone else. For them it wasn't about the hardware or unique features. That makes them a tiny, nonetheless important, segment of the Android marketplace
i agree it's the small core group of fandroids that buy Nexus products to get the latest OS version - "early adopters" that will pay a premium price for this. but i disagree they are important. the "Android marketplace" is the cheap commodity tablets/phones of the world, and they are a fraction of 1% of that market, which is motivated by price, not by the "latest and greatest" OS. at best, they are beta testers.
It's almost like Google has written off Android tablets completely. "Screw it, let's just move to Chrome earlier than planned. None of the OEM's can afford to make decent hardware for tablets anymore. No profit."
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
Then you too would be incorrect, not able or not wanting to comprehend the Nexus program.
Their shouldn't be any huge surprise that the Nexus 9 is (purposefully) handicapped, resulting in an unfavorable comparison to an Apple iPad Air. It would have been a huge black-mark on Apple if they hadn't as the two serve different purposes for their respective OS providers. Leave the better hardware, performance and options to the OEM's as intended. That doesn't mean OEM's will be any more successful at challenging Apple's dominance than they have been up to now. They're a juggernaut with the lion's share of profits.
Now as for tablets themselves I don't personally think they have Google's focus at the moment anyway. That market is in a bit of a funk this year. Google plainly wants to point their licensees away from the smallish 7" range of tablets tho, advice I expect Samsung, LG, HTC and the others will follow. I think Apple might follow that same path too, dumping the Mini altogether in the near future.
When I compare to Google Now I see too large a gap. When I compare to Siri from 3 years ago I don't see much improvement in key areas.
Perhaps in being unrealistic in expecting advancements in 3 years like we've seen with iOS, iPad, iPhone, the A-series chip, etc. over the same timeframe but, to me, it feels more or less like Apple hasn't put much focus on it, save for some minor UI changes in iOS in the way info displays on screen.
With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all Apple needs to do is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.
I understand your point of view. I'm one of those semi-heavy Windows users and running it on my Mac(s) is a must-have as I flat-out refuse to use any other non-Apple platform. The reality is (for now) the mainstream enterprise market is primarily Windows. That's the ugly truth. Keeping the Macs x86-compatibility give me (us) the best of both worlds. To this day, I still surprise people when they realize my Mac runs windows. They never knew, and frankly, Apple (or VMware/Parallels) should really emphasize that feature.
Now, if they can move to an ARM Ax system and somehow figure out an x86 emulation that provides native performance, sign me up. Nothing would please me more than to see Apple sock-it to Intel. Intel got arrogant in its current level and needs a serious attitude adjustment.
i agree it's the small core group of fandroids that buy Nexus products to get the latest OS version - "early adopters" that will pay a premium price for this. but i disagree they are important. the "Android marketplace" is the cheap commodity tablets/phones of the world, and they are a fraction of 1% of that market, which is motivated by price, not by the "latest and greatest" OS. at best, they are beta testers.
They're important for a reason you mentioned yourself. They serve as de-facto beta-testers, discovering unnoticed bugs and inconsistencies, suggesting OS changes and additions for upcoming versions, and serving as fairly vocal web ambassadors for Google Android. Yeah, they're important.
Then you too would be incorrect, not able or not wanting to comprehend the Nexus program.
Now as for tablets themselves I don't personally think they have Google's focus at the moment anyway. That market is in a bit of a funk this year. Google plainly wants to point their licensees away from the smallish 7" range of tablets tho, advice I expect Samsung, LG, HTC and the others will follow. I think Apple might follow that same path too, dumping the Mini altogether in the near future.
I also define flop as a comparison of its financial success.
Would you agree Shawshank Redemption is a great movie? I dobt think you'd get too many people saying it sucked. Yet it was a block office flop… twice!
Just because they didn't make Stephen King's short story into a sci-di adventure with excessive special effects that will play to foreign markets doesn't mean they didn't it to be more popular in the box office.
I merely suggested a third alternative -- a server-side Swift web app -- could serve to a client-side Swift-aware Browser or Swift app on Apple Macs or iDevices ... and gain functionality and efficiency.
See, this is exactly what Microsoft did in the 90s putting VB inside Internet Explorer. It was a miserable failure and only served to break the Internet.
When I compare to Google Now I see too large a gap. When I compare to Siri from 3 years ago I don't see much improvement in key areas.
Perhaps in being unrealistic in expecting advancements in 3 years like we've seen with iOS, iPad, iPhone, the A-series chip, etc. over the same timeframe but, to me, it feels more or less like Apple hasn't put much focus on it, save for some minor UI changes in iOS in the way info displays on screen.
Did you perform a thorough analysis comparable to the analysis of Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray as referenced in the linked article or are you suggesting the analysis is biased?
What is/are the issue(s) with Siri?
Service Instantiation
User Interface
Speech Recognition
Data Sources
Representation of Results
Based on what appears to be objective evaluation, Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray suggests that Siri has improved from a C+ score to a B- score from July 2013 to July 2014. Gene Munster specifically notes the following improvements:
Speech Recognition
Data Sources (multiple sources presented)
While I believe Siri could be improved, I believe Apple is improving Siri but doesn't have substantial effort to present to consumers yet.
When I compare to Google Now I see too large a gap. When I compare to Siri from 3 years ago I don't see much improvement in key areas.
Perhaps in being unrealistic in expecting advancements in 3 years like we've seen with iOS, iPad, iPhone, the A-series chip, etc. over the same timeframe but, to me, it feels more or less like Apple hasn't put much focus on it, save for some minor UI changes in iOS in the way info displays on screen.
Given Apple's secrecy, they are almost certainly working on it, but historically will wait until they can deliver it as Siri 2. I'm also thinking that Apple is still building out its server farm infrastructure to handle iCloud, and surely Siri would be in the equation.
I base this on how Apple provides its professional apps, and even iWork. Lots of work behind the scenes, then all of the sudden, its dropped as a major release, followed by some cleanup to get the last bugs out.
No, chip design isn't magic; but getting an ancient CISC architecture like x86 running efficiently is. CISC CPUs are much more complex than RISC (ARM/PPC/Apple) ones, since they have to handle a much larger variety of assembler instructions. In a similar fashion to how PPC was faster and more efficient than x86 back in the mid to late 1990s, ARM's architecture is much simpler, more efficient and per CPU cycle, it does more work. It was designed for efficiency from the start, x86 wasn't.
Instead of being stuck using an ancient architecture with modern chip fabrication techniques, Intel would have done much better, in fact would likely be leading, if they created a new architecture for mobile using their advanced manufacturing and design tech. The only reason Intel stays with x86 is for backward compatibility, which is completely unnecessary for mobile: no mobile phones run Windows.
It's not as cut-and-dried as simply comparing RISC and CISC. This study provides data that shows modern x86 can compete not on raw power consumption, but "energy used" to perform a certain workload, minus any OS-specific optimizations:
In short, modern x86 designs amount to running a CISC instruction decoder on top of what is internally a very RISC-like (or "post-RISC") micro-architecture.
Comments
The first "con" of Apple iPad Air 2
"Is an iPad, will result in some people thinking you're an Apple sycophant / the kind of person who lingers at coffee shops for 8 hours a day."
That is the worst Android Police have to say about Apple iPad Air 2.
well, he put Siri down hard too. but he's keeping the Air 2 anyway.
Releasing it and slashing the price to $199 at launch for a "sale" was a great show of confidence in the product, that's for sure.
I like Siri. I don't know why everyone rags on her. She does just about everything I expect.
Maybe my expectations are low.
They do.
That's why most would choose (and do) an LG G3, or an HTC One or a Galaxy S, or a Sony Experia over a Nexus model with very limited storage options whose only real claim to fame is stock Android and thus fast OS updates. That much should have been obvious.
Why do you think those few "die-hard Android fans" committed to Nexus models are doing so much hand-wringing this past week over some non-Nexus models beating them to the punch with Android 5.0 (ie Moto X, LG G3). Read the comments and you'll find the biggest reason they bought their Nexus was to get the latest and greatest OS faster than anyone else. For them it wasn't about the hardware or unique features. That makes them a tiny, nonetheless important, segment of the Android marketplace
Releasing it and slashing the price to $199 at launch for a "sale" was a great show of confidence in the product, that's for sure.
I like Siri. I don't know why everyone rags on her. She does just about everything I expect.
Maybe my expectations are low.
OMG, i see i've opened AI to a droid invasion!
I never said it was ubiquitous!
If you you look at the context of the posts I replied to:
The discussion involved:
I merely suggested a third alternative -- a server-side Swift web app -- could serve to a client-side Swift-aware Browser or Swift app on Apple Macs or iDevices ... and gain functionality and efficiency.
Out of curiosity:
ah -
Nexus 9: Pros
Nexus 9: Cons
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/#usability-app-content-storefront-and-purchasing-experience
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
the rest of your apologia might make some sense IF the latest HTC Nexus 9 tablet wasn't such an utter dog, as outlined by no less than Android Police in my post above. if that is "reference hardware," boy, Google really is in deep do-do. its only advantage is to be first with Lollipop until Samsung and the rest have it for their tablets in a few months. but "highlighting" its new OS on a piece of shit hardware is just about the worst way in the world for Google to do that. if that were their intent, it surely has "flopped" in that regard already.
It's almost like Google has written off Android tablets completely. "Screw it, let's just move to Chrome earlier than planned. None of the OEM's can afford to make decent hardware for tablets anymore. No profit."
Smells like fail to me.
The Siri comment is the last "con" about Apple iPad Air 2.
The Siri comment is completely unfounded as well.
They do.
That's why most would choose (and do) an LG G3, or an HTC One or a Galaxy S, or a Sony Experia over a Nexus model with very limited storage options whose only real claim to fame is stock Android and thus fast OS updates. That much should have been obvious.
Why do you think those few "die-hard Android fans" committed to Nexus models are doing so much hand-wringing this past week over some non-Nexus models beating them to the punch with Android 5.0 (ie Moto X, LG G3). Read the comments and you'll find the biggest reason they bought their Nexus was to get the latest and greatest OS faster than anyone else. For them it wasn't about the hardware or unique features. That makes them a tiny, nonetheless important, segment of the Android marketplace
i agree it's the small core group of fandroids that buy Nexus products to get the latest OS version - "early adopters" that will pay a premium price for this. but i disagree they are important. the "Android marketplace" is the cheap commodity tablets/phones of the world, and they are a fraction of 1% of that market, which is motivated by price, not by the "latest and greatest" OS. at best, they are beta testers.
It's almost like Google has written off Android tablets completely. "Screw it, let's just move to Chrome earlier than planned. None of the OEM's can afford to make decent hardware for tablets anymore. No profit."
Smells like fail to me.
you could be right. we'll see!
Their shouldn't be any huge surprise that the Nexus 9 is (purposefully) handicapped, resulting in an unfavorable comparison to an Apple iPad Air. It would have been a huge black-mark on Apple if they hadn't as the two serve different purposes for their respective OS providers. Leave the better hardware, performance and options to the OEM's as intended. That doesn't mean OEM's will be any more successful at challenging Apple's dominance than they have been up to now. They're a juggernaut with the lion's share of profits.
Now as for tablets themselves I don't personally think they have Google's focus at the moment anyway. That market is in a bit of a funk this year. Google plainly wants to point their licensees away from the smallish 7" range of tablets tho, advice I expect Samsung, LG, HTC and the others will follow. I think Apple might follow that same path too, dumping the Mini altogether in the near future.
When I compare to Google Now I see too large a gap. When I compare to Siri from 3 years ago I don't see much improvement in key areas.
Perhaps in being unrealistic in expecting advancements in 3 years like we've seen with iOS, iPad, iPhone, the A-series chip, etc. over the same timeframe but, to me, it feels more or less like Apple hasn't put much focus on it, save for some minor UI changes in iOS in the way info displays on screen.
With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all Apple needs to do is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.
I understand your point of view. I'm one of those semi-heavy Windows users and running it on my Mac(s) is a must-have as I flat-out refuse to use any other non-Apple platform. The reality is (for now) the mainstream enterprise market is primarily Windows. That's the ugly truth. Keeping the Macs x86-compatibility give me (us) the best of both worlds. To this day, I still surprise people when they realize my Mac runs windows. They never knew, and frankly, Apple (or VMware/Parallels) should really emphasize that feature.
Now, if they can move to an ARM Ax system and somehow figure out an x86 emulation that provides native performance, sign me up. Nothing would please me more than to see Apple sock-it to Intel. Intel got arrogant in its current level and needs a serious attitude adjustment.
I also define flop as a comparison of its financial success.
Would you agree Shawshank Redemption is a great movie? I dobt think you'd get too many people saying it sucked. Yet it was a block office flop… twice!
Just because they didn't make Stephen King's short story into a sci-di adventure with excessive special effects that will play to foreign markets doesn't mean they didn't it to be more popular in the box office.
I merely suggested a third alternative -- a server-side Swift web app -- could serve to a client-side Swift-aware Browser or Swift app on Apple Macs or iDevices ... and gain functionality and efficiency.
See, this is exactly what Microsoft did in the 90s putting VB inside Internet Explorer. It was a miserable failure and only served to break the Internet.
Did you perform a thorough analysis comparable to the analysis of Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray as referenced in the linked article or are you suggesting the analysis is biased?
What is/are the issue(s) with Siri?
Based on what appears to be objective evaluation, Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray suggests that Siri has improved from a C+ score to a B- score from July 2013 to July 2014. Gene Munster specifically notes the following improvements:
While I believe Siri could be improved, I believe Apple is improving Siri but doesn't have substantial effort to present to consumers yet.
Correct, but clarify it is ~ 50 million/quarter versus 5+ Million Mac/quarter.
When I compare to Google Now I see too large a gap. When I compare to Siri from 3 years ago I don't see much improvement in key areas.
Perhaps in being unrealistic in expecting advancements in 3 years like we've seen with iOS, iPad, iPhone, the A-series chip, etc. over the same timeframe but, to me, it feels more or less like Apple hasn't put much focus on it, save for some minor UI changes in iOS in the way info displays on screen.
Given Apple's secrecy, they are almost certainly working on it, but historically will wait until they can deliver it as Siri 2. I'm also thinking that Apple is still building out its server farm infrastructure to handle iCloud, and surely Siri would be in the equation.
I base this on how Apple provides its professional apps, and even iWork. Lots of work behind the scenes, then all of the sudden, its dropped as a major release, followed by some cleanup to get the last bugs out.
No, chip design isn't magic; but getting an ancient CISC architecture like x86 running efficiently is. CISC CPUs are much more complex than RISC (ARM/PPC/Apple) ones, since they have to handle a much larger variety of assembler instructions. In a similar fashion to how PPC was faster and more efficient than x86 back in the mid to late 1990s, ARM's architecture is much simpler, more efficient and per CPU cycle, it does more work. It was designed for efficiency from the start, x86 wasn't.
Instead of being stuck using an ancient architecture with modern chip fabrication techniques, Intel would have done much better, in fact would likely be leading, if they created a new architecture for mobile using their advanced manufacturing and design tech. The only reason Intel stays with x86 is for backward compatibility, which is completely unnecessary for mobile: no mobile phones run Windows.
It's not as cut-and-dried as simply comparing RISC and CISC. This study provides data that shows modern x86 can compete not on raw power consumption, but "energy used" to perform a certain workload, minus any OS-specific optimizations:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188396-the-final-isa-showdown-is-arm-x86-or-mips-intrinsically-more-power-efficient
(the "smoking gun" is on page 2 of the article, see figure 10).
There's another more nuanced article from a decade ago explaining why the term RISC and CISC are legacy terms that don't mean much any more: http://archive.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
In short, modern x86 designs amount to running a CISC instruction decoder on top of what is internally a very RISC-like (or "post-RISC") micro-architecture.