1/4 inch means nothing if the phone has a distorted screen, more glare, and a compromised fingerprint scanner.
Do you own a phablet? If not you have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you own a Galaxy Note that you keep referring to as a compromised device? If not what makes you think you know what you're talking about?
But yes one of my phones is a phablet. About two years old, larger display than the iPhone 6+ yet smaller overall. No it's not a Samsung phone either as I don't care for their business ethics.
I've used the Edge phones before. The edge portions were irratating and the glare was bothersome.
I have no beliefs that I wish to remain safe. All I believe is that Kuo's much-ballyhooed accuracy is unproven. I do find it suspicious when one analyst seems to always be hyped when he's quoted. It's the people who accept assertions without proof who have beliefs they might wish to keep safe...
I would be perfectly happy if someone could show me the analysis that proves that Kuo is, in fact, the most accurate or most reliable or whatever. That'd be fine with me. It's actually assertions without proof that are "beliefs." Also, it's usually up to those making the assertion to prove it's true, rather than the person questioning it to prove the negative.
I've seen that one. With an average of seven predictions per year in their listing, you know that's only a small sampling of Kuo's output, and there's no indication whether it's a randomized sample or some sort of cherry-picking, one way or the other. Also, it makes no comparative reference to the accuracy of other analysts, so there's no basis for determining if he's 'most accurate,' average, or whatever.
I'd also be happy if Kuo was just routinely cited plainly as an analyst, like all the others are. The frequent hype just makes me suspicious. Is it about making Kuo or KGI more money? Is there some sort of attempt at market manipulation involved? Who knows, but it sure does make me wonder.
It's a small sampling? What didn't they report on?
Are you a subscriber? If so could you tell us what PED is using as the yardstick for determining "accuracy". If Kuo is mostly correct in a report but misses a point or two is he then simply wrong overall as far as PED is concerned? When he's "wrong" is it sales predictions as a rule but where features/hardware is concerned he's usually correct? Is he generally right but sometimes off with the exact timing but well within the ballpark? That would be helpful in determining if he's "better than a coin-flip".
I won't disclose the details (that would be unfair to PED and his business) but it is a fair system he uses.
So you're not a subscriber? All I asked about was what his basis for 'accuracy" was, not for you to "steal" the entire article and post it here. If you can't explain it or don't know then fair enough.
I've seen that one. With an average of seven predictions per year in their listing, you know that's only a small sampling of Kuo's output, and there's no indication whether it's a randomized sample or some sort of cherry-picking, one way or the other. Also, it makes no comparative reference to the accuracy of other analysts, so there's no basis for determining if he's 'most accurate,' average, or whatever.
I'd also be happy if Kuo was just routinely cited plainly as an analyst, like all the others are. The frequent hype just makes me suspicious. Is it about making Kuo or KGI more money? Is there some sort of attempt at market manipulation involved? Who knows, but it sure does make me wonder.
It's a small sampling? What didn't they report on?
The article contained a reviewed listing of Kuo predictions over several years' time. The average number of predictions per year in that listing was seven (and I didn't include in that average the lone item from 2015, since that year wasn't complete). You can find more than seven Kuo predictions made in just the last few weeks. Kuo makes way more than seven predictions per year. I don't need to go back and find you some examples of what wasn't included, because it's obvious most of Kuo's output for those years wasn't included.
Of course, even if that was everything, it still wouldn't matter with regard to the assertions that Kuo is 'the most accurate.' Without knowing the accuracy of the runner-up second-most-accurate, or even just the industry average, such an assertion is meaningless. It's just hype.
I won't disclose the details (that would be unfair to PED and his business) but it is a fair system he uses.
So you're not a subscriber? All I asked about was what his basis for 'accuracy" was, not for you to "steal" the entire article and post it here. If you can't explain it or don't know then fair enough.
It's funny. You're asking a valid question: What is the evidence for the statement? In this case, you're asking about the methodology of the quoted PED review.
I'm just asking for evidence to back up the common assertion that Kuo is 'most accurate' or even just so 'reliable.'
I won't disclose the details (that would be unfair to PED and his business) but it is a fair system he uses.
So you're not a subscriber? All I asked about was what his basis for 'accuracy" was, not for you to "steal" the entire article and post it here. If you can't explain it or don't know then fair enough.
It's funny. You're asking a valid question: What is the evidence for the statement? In this case, you're asking about the methodology of the quoted PED review.
I'm just asking for evidence to back up the common assertion that Kuo is 'most accurate' or even just so 'reliable.'
As I said to you a couple of times so far, but I don't mind repeating I suppose: The links I found for you earlier are perhaps as close as you're going to get for the only evidence you think acceptable. What you want doesn't exist as far as I can find and no one seems very interested in creating it.
I won't disclose the details (that would be unfair to PED and his business) but it is a fair system he uses.
So you're not a subscriber? All I asked about was what his basis for 'accuracy" was, not for you to "steal" the entire article and post it here. If you can't explain it or don't know then fair enough.
Its accurate and a reasonable basis. I won't go into details because that would be stealing info. Go subscribe yourself. Its a good read.
And kinda ironic you are asking for detail when you bad mouth someone else (AppleZulu) for asking for proof that Kuo is accurate. LOL.
According to the comments on his article there's questions about whether it was either accurate or reasonable. Thus my question. As you've accepted it as gospel and the last word on it I thought perhaps you had good reasons to believe it. No matter really if you can't really come up with the words to explain it. Not that important as you, me and everyone else with an opinion would has some sort of reason for it.
It's funny. You're asking a valid question: What is the evidence for the statement? In this case, you're asking about the methodology of the quoted PED review.
I'm just asking for evidence to back up the common assertion that Kuo is 'most accurate' or even just so 'reliable.'
As I said to you a couple of times so far, but I don't mind repeating I suppose: The links I found for you earlier are perhaps as close as you're going to get for the only evidence you think acceptable. What you want doesn't exist as far as I can find and no one seems very interested in creating it.
It does exist.
PED's member website.
Kuo is 44% accurate, which is slightly above average. But you don't want to admit this and just question his methods. PED has been covering Apple for decades and is one of the most respected tech journalists.
Yes he's respected. Yes it might be on his website. Or maybe it isn't. Kuo might be "above average", and I believe he is, but that's not proven by PED is it? Maybe it is.
I believe YOU believe PED is absolutely spot on in his appraisal stated in the headline. There's also some paid subscribers of his blog who have actually read his article and methodology and believe that he isn't "spot on", that he could have done better. I do see at least one instance in the comments where he agrees with one of them and admits to errors in calculating accuracy. Are there others? Dunno.
You haven't really said anything other than quoting the headline which makes me question whether you've really read the article or not.
The key thing missed re sales is that Apple has been making a quality product with a good operating system that gets updated on a regular basis. No everyone will switch to a new product when it comes out. I. for instance usually wait for two years (nothing to do with contracts) to update the hardware. Apple products last and are not abandoned when new Os is issued. That's not the case with Android phones which are hardware limited when a new OS is issued. Older Apple phones may lack in some features, touch/pressure, etc. but those features aren't seen as necessary to all users. That Apple recognizes that and doesn't rely on tech savvy users is to their credit. As with all their products, they work, they last with decent care and don't need to be replaced frequently just to get some new feature unless one really wants or needs it. My 7 year old 27" iMac functions just great. Could it be better? Sure, Would a new iMac be nice to have, sure. But, it simply isn't necessary. Apple didn't get to be the wealthiest company on the planet by relying on massive repeat sales. They did it by conquest and accomplished this by making the best overall product. Some may view it as a lousy marketing strategy, but it isn't if you in business for the long haul. Benz, BMW, Rolls, Bentley owners, et al, don't necessarily by a new car every year. thin about it.
Kuo is 44% accurate, which is slightly above average. But you don't want to admit this and just question his methods. PED has been covering Apple for decades and is one of the most respected tech journalists.
Yes he's respected. Yes it might be on his website. Or maybe it isn't. Kuo might be "above average", and I believe he is, but that's not proven by PED is it? Maybe it is.
I believe YOU believe PED is absolutely spot on in his appraisal stated in the headline. There's also some paid subscribers of his blog who have actually read his article and methodology and believe that he isn't "spot on", that he could have done better. I do see at least one instance in the comments where he agrees with one of them and admits to errors in calculating accuracy. Are there others? Dunno.
You haven't really said anything other than quoting the headline which makes me question whether you've really read the article or not.
So 9 out of 10 comments don't question his method, yet you believe the 1 who did.
I'm done wasting time on a Google lap dog.
Ah, and the ad-homs kick in. Well, what else could you say.
It's funny. You're asking a valid question: What is the evidence for the statement? In this case, you're asking about the methodology of the quoted PED review.
I'm just asking for evidence to back up the common assertion that Kuo is 'most accurate' or even just so 'reliable.'
As I said to you a couple of times so far, but I don't mind repeating I suppose: The links I found for you earlier are perhaps as close as you're going to get for the only evidence you think acceptable. What you want doesn't exist as far as I can find and no one seems very interested in creating it.
By referring to "the only evidence you think acceptable," you seem to suggest that I am somehow making some sort of arbitrary set of demands for 'proof.' (cf. "the Knights Who Say Nih"). That's not really the case, though, is it? "The only acceptable evidence" as I've defined it is simply the basic parameters for how you would go about gathering the data necessary to prove this common assertion about Kuo being the 'the most accurate' analyst on things Apple. What I've described as necessary evidence follows common simple logic and the very (very) basics for a valid statistical analysis of such a thing. When you link to things that are "as close as you're going to get," you're linking to things that fall far short of those standards of logic.
It's like saying Russell Wilson is the best quarterback ever, and only offering up his pass completion stats from seven games over the last four years. The data doesn't even come close proving anything. First, the data about Wilson is woefully incomplete. Second, even if you had all of Wilson's career stats, if you have nothing for any other quarterbacks you still can't make any comparative claims about the guy. This is very simple logic.
You're right that there's probably not a lot of interest in creating a complete analysis to determine Kuo's prediction prowess. Certainly Kuo, KGI and all the various ad-supported websites like AI or MacRumors are all benefiting from the current model of just asserting the claims. For them, there's only a possible downside of running the stats to try to validate the claims. If the claims are valid, there's very little to gain. If they're shown to be bogus, then that's bad for business. For a reader like me, I've already spent too much time prattling on about it here. I don't have the time to do the analysis, and again it should be on the people who make the assertion to prove it or quit making the assertion, rather than on the questioner to prove the negative.
Kuo is 44% accurate, which is slightly above average. But you don't want to admit this and just question his methods. PED has been covering Apple for decades and is one of the most respected tech journalists.
Yes he's respected. Yes it might be on his website. Or maybe it isn't. Kuo might be "above average", and I believe he is, but that's not proven by PED is it? Maybe it is.
I believe YOU believe PED is absolutely spot on in his appraisal stated in the headline. There's also some paid subscribers of his blog who have actually read his article and methodology and believe that he isn't "spot on", that he could have done better. I do see at least one instance in the comments where he agrees with one of them and admits to errors in calculating accuracy. Are there others? Dunno.
You haven't really said anything other than quoting the headline which makes me question whether you've really read the article or not.
This really is kind of funny. You are absolutely correct to question a conclusion drawn from an analysis you are not permitted to see. It's possible that Kuo is indeed 44% accurate, as stated in the headline for this locked article. It's also possible that the conclusion is based on unsound data or calculations. Since the article apparently can't be shared, the 44% number is necessarily suspect. You're totally right about that.
By the very same reasoning, since there's no other data readily available that calculates Kuo's accuracy and compares it to the same calculations for his peers, all the various conclusions that he is 'reliable' and 'most accurate' are at best suspect.
It's simple. If you can't produce valid data to back up an assertion, you can make the assertion anyway, but it has no real value.
@AppleZulu ;; ...and that's a perfectly valid opinion, one I can agree with 100%. It's not "proven", nor is there any source for proving it AFAIK. Based on what's actually occurred I feel he's more reliable than the other Apple analysts I've seen quoted here and about, and for me that's enough evidence to give weight to things he reports, more so than I'll usually credit other analysts with. But I get why some would prefer no one listen to him.
He knows the numbers but he chose not to tell us because he will find it hard to explain why Samsung beats Apple so badly. Then we know the real comparison is the sales numbers of Samsun Galaxy S7 phones. So the 1% sales for Samsung is meaningless to Apple if it is not Galaxy S7 phones. Then we know Samsun never reveal sales numbers of Galaxy phones so it can pretend they are real competitors of iPhones.
He's comparing all sales of Apple devices too since he includes the SE.
Are you seriously under the mistaken impression that the iPhone SE is somehow just a feature phone or less? It has the same processor as the other current generation iPhones, TouchID, Apple Watch capability, Apple Pay compatibility, etc. My only disappointment was that 64GB was the maximum memory size configuration. It could be nicer if it were thinner and lighter like my iPod touch, but that will be something for a future iteration of the excellent 4" form factor.
@AppleZulu ;; ...and that's a perfectly valid opinion, one I can agree with 100%. It's not "proven", nor is there any source for proving it AFAIK. Based on what's actually occurred I feel he's more reliable than the other Apple analysts I've seen quoted here and about, and for me that's enough evidence to give weight to things he reports, more so than I'll usually credit other analysts with. But I get why some would prefer no one listen to him.
Nope. You're trying to frame me as saying something I'm not. I'm not even saying no one should listen to Kuo. He gets some things right, and that's easily provable. If your gut feeling is that he's all that, that's great. Use it. Very few of the judgments we make on a given day are based on hard statistically valid data. My only beef is the constant repetition of opinions-stated-as-fact asserting Kuo's preeminence, along with the creepy regularity of the words of praise most times he's referenced in articles on this and other websites.
It's a small sampling? What didn't they report on?
The article contained a reviewed listing of Kuo predictions over several years' time. The average number of predictions per year in that listing was seven (and I didn't include in that average the lone item from 2015, since that year wasn't complete). You can find more than seven Kuo predictions made in just the last few weeks. Kuo makes way more than seven predictions per year. I don't need to go back and find you some examples of what wasn't included, because it's obvious most of Kuo's output for those years wasn't included.
Of course, even if that was everything, it still wouldn't matter with regard to the assertions that Kuo is 'the most accurate.' Without knowing the accuracy of the runner-up second-most-accurate, or even just the industry average, such an assertion is meaningless. It's just hype.
He has "reports" essentially every 1-2 weeks with many "predictions" in them, not just predictions, he also has "Apple motivation" comments which makes me really mad because there is NO WAY HE"D FRACKING HE KNOWS THAT. Almost every single post he makes has a correction for one of his past "predictions" with the supposed Apple rationale for this change.
So, which is the prediction, the initial crap, or the many revised crap. If he can revise anything at any moment, well anything he says is not really a prediction is it? By doing that, he'd always "right"; most people seem to point to that last correction as his so called prediction.
He's a Bullshit artist, plain and simple; he's the equivalent to an astrologist, a tarot card reader, or a mentalist/cold reader.
Yes he's respected. Yes it might be on his website. Or maybe it isn't. Kuo might be "above average", and I believe he is, but that's not proven by PED is it? Maybe it is.
I believe YOU believe PED is absolutely spot on in his appraisal stated in the headline. There's also some paid subscribers of his blog who have actually read his article and methodology and believe that he isn't "spot on", that he could have done better. I do see at least one instance in the comments where he agrees with one of them and admits to errors in calculating accuracy. Are there others? Dunno.
You haven't really said anything other than quoting the headline which makes me question whether you've really read the article or not.
This really is kind of funny. You are absolutely correct to question a conclusion drawn from an analysis you are not permitted to see. It's possible that Kuo is indeed 44% accurate, as stated in the headline for this locked article. It's also possible that the conclusion is based on unsound data or calculations. Since the article apparently can't be shared, the 44% number is necessarily suspect. You're totally right about that.
By the very same reasoning, since there's no other data readily available that calculates Kuo's accuracy and compares it to the same calculations for his peers, all the various conclusions that he is 'reliable' and 'most accurate' are at best suspect.
It's simple. If you can't produce valid data to back up an assertion, you can make the assertion anyway, but it has no real value.
Perhaps you should spend a few bucks and subscribe to PED's blog if proof is that important to you. Or you could just accuse him of being a liar on Twitter... Neither of which I believe you'll do.
This really is kind of funny. You are absolutely correct to question a conclusion drawn from an analysis you are not permitted to see. It's possible that Kuo is indeed 44% accurate, as stated in the headline for this locked article. It's also possible that the conclusion is based on unsound data or calculations. Since the article apparently can't be shared, the 44% number is necessarily suspect. You're totally right about that.
By the very same reasoning, since there's no other data readily available that calculates Kuo's accuracy and compares it to the same calculations for his peers, all the various conclusions that he is 'reliable' and 'most accurate' are at best suspect.
It's simple. If you can't produce valid data to back up an assertion, you can make the assertion anyway, but it has no real value.
Perhaps you should spend a few bucks and subscribe to PED's blog if proof is that important to you. Or you could just accuse him of being a liar on Twitter... Neither of which I believe you'll do.
The PED analysis could be right or could be flawed, but you're correct that I'm probably not going to pay him just for the look-see. I have no reason to go on Twitter and call anyone a liar. It's not really my thing. That makes you two-for-two. At 100%, that also makes you more accurate than Kuo!
Perhaps you should spend a few bucks and subscribe to PED's blog if proof is that important to you. Or you could just accuse him of being a liar on Twitter... Neither of which I believe you'll do.
The PED analysis could be right or could be flawed, but you're correct that I'm probably not going to pay him just for the look-see. I have no reason to go on Twitter and call anyone a liar. It's not really my thing. That makes you two-for-two. At 100%, that also makes you more accurate than Kuo!
Let's see... what's left to improve? - Screen? Larger? No. OLED? Yuck. Maybe at some future point they can squeeze a 4K/8K screen into it for no real improvement. - Speakers? When was the last time the sound out of a small device sounded good? 1980's are calling. - Charging? There is room to improve the speed of charging. I think anyone would want their device to charge in less than 60 seconds, wireless charging is a step backwards. - Removal of headphone jack? Step backwards. Apple would be better off putting two lightning jacks on the iPhone/iPod/iPad - Wireless headset/earbuds? Don't make me laugh. The batterylife and charging of all bluetooth devices are already rubbish - Camera, short of Apple making a DSLR body for an iPhone/iPod, Apple could stuff a 1Gpixel camera in the phone and the pictures will be no better than an 8Mpixel camera owing to the sensor noise and compression wasting that extra resolution. What would be cool is Apple coming out with a lightfield camera body for the iPhone so that you could take infinitely refocusable photo or video (even 3D), but this isn't a direction I see Apple innovating in as they don't make their own camera CMOS/CCD sensors. - Battery life, not likely unless weight/thickness is brought back. Even a "wireless charging" option would add weight because of the induction charger would have to be built into the battery. The only room for improvement here is for the battery to become removable so that it can be hot-swapped. - Storage Memory life/capacity: NAND memory only lasts 3 years under heavy use. Some future storage material will allow for higher durability and larger capacity, but we've actually hit the ceiling since die-shrinks of NAND reduces durability, and TLC over MLC/SLC has reduced durability that degrades faster at smaller die sizes. A new technology might also use less power - Memory - LPDDR4 sometime soon - CPU/GPU - There's still at least one die-shrink left before no additional improvement can be made through shrinks, and as seen with Intel moving away from tick-tock cycles, this means we will soon hit a plateau where all software will be forced to take advantage of multi-cores to get further improvements. So past 2018 you might see a quad-core CPU in the iPhone, but only after some "killer app" actually demonstrates how to properly use it. Nearly all software written since 1983, and is still written today still has no idea how to use multiple cores, and often use wasteful frameworks and libraries because they can, all in the main thread.
I am owner of an app develop company, and I have always at few iPhones and Android phones in my pocket. What can be improved on an iPhone, compared to the rest of market: - better sound: The speakers of the Moto G and the Nexus 6P are miles ahead of the iPhone speaker, the whole sound system and related settings are much better in Android - option for a dual sim card. Living in a small country (Belgium) and going frequently abroad, this is a showstopper for me. I hate these expensive roaming charges. This is the reason why my primary phone (the one that carries my publicly known mobile phone number) is currently not an iPhone - support for SD cards. Not for apps or critical data, but for local cache of cloud data: music, photo, video, ... As you said SD cards are not really reliable but for local cache they are just fine. - improved Apple apps. Some examples: changing the alarm clock take more taps and is less intuitive than on Android, the App Store app search function is ridiculously bad, the navigation in the Apple Music app has still a lot of room for improvement, ... - better sync functions with any cloud service. I would love to have the option to have (a part of) the cloud drive locally synced, like on my Mac - better battery - a globally available "go back" functionality, accessible via e.g. a standardized gesture. This is one if the rare domains where Android is more consistent than iOS.
I don't care for: - thinner/lighter devices. Progress in technology should go to increased battery capacity - higher screen resolution. I yet have to see a positive impact on the user experience, if the resolution goes beyond 300 ppi - better CPU/GPU. The current A9 is a great processor and I don't play games on my iPhone,
Comments
Of course, even if that was everything, it still wouldn't matter with regard to the assertions that Kuo is 'the most accurate.' Without knowing the accuracy of the runner-up second-most-accurate, or even just the industry average, such an assertion is meaningless. It's just hype.
I'm just asking for evidence to back up the common assertion that Kuo is 'most accurate' or even just so 'reliable.'
Badmouthing AppleZulu? Hardly. *head-shaking*
I believe YOU believe PED is absolutely spot on in his appraisal stated in the headline. There's also some paid subscribers of his blog who have actually read his article and methodology and believe that he isn't "spot on", that he could have done better. I do see at least one instance in the comments where he agrees with one of them and admits to errors in calculating accuracy. Are there others? Dunno.
You haven't really said anything other than quoting the headline which makes me question whether you've really read the article or not.
It's like saying Russell Wilson is the best quarterback ever, and only offering up his pass completion stats from seven games over the last four years. The data doesn't even come close proving anything. First, the data about Wilson is woefully incomplete. Second, even if you had all of Wilson's career stats, if you have nothing for any other quarterbacks you still can't make any comparative claims about the guy. This is very simple logic.
You're right that there's probably not a lot of interest in creating a complete analysis to determine Kuo's prediction prowess. Certainly Kuo, KGI and all the various ad-supported websites like AI or MacRumors are all benefiting from the current model of just asserting the claims. For them, there's only a possible downside of running the stats to try to validate the claims. If the claims are valid, there's very little to gain. If they're shown to be bogus, then that's bad for business. For a reader like me, I've already spent too much time prattling on about it here. I don't have the time to do the analysis, and again it should be on the people who make the assertion to prove it or quit making the assertion, rather than on the questioner to prove the negative.
By the very same reasoning, since there's no other data readily available that calculates Kuo's accuracy and compares it to the same calculations for his peers, all the various conclusions that he is 'reliable' and 'most accurate' are at best suspect.
It's simple. If you can't produce valid data to back up an assertion, you can make the assertion anyway, but it has no real value.
...and that's a perfectly valid opinion, one I can agree with 100%. It's not "proven", nor is there any source for proving it AFAIK. Based on what's actually occurred I feel he's more reliable than the other Apple analysts I've seen quoted here and about, and for me that's enough evidence to give weight to things he reports, more so than I'll usually credit other analysts with. But I get why some would prefer no one listen to him.
So, which is the prediction, the initial crap, or the many revised crap. If he can revise anything at any moment, well anything he says is not really a prediction is it?
By doing that, he'd always "right"; most people seem to point to that last correction as his so called prediction.
He's a Bullshit artist, plain and simple; he's the equivalent to an astrologist, a tarot card reader, or a mentalist/cold reader.
- better sound: The speakers of the Moto G and the Nexus 6P are miles ahead of the iPhone speaker, the whole sound system and related settings are much better in Android
- option for a dual sim card. Living in a small country (Belgium) and going frequently abroad, this is a showstopper for me. I hate these expensive roaming charges. This is the reason why my primary phone (the one that carries my publicly known mobile phone number) is currently not an iPhone
- support for SD cards. Not for apps or critical data, but for local cache of cloud data: music, photo, video, ... As you said SD cards are not really reliable but for local cache they are just fine.
- improved Apple apps. Some examples: changing the alarm clock take more taps and is less intuitive than on Android, the App Store app search function is ridiculously bad, the navigation in the Apple Music app has still a lot of room for improvement, ...
- better sync functions with any cloud service. I would love to have the option to have (a part of) the cloud drive locally synced, like on my Mac
- better battery
- a globally available "go back" functionality, accessible via e.g. a standardized gesture. This is one if the rare domains where Android is more consistent than iOS.
I don't care for:
- thinner/lighter devices. Progress in technology should go to increased battery capacity
- higher screen resolution. I yet have to see a positive impact on the user experience, if the resolution goes beyond 300 ppi
- better CPU/GPU. The current A9 is a great processor and I don't play games on my iPhone,