damn, pretty much looks like what the iPhone 8 is likely to look like...how is apple going to keep its hardware bleeding edge when their suppliers are making phones and will always have first access to the latest hardware (screens/batteries/modems/etc.).
Actually, Apple has first access to many key technologies, the most important being their cutting-edge SOC designs which nobody else ever gets access to (they can only try and copy). The A# SOCs are the most visible example, but Apple owns a great deal of the IP in the iPhone and Macs. Another example is the W1. One little sample is laptop trackpads -- it is not just some random quirk that Apple has consistently had the best trackpads year after year. Apple has original IP on that and they don't share.
The screen is one big exception to that, and it's certainly a visible exception. That's the area where Samsung can consistently stay ahead of Apple.
Apple certainly has the money to make a big investment in screen tech and manufacturing capacity, but I can understand why they don't -- the costs and benefits just don't make sense. Apple was the first to go super high DPI (aka, retina) in phones, but since then, Apple has apparently concluded that the returns to screen innovations just isn't that great. Apple seems content to lag Sammy on screens while leading on just about everything else. I think that's probably the right call.
The tech pundits don't consider Apple's A-series processors any kind of innovation, nor the Secure Enclave processor or the W1 chip anything special because a user can't actually see them. The tech pundits constantly brag about how many pixels a camera has or how many pixels the display has because to them more always equals better. I can understand why the iPhone doesn't have some super, duper, quad-HD display because there's really no point in driving all those pixels on a smartphone display especially if it's going to add to the cost or hurt battery life. Apple has to make some decisions that are going to be unfavorable to the tech pundits. Does the average user really need those super-high def displays that Samsung uses? I doubt it. Samsung manufacturers HDTVs so their smartphone displays are probably nothing special for Samsung to deliver. It's just part of their core manufacturing. In the iPhone's case, I think their Retina display is more than good enough. Sure, maybe they could have some greater color gamut but most of the stuff people use a smartphone for doesn't require that sort of high color gradient. I have never heard anyone except some tech people claim the iPhone's display wasn't good enough. There are always some people saying the iPhone is behind most flagship Android smartphones but I doubt that's really true. In some areas, that's possible but overall, it's unlikely. Any Android manufacturer can put some really great component in their smartphone but skimp on other components to save on costs. Apple has decided to build the iPhone with every component being balanced to a high degree. I would think that strategy would best suit the majority of iPhone users.
damn, pretty much looks like what the iPhone 8 is likely to look like...how is apple going to keep its hardware bleeding edge when their suppliers are making phones and will always have first access to the latest hardware (screens/batteries/modems/etc.).
Actually, Apple has first access to many key technologies, the most important being their cutting-edge SOC designs which nobody else ever gets access to (they can only try and copy). The A# SOCs are the most visible example, but Apple owns a great deal of the IP in the iPhone and Macs. Another example is the W1. One little sample is laptop trackpads -- it is not just some random quirk that Apple has consistently had the best trackpads year after year. Apple has original IP on that and they don't share.
The screen is one big exception to that, and it's certainly a visible exception. That's the area where Samsung can consistently stay ahead of Apple.
Apple certainly has the money to make a big investment in screen tech and manufacturing capacity, but I can understand why they don't -- the costs and benefits just don't make sense. Apple was the first to go super high DPI (aka, retina) in phones, but since then, Apple has apparently concluded that the returns to screen innovations just isn't that great. Apple seems content to lag Sammy on screens while leading on just about everything else. I think that's probably the right call.
The tech pundits don't consider Apple's A-series processors any kind of innovation, nor the Secure Enclave processor or the W1 chip anything special because a user can't actually see them. The tech pundits constantly brag about how many pixels a camera has or how many pixels the display has because to them more always equals better. I can understand why the iPhone doesn't have some super, duper, quad-HD display because there's really no point in driving all those pixels on a smartphone display especially if it's going to add to the cost or hurt battery life. Apple has to make some decisions that are going to be unfavorable to the tech pundits. Does the average user really need those super-high def displays that Samsung uses? I doubt it. Samsung manufacturers HDTVs so their smartphone displays are probably nothing special for Samsung to deliver. It's just part of their core manufacturing. In the iPhone's case, I think their Retina display is more than good enough. Sure, maybe they could have some greater color gamut but most of the stuff people use a smartphone for doesn't require that sort of high color gradient. I have never heard anyone except some tech people claim the iPhone's display wasn't good enough. There are always some people saying the iPhone is behind most flagship Android smartphones but I doubt that's really true. In some areas, that's possible but overall, it's unlikely. Any Android manufacturer can put some really great component in their smartphone but skimp on other components to save on costs. Apple has decided to build the iPhone with every component being balanced to a high degree. I would think that strategy would best suit the majority of iPhone users.
Look at the complaints about the "lack of innovation" for the iPhone 7: "It looks like the iPhone 6"
Never mind, new processor, changes to the home button, redesigned for better water resistance, a new finishing process allowing for glossy black, new cameras in both models, the whole W1 chip for better Bluetooth pairing, and a bunch of other improvements I'm forgetting. All we heard about was "They took away the headphone jack" and "It looks like the old one".
damn, pretty much looks like what the iPhone 8 is likely to look like...how is apple going to keep its hardware bleeding edge when their suppliers are making phones and will always have first access to the latest hardware (screens/batteries/modems/etc.).
It wouldn't be that bad a strategy for Apple, under the guise of despising "leaks", and "doubling-down" on security, to start leaking rumors of things it has no intention of producing, but is quite sure it can destroy, head-to-head. Whether it would win battles or not, apple could perhaps save big on attorney fees in copycat lawsuits, by leading competitors astray.
Comments
Look at the complaints about the "lack of innovation" for the iPhone 7: "It looks like the iPhone 6"
Never mind, new processor, changes to the home button, redesigned for better water resistance, a new finishing process allowing for glossy black, new cameras in both models, the whole W1 chip for better Bluetooth pairing, and a bunch of other improvements I'm forgetting. All we heard about was "They took away the headphone jack" and "It looks like the old one".
it has no intention of producing, but is quite sure it can destroy, head-to-head.
Whether it would win battles or not, apple could perhaps save big on attorney fees in copycat lawsuits,
by leading competitors astray.