I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
IMHO, their are only three relevant areas of hardware that Android OEM's exceed Apple today; screens, camera modules, and modems, and those, not by a great amount. One could throw in wireless charging as a fourth, I suppose. If you look at Apple's vertical stack of hardware technologies, and its supply chain, it would appear that Android OEM's are on the cusp of losing a bit more of that lead in camera modules and screens to the iPhone 8. Qualcomm will likely continue to hold modem performance leads for some time, though I'm not seeing this as much of a marketable advantage beyond this time next year.
Of course, there are plenty of arcane features that can be found on various Android OEM devices, and certainly features lacking on iPhones. So far, those features seem to have lead to little innovation in the marketplace, and certainly no likelihood of a disruption of Apple's roadmap.
I'd surmise from this that various OEM's will strike out on their own rather than wait for Qualcomm to deliver a more standardized feature list to compete with Apple, the result being considerably more differentiation between OEM's, and all that assumes. This cannot be beneficial for Qualcomm.
Actually the most important Hardware piece is the SOC that Apple designs, makes, and writes the software. They do not have to compromise the software to make it work on generic processor nor do the make unnecessary trade-offs in hardware to make something work for the broader market. The tight integration that Apple has allow them to get performance no one else can achieve without making compromises elsewhere.
I have worked in High Tech a long time and I have been hearing for 30+ years that Hardware will not longer mater it the software which will make all the different. If that was the case when Did Apple choose to buy a processor company and make a SOC for them mobile product. Software people would like to think the hardware does not mater, in reality most software people can only write code, most all Hardware people I work with can design, and build hardware and write code so they understand the importance of all the pieces and one does not exist without the other and the closer the are integrated together the better the product.
Oh, for sure; Apple has been unchallenged at SOC's and what I call, satellite processors, for four or five generations of iPhones. It's a huge advantage to be able to tune hardware, OS, apps and accessories based on a 5 year, and longer, roadmap.
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.
He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.
Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).
So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards. ;P
Yesterday I tried to install a Pages upgrade on a MBP.
The Mac App Store told me it was available. I could hit the button to download it but then got smacked by the 'this application cannot run on this OS' (Yosemite). I was told that I would have to upgrade the entire OS (to El Capitan) if I wanted to install the latest Pages.
Is Yosemite really that old? It hasn't reached three years yet.
Do I have no right to mention this just because the software is 'free'? That is very much open to debate.
The user doesn't actually want to update for varying reasons (all of which I understand) and will stay on Yosemite for a while longer and will therefore use the version of Pages currently installed on the machine. That is fragmentation.
iTunes. Bloatware defined. I remember trying to add an ebook to my iPad (which had plenty of space on it), only for iTunes to insist on lumbering through around seven individual steps (only one of which was even relevant) to copy a 200K file over.
It borked (as many users had found before me) and that mysterious place called 'other' was supposedly taking up all the capacity on the device. iTunes will stubbornly refuse to tell you what that chunk is actually comprised of. Incredible but true. It's just sat there sucking the usefulness out of the device and steadfastly leaving the user in the dark?
There are about 10,000 different tricks to try when trying to resolve these issues. They go from wiping the device and restoring from a backup (what? To transfer a tiny file?) through to simply upgrading to the latest versions of software. That last one was a catch 22 as upgrading the iOS version to the latest (at the time) would have killed compatibility with the OSX version I was running. Fragmentation again.
I also had my reasons for not upgrading the OSX I was using. Of course Apple made no attempt to marry the system configuration and warn me that upgrading iOS would break compatibility with the system the device was syncing to. It was happy to go ahead and install. Then the problem would be mine as the only way out of jail would be to upgrade the base OS (if that were even possible).
As a result I live in a fragmented Apple world because I don't jump when I'm told to jump. If things are working I leave them be because Apple has burnt my fingers over and over again. So much often changes in major OS updates (not even counting bugs, compatibility etc) that users are often reluctant to jump every single year in the name of 'progress'.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Would it be correct to say that Microsoft supports Mac Office better than Apple supports Pages, Numbers etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot it's free. No complaints accepted. LOL.
First stop for AI at Apple should be something totally boring: support. Using it to eliminate the needless headaches involved in upgrades and compatibility.
The Mac App Store should not even be offering Pages upgrades if the system can't run the upgrade. It definitely shouldn't be offering me the option to physically download it and then baulk.
iTunes shouldn't be lumbering through unsolicited options to copy a 200K file and should let users peek inside that 'other' block.
iDevices shouldn't be offering to install upgrades that would leave the host iTunes unable to sync with them.
It is incredibly difficult to make AI handle these issues seamlessly in a natural language manner so that users can benefit from them and they are also 'boring' so it is unlikely Apple will use it to make things much better. Far better to show off AI with something sexy instead.
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.
He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.
Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).
So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards. ;P
Yesterday I tried to install a Pages upgrade on a MBP.
The Mac App Store told me it was available. I could hit the button to download it but then got smacked by the 'this application cannot run on this OS' (Yosemite). I was told that I would have to upgrade the entire OS (to El Capitan) if I wanted to install the latest Pages.
Is Yosemite really that old? It hasn't reached three years yet.
Do I have no right to mention this just because the software is 'free'? That is very much open to debate.
The user doesn't actually want to update for varying reasons (all of which I understand) and will stay on Yosemite for a while longer and will therefore use the version of Pages currently installed on the machine. That is fragmentation.
iTunes. Bloatware defined. I remember trying to add an ebook to my iPad (which had plenty of space on it), only for iTunes to insist on lumbering through around seven individual steps (only one of which was even relevant) to copy a 200K file over.
It borked (as many users had found before me) and that mysterious place called 'other' was supposedly taking up all the capacity on the device. iTunes will stubbornly refuse to tell you what that chunk is actually comprised of. Incredible but true. It's just sat there sucking the usefulness out of the device and steadfastly leaving the user in the dark?
There are about 10,000 different tricks to try when trying to resolve these issues. They go from wiping the device and restoring from a backup (what? To transfer a tiny file?) through to simply upgrading to the latest versions of software. That last one was a catch 22 as upgrading the iOS version to the latest (at the time) would have killed compatibility with the OSX version I was running. Fragmentation again.
I also had my reasons for not upgrading the OSX I was using. Of course Apple made no attempt to marry the system configuration and warn me that upgrading iOS would break compatibility with the system the device was syncing to. It was happy to go ahead and install. Then the problem would be mine as the only way out of jail would be to upgrade the base OS (if that were even possible).
As a result I live in a fragmented Apple world because I don't jump when I'm told to jump. If things are working I leave them be because Apple has burnt my fingers over and over again. So much often changes in major OS updates (not even counting bugs, compatibility etc) that users are often reluctant to jump every single year in the name of 'progress'.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Would it be correct to say that Microsoft supports Mac Office better than Apple supports Pages, Numbers etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot it's free. No complaints accepted. LOL.
First stop for AI at Apple should be something totally boring: support. Using it to eliminate the needless headaches involved in upgrades and compatibility.
The Mac App Store should not even be offering Pages upgrades if the system can't run the upgrade. It definitely shouldn't be offering me the option to physically download it and then baulk.
iTunes shouldn't be lumbering through unsolicited options to copy a 200K file and should let users peek inside that 'other' block.
iDevices shouldn't be offering to install upgrades that would leave the host iTunes unable to sync with them.
It is incredibly difficult to make AI handle these issues seamlessly in a natural language manner so that users can benefit from them and they are also 'boring' so it is unlikely Apple will use it to make things much better. Far better to show off AI with something sexy instead.
Is it because Yosemite does not support cloud services?
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
This is key, software and hardware need to work together smartly which doesn't happen often on Android.
However I don't see good AR as being as important as really good AI. I'm not sure how far Apple can go with hardware improvements to accelerate AI in iPhone 8 but they really need a better approach than Siri.
For Google and Facebook, buyer s of commodity hardware, hardware doesn't matter. This is simply due to having the same chips as everybody else.
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.
He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.
Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).
So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards. ;P
Yesterday I tried to install a Pages upgrade on a MBP.
The Mac App Store told me it was available. I could hit the button to download it but then got smacked by the 'this application cannot run on this OS' (Yosemite). I was told that I would have to upgrade the entire OS (to El Capitan) if I wanted to install the latest Pages.
Is Yosemite really that old? It hasn't reached three years yet.
Do I have no right to mention this just because the software is 'free'? That is very much open to debate.
The user doesn't actually want to update for varying reasons (all of which I understand) and will stay on Yosemite for a while longer and will therefore use the version of Pages currently installed on the machine. That is fragmentation.
iTunes. Bloatware defined. I remember trying to add an ebook to my iPad (which had plenty of space on it), only for iTunes to insist on lumbering through around seven individual steps (only one of which was even relevant) to copy a 200K file over.
It borked (as many users had found before me) and that mysterious place called 'other' was supposedly taking up all the capacity on the device. iTunes will stubbornly refuse to tell you what that chunk is actually comprised of. Incredible but true. It's just sat there sucking the usefulness out of the device and steadfastly leaving the user in the dark?
There are about 10,000 different tricks to try when trying to resolve these issues. They go from wiping the device and restoring from a backup (what? To transfer a tiny file?) through to simply upgrading to the latest versions of software. That last one was a catch 22 as upgrading the iOS version to the latest (at the time) would have killed compatibility with the OSX version I was running. Fragmentation again.
I also had my reasons for not upgrading the OSX I was using. Of course Apple made no attempt to marry the system configuration and warn me that upgrading iOS would break compatibility with the system the device was syncing to. It was happy to go ahead and install. Then the problem would be mine as the only way out of jail would be to upgrade the base OS (if that were even possible).
As a result I live in a fragmented Apple world because I don't jump when I'm told to jump. If things are working I leave them be because Apple has burnt my fingers over and over again. So much often changes in major OS updates (not even counting bugs, compatibility etc) that users are often reluctant to jump every single year in the name of 'progress'.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Would it be correct to say that Microsoft supports Mac Office better than Apple supports Pages, Numbers etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot it's free. No complaints accepted. LOL.
First stop for AI at Apple should be something totally boring: support. Using it to eliminate the needless headaches involved in upgrades and compatibility.
The Mac App Store should not even be offering Pages upgrades if the system can't run the upgrade. It definitely shouldn't be offering me the option to physically download it and then baulk.
iTunes shouldn't be lumbering through unsolicited options to copy a 200K file and should let users peek inside that 'other' block.
iDevices shouldn't be offering to install upgrades that would leave the host iTunes unable to sync with them.
It is incredibly difficult to make AI handle these issues seamlessly in a natural language manner so that users can benefit from them and they are also 'boring' so it is unlikely Apple will use it to make things much better. Far better to show off AI with something sexy instead.
Yeah, I see the problem.
Apple doesn't really make the effort for people who go that extra mile to make life hard for themselves.
I guess you you must be one of those types who complains how hard it is to program their satnav while blindfolded.
To hear Qualcomm tell it, Apple is trailing them in 3D tech but then again, that's how Qualcomm is and why they're a bane to their clients. I'm curious to see if the A11 will run rings around the Snapdragon 835. I'm not sure if it means anything, though. Most flagship smartphones are already fast enough for 95% of the tasks they need to perform.
They usually trade blows given they always launch ~6 months apart from each other.
You're right about the performance, most new SoCs are going to be able to perform well for the majority of tasks the average consumer throws at it.
I'm interested to see if Apple can achieve better sustained performance with the A11, perhaps the 10 nm process will allow that. The A10 would throttle considerably after ~10 minutes at load.
They should be able to gain another 30%, possibly a lot more if the issue a heavily updated processor architecture. This assumes the same split in power budgeting they currently have. Who knows, they could allocate all power to the new GPU or the rumored AI hardware. I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
To hear Qualcomm tell it, Apple is trailing them in 3D tech but then again, that's how Qualcomm is and why they're a bane to their clients. I'm curious to see if the A11 will run rings around the Snapdragon 835. I'm not sure if it means anything, though. Most flagship smartphones are already fast enough for 95% of the tasks they need to perform.
They usually trade blows given they always launch ~6 months apart from each other.
You're right about the performance, most new SoCs are going to be able to perform well for the majority of tasks the average consumer throws at it.
I'm interested to see if Apple can achieve better sustained performance with the A11, perhaps the 10 nm process will allow that. The A10 would throttle considerably after ~10 minutes at load.
They should be able to gain another 30%, possibly a lot more if the issue a heavily updated processor architecture. This assumes the same split in power budgeting they currently have. Who knows, they could allocate all power to the new GPU or the rumored AI hardware. I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
I'm actually more interested in the die size at the 10 nm node; it's a pretty good indicator on the value Apple assigns the SOC and bigger is generally going to be more capable.
To hear Qualcomm tell it, Apple is trailing them in 3D tech but then again, that's how Qualcomm is and why they're a bane to their clients. I'm curious to see if the A11 will run rings around the Snapdragon 835. I'm not sure if it means anything, though. Most flagship smartphones are already fast enough for 95% of the tasks they need to perform.
They usually trade blows given they always launch ~6 months apart from each other.
You're right about the performance, most new SoCs are going to be able to perform well for the majority of tasks the average consumer throws at it.
I'm interested to see if Apple can achieve better sustained performance with the A11, perhaps the 10 nm process will allow that. The A10 would throttle considerably after ~10 minutes at load.
They should be able to gain another 30%, possibly a lot more if the issue a heavily updated processor architecture. This assumes the same split in power budgeting they currently have. Who knows, they could allocate all power to the new GPU or the rumored AI hardware. I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
I'm actually more interested in the die size at the 10 nm node; it's a pretty good indicator on the value Apple assigns the SOC and bigger is generally going to be more capable.
Well this is an interesting discussion all on its own. Apple is somewhat limited on how far they can shrink astray need some space for al the I/O pads. How far the could go depends upon How they do I/O which could become largely serial.and possibly on the size of the RAM chip that gets built into the stack. I don't see the chip getting much smaller physically.
Now there is a lot to it, that is why I don't see a physical shrink. I'm for one convinced that there is a long ways to go before Apple itself is happy with the performance of the SoC. AS mentioned I see them wanting to have performance that is as good as any laptop and in that regard they have a ways to go. It is also about time for a new generation of CPU cores which could offer significant performance advantages by increasing instructions per cycle, a bit of performance ethics way and a bit form faster clocks could really be impressive. Then there is the issue of begin able to realize the types of software that Apple imagines us having in the future. This is where better GPU's and other acceleration units come into play. Better and more units mean more transistors and more die space.
Still a die shrink offers them a lot of room no matter how you look at it. At some point they will consider more cores for the CPU, but looking at todays SoC the CPU's really don't take up a lot of space. So You have to imagine one big GPU advance, if not that then real estate gets split over several other units. One big possibility is a bigger onboard cache or maybe even an entire video buffer. At least to my thinking an onboard video buffer could save the a lot on power usage which might be a good alternative use for all that die space. Also expect the GPU to be all new, if they intend to cut Imagination out of the picture they need to get the new GPU into circulation now.
In any event it will be interesting to see what Apple delivers. I just see another significant step forward. I'm also hoping that the iPhone 7S series get the new chip as I don't see myself going iPhone 8 right at the moment.
I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
At this point, I don't think making the iPad Pro more powerful will solve its problem. There needs to be a massive overhaul in software, ecosystem and UI for it to compete with a laptop. The current hardware is going underutilized. iOS 11 is a step in the right direction, but still well away from the mark.
To hear Qualcomm tell it, Apple is trailing them in 3D tech but then again, that's how Qualcomm is and why they're a bane to their clients. I'm curious to see if the A11 will run rings around the Snapdragon 835. I'm not sure if it means anything, though. Most flagship smartphones are already fast enough for 95% of the tasks they need to perform.
They usually trade blows given they always launch ~6 months apart from each other.
You're right about the performance, most new SoCs are going to be able to perform well for the majority of tasks the average consumer throws at it.
I'm interested to see if Apple can achieve better sustained performance with the A11, perhaps the 10 nm process will allow that. The A10 would throttle considerably after ~10 minutes at load.
They should be able to gain another 30%, possibly a lot more if the issue a heavily updated processor architecture. This assumes the same split in power budgeting they currently have. Who knows, they could allocate all power to the new GPU or the rumored AI hardware. I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
I'm actually more interested in the die size at the 10 nm node; it's a pretty good indicator on the value Apple assigns the SOC and bigger is generally going to be more capable.
Well this is an interesting discussion all on its own. Apple is somewhat limited on how far they can shrink astray need some space for al the I/O pads. How far the could go depends upon How they do I/O which could become largely serial.and possibly on the size of the RAM chip that gets built into the stack. I don't see the chip getting much smaller physically.
Now there is a lot to it, that is why I don't see a physical shrink. I'm for one convinced that there is a long ways to go before Apple itself is happy with the performance of the SoC. AS mentioned I see them wanting to have performance that is as good as any laptop and in that regard they have a ways to go. It is also about time for a new generation of CPU cores which could offer significant performance advantages by increasing instructions per cycle, a bit of performance ethics way and a bit form faster clocks could really be impressive. Then there is the issue of begin able to realize the types of software that Apple imagines us having in the future. This is where better GPU's and other acceleration units come into play. Better and more units mean more transistors and more die space.
Still a die shrink offers them a lot of room no matter how you look at it. At some point they will consider more cores for the CPU, but looking at todays SoC the CPU's really don't take up a lot of space. So You have to imagine one big GPU advance, if not that then real estate gets split over several other units. One big possibility is a bigger onboard cache or maybe even an entire video buffer. At least to my thinking an onboard video buffer could save the a lot on power usage which might be a good alternative use for all that die space. Also expect the GPU to be all new, if they intend to cut Imagination out of the picture they need to get the new GPU into circulation now.
In any event it will be interesting to see what Apple delivers. I just see another significant step forward. I'm also hoping that the iPhone 7S series get the new chip as I don't see myself going iPhone 8 right at the moment.
More cache, more video buffer, more memory bandwidth, and more supplemental processing on die, AI, AR, or whatever; all of those are beneficial.
The GPU's are interesting in their own right, merely as it may be Apple's first fully in-house Architecture and IP.
As for the iPhone 7s, I'm thinking it gets the A11 processor, merely because Apple wants to utilize as much fab time/die as possible; a monopsony move if I ever saw one.
Vendors are concerned that 3D sensing could be a nonstarter like Apple's 3D Touch, pressure sensitive input technology first deployed in the iPhone 6s.
I guess some people cannot see the obvious even if it is right in their face.
It's no wonder they cannot create anything different that is useful. They are questioning the usefulness of something that has now (more-or-less) passed the learning curve and has become a natural method for performing enhanced actions on the phone and watch.
Android vendors taking a "wait and see" approach really means "wait and see how Apple does it".
Android vendors taking a "wait and see" approach really means "wait and see how Apple does it and the we will copy it and hope that Apple isn't looking our way"
Qualcomm appears to be actively avoiding Apple suppliers.
I suspect that is to avoid QC filing against Apple (or the other way round) for copying their highly patented tech (sic). Different companies mean making 'clean room' developments are a lot easier.
IMHO, their are only three relevant areas of hardware that Android OEM's exceed Apple today; screens, camera modules, and modems, and those, not by a great amount...
I'm not sure Android OEMs are necessarily ahead of Apple in screens. Of course there will always be some Android models into which OEMs try to throw the absolute latest tech, spec-sheet wise. They put out a whole range of phones at all price points every few months, and some models will always exceed Apple in some aspects, certainly on paper spec-wise (though integration with software is another story).
But re: screens: how do Android device screens "exceed" Apple today? Maybe number of pixels on a couple of flagship models; maybe because OLED came out after LCD; maybe because the blacks are blacker? ...a lot of this is like comparing a showroom full of TVs under fluorescent lighting, with the TVs settings all at random values.
So, Apple is just now moving to OLED? Maybe they have been wanting to take the time to incorporate their own advances when the tech is more mature. I think Apple has got its own proprietary screen advances that most OEMs don't have: Apple works with Corning, etc. to develop specific laminations, with the sensors just so in certain layers closest to the user's fingers, etc.; or specific densities and types of sensors, such as those used to track the pencil in iPad Pros; or "tru-tone" color sensing; or, power use and saving; or, certain color reproduction and gamut (Apple has traditionally been concerned with accurate color reproduction); not to mention photo processing, etc....
Sure, there are going to be a couple of metrics, certainly on paper, where an unprofitable OEM that is trying to compete with all the other OEMs to differentiate a couple of their offerings from the mass of other Android devices is going to "exceed" something that Apple has on paper, especially when software integration is completely discounted.
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.
He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.
Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).
So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards. ;P
Yesterday I tried to install a Pages upgrade on a MBP.
The Mac App Store told me it was available. I could hit the button to download it but then got smacked by the 'this application cannot run on this OS' (Yosemite). I was told that I would have to upgrade the entire OS (to El Capitan) if I wanted to install the latest Pages.
Is Yosemite really that old? It hasn't reached three years yet.
Do I have no right to mention this just because the software is 'free'? That is very much open to debate.
The user doesn't actually want to update for varying reasons (all of which I understand) and will stay on Yosemite for a while longer and will therefore use the version of Pages currently installed on the machine. That is fragmentation.
iTunes. Bloatware defined. I remember trying to add an ebook to my iPad (which had plenty of space on it), only for iTunes to insist on lumbering through around seven individual steps (only one of which was even relevant) to copy a 200K file over.
It borked (as many users had found before me) and that mysterious place called 'other' was supposedly taking up all the capacity on the device. iTunes will stubbornly refuse to tell you what that chunk is actually comprised of. Incredible but true. It's just sat there sucking the usefulness out of the device and steadfastly leaving the user in the dark?
There are about 10,000 different tricks to try when trying to resolve these issues. They go from wiping the device and restoring from a backup (what? To transfer a tiny file?) through to simply upgrading to the latest versions of software. That last one was a catch 22 as upgrading the iOS version to the latest (at the time) would have killed compatibility with the OSX version I was running. Fragmentation again.
I also had my reasons for not upgrading the OSX I was using. Of course Apple made no attempt to marry the system configuration and warn me that upgrading iOS would break compatibility with the system the device was syncing to. It was happy to go ahead and install. Then the problem would be mine as the only way out of jail would be to upgrade the base OS (if that were even possible).
As a result I live in a fragmented Apple world because I don't jump when I'm told to jump. If things are working I leave them be because Apple has burnt my fingers over and over again. So much often changes in major OS updates (not even counting bugs, compatibility etc) that users are often reluctant to jump every single year in the name of 'progress'.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Would it be correct to say that Microsoft supports Mac Office better than Apple supports Pages, Numbers etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot it's free. No complaints accepted. LOL.
First stop for AI at Apple should be something totally boring: support. Using it to eliminate the needless headaches involved in upgrades and compatibility.
The Mac App Store should not even be offering Pages upgrades if the system can't run the upgrade. It definitely shouldn't be offering me the option to physically download it and then baulk.
iTunes shouldn't be lumbering through unsolicited options to copy a 200K file and should let users peek inside that 'other' block.
iDevices shouldn't be offering to install upgrades that would leave the host iTunes unable to sync with them.
It is incredibly difficult to make AI handle these issues seamlessly in a natural language manner so that users can benefit from them and they are also 'boring' so it is unlikely Apple will use it to make things much better. Far better to show off AI with something sexy instead.
Is it because Yosemite does not support cloud services?
I have no idea. That's the kind of thing AI should be great at resolving. Being able to cut through the massive complexities of different configurations and informing the user of the different options. When Pages was first released for iPad though, I remember there were incompatibilities between its own file format and the format of Pages on macOS.
I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software. LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.
Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.
There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.
Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU. In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.
Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.
What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.
He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.
Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).
So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards. ;P
Yesterday I tried to install a Pages upgrade on a MBP.
The Mac App Store told me it was available. I could hit the button to download it but then got smacked by the 'this application cannot run on this OS' (Yosemite). I was told that I would have to upgrade the entire OS (to El Capitan) if I wanted to install the latest Pages.
Is Yosemite really that old? It hasn't reached three years yet.
Do I have no right to mention this just because the software is 'free'? That is very much open to debate.
The user doesn't actually want to update for varying reasons (all of which I understand) and will stay on Yosemite for a while longer and will therefore use the version of Pages currently installed on the machine. That is fragmentation.
iTunes. Bloatware defined. I remember trying to add an ebook to my iPad (which had plenty of space on it), only for iTunes to insist on lumbering through around seven individual steps (only one of which was even relevant) to copy a 200K file over.
It borked (as many users had found before me) and that mysterious place called 'other' was supposedly taking up all the capacity on the device. iTunes will stubbornly refuse to tell you what that chunk is actually comprised of. Incredible but true. It's just sat there sucking the usefulness out of the device and steadfastly leaving the user in the dark?
There are about 10,000 different tricks to try when trying to resolve these issues. They go from wiping the device and restoring from a backup (what? To transfer a tiny file?) through to simply upgrading to the latest versions of software. That last one was a catch 22 as upgrading the iOS version to the latest (at the time) would have killed compatibility with the OSX version I was running. Fragmentation again.
I also had my reasons for not upgrading the OSX I was using. Of course Apple made no attempt to marry the system configuration and warn me that upgrading iOS would break compatibility with the system the device was syncing to. It was happy to go ahead and install. Then the problem would be mine as the only way out of jail would be to upgrade the base OS (if that were even possible).
As a result I live in a fragmented Apple world because I don't jump when I'm told to jump. If things are working I leave them be because Apple has burnt my fingers over and over again. So much often changes in major OS updates (not even counting bugs, compatibility etc) that users are often reluctant to jump every single year in the name of 'progress'.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Would it be correct to say that Microsoft supports Mac Office better than Apple supports Pages, Numbers etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot it's free. No complaints accepted. LOL.
First stop for AI at Apple should be something totally boring: support. Using it to eliminate the needless headaches involved in upgrades and compatibility.
The Mac App Store should not even be offering Pages upgrades if the system can't run the upgrade. It definitely shouldn't be offering me the option to physically download it and then baulk.
iTunes shouldn't be lumbering through unsolicited options to copy a 200K file and should let users peek inside that 'other' block.
iDevices shouldn't be offering to install upgrades that would leave the host iTunes unable to sync with them.
It is incredibly difficult to make AI handle these issues seamlessly in a natural language manner so that users can benefit from them and they are also 'boring' so it is unlikely Apple will use it to make things much better. Far better to show off AI with something sexy instead.
Is it because Yosemite does not support cloud services?
I have no idea. That's the kind of thing AI should be great at resolving. Being able to cut through the massive complexities of different configurations and informing the user of the different options. When Pages was first released for iPad though, I remember there were incompatibilities between its own file format and the format of Pages on macOS.
IMHO, their are only three relevant areas of hardware that Android OEM's exceed Apple today; screens, camera modules, and modems, and those, not by a great amount...
I'm not sure Android OEMs are necessarily ahead of Apple in screens. Of course there will always be some Android models into which OEMs try to throw the absolute latest tech, spec-sheet wise. They put out a whole range of phones at all price points every few months, and some models will always exceed Apple in some aspects, certainly on paper spec-wise (though integration with software is another story).
But re: screens: how do Android device screens "exceed" Apple today? Maybe number of pixels on a couple of flagship models; maybe because OLED came out after LCD; maybe because the blacks are blacker? ...a lot of this is like comparing a showroom full of TVs under fluorescent lighting, with the TVs settings all at random values.
So, Apple is just now moving to OLED? Maybe they have been wanting to take the time to incorporate their own advances when the tech is more mature. I think Apple has got its own proprietary screen advances that most OEMs don't have: Apple works with Corning, etc. to develop specific laminations, with the sensors just so in certain layers closest to the user's fingers, etc.; or specific densities and types of sensors, such as those used to track the pencil in iPad Pros; or "tru-tone" color sensing; or, power use and saving; or, certain color reproduction and gamut (Apple has traditionally been concerned with accurate color reproduction); not to mention photo processing, etc....
Sure, there are going to be a couple of metrics, certainly on paper, where an unprofitable OEM that is trying to compete with all the other OEMs to differentiate a couple of their offerings from the mass of other Android devices is going to "exceed" something that Apple has on paper, especially when software integration is completely discounted.
You make good points. Mine was that Apple is in fact closing the gap with OLED's with the iPhone 8, the primary benefit at this point being reduced bezels, and smaller form factors for a given screen size. That Apple has been delayed in this is likely due to both technology and production constraints. Otherwise, Apple has been exemplary in image delivery to the screen, as you state. Will Apple leap ahead at some point with microLED screens? That's an interesting possibility.
Camera modules will continue to be one feature that Android OEM's will use as differentiation, though the reality is that the pixel peepers pushing IQ metrics like DXOMark, are on the wrong side of marketing history; very few are buying a smartphone strictly for the best imagining metric. Little has been stated about camera modules for the iPhone 8, though image stabilization for the "telephoto" lens is almost certain, and I doubt that Apple will change the current minimalist camera bump.
IMHO, their are only three relevant areas of hardware that Android OEM's exceed Apple today; screens, camera modules, and modems, and those, not by a great amount...
I'm not sure Android OEMs are necessarily ahead of Apple in screens. Of course there will always be some Android models into which OEMs try to throw the absolute latest tech, spec-sheet wise. They put out a whole range of phones at all price points every few months, and some models will always exceed Apple in some aspects, certainly on paper spec-wise (though integration with software is another story).
But re: screens: how do Android device screens "exceed" Apple today? Maybe number of pixels on a couple of flagship models; maybe because OLED came out after LCD; maybe because the blacks are blacker? ...a lot of this is like comparing a showroom full of TVs under fluorescent lighting, with the TVs settings all at random values.
So, Apple is just now moving to OLED? Maybe they have been wanting to take the time to incorporate their own advances when the tech is more mature. I think Apple has got its own proprietary screen advances that most OEMs don't have: Apple works with Corning, etc. to develop specific laminations, with the sensors just so in certain layers closest to the user's fingers, etc.; or specific densities and types of sensors, such as those used to track the pencil in iPad Pros; or "tru-tone" color sensing; or, power use and saving; or, certain color reproduction and gamut (Apple has traditionally been concerned with accurate color reproduction); not to mention photo processing, etc....
Sure, there are going to be a couple of metrics, certainly on paper, where an unprofitable OEM that is trying to compete with all the other OEMs to differentiate a couple of their offerings from the mass of other Android devices is going to "exceed" something that Apple has on paper, especially when software integration is completely discounted.
You make good points. Mine was that Apple is in fact closing the gap with OLED's with the iPhone 8, the primary benefit at this point being reduced bezels, and smaller form factors for a given screen size. That Apple has been delayed in this is likely due to both technology and production constraints. Otherwise, Apple has been exemplary in image delivery to the screen, as you state. Will Apple leap ahead at some point with microLED screens? That's an interesting possibility.
Camera modules will continue to be one feature that Android OEM's will use as differentiation, though the reality is that the pixel peepers pushing IQ metrics like DXOMark, are on the wrong side of marketing history; very few are buying a smartphone strictly for the best imagining metric. Little has been stated about camera modules for the iPhone 8, though image stabilization for the "telephoto" lens is almost certain, and I doubt that Apple will change the current minimalist camera bump.
On the screen topic, there are a few points: - Apple has stuck with LCD (up until now) most likely due to supply. For delivery in 2017 for one high-end model we see that a number of vendors had to increase supply. No one else was selling the high-end OLED screens in volume comparable to what Apple demanded. - OLED technology has only in last couple of years reached LCD w.r.t. important areas like longevity - Apple's approach to screens/images is to provide as "natural looking" as possible. Samsung and others take the approach to make the screens/images "vibrant", by increasing the colour saturation. To many people (perhaps most) that makes the screen look "better", but when looking at photos of videos it is also not a natural representation. This is of course done by many TV vendors, and retailers.
On camera modules, while a few phone models might be better than iPhone (better does not equal more pixels), Apple has superior image processing capabilities, making the overall "camera experience" still better.
Comments
However I don't see good AR as being as important as really good AI. I'm not sure how far Apple can go with hardware improvements to accelerate AI in iPhone 8 but they really need a better approach than Siri.
For Google and Facebook, buyer s of commodity hardware, hardware doesn't matter. This is simply due to having the same chips as everybody else.
Apple doesn't really make the effort for people who go that extra mile to make life hard for themselves.
I guess you you must be one of those types who complains how hard it is to program their satnav while blindfolded.
They should be able to gain another 30%, possibly a lot more if the issue a heavily updated processor architecture. This assumes the same split in power budgeting they currently have. Who knows, they could allocate all power to the new GPU or the rumored AI hardware. I still see a CPU boost coming that is substantial. The reason for this hope is pretty simple, Apple needs to make sure that the A series is very competitive against laptop chips as six months or so later they go into iPad.
Now there is a lot to it, that is why I don't see a physical shrink. I'm for one convinced that there is a long ways to go before Apple itself is happy with the performance of the SoC. AS mentioned I see them wanting to have performance that is as good as any laptop and in that regard they have a ways to go. It is also about time for a new generation of CPU cores which could offer significant performance advantages by increasing instructions per cycle, a bit of performance ethics way and a bit form faster clocks could really be impressive. Then there is the issue of begin able to realize the types of software that Apple imagines us having in the future. This is where better GPU's and other acceleration units come into play. Better and more units mean more transistors and more die space.
Still a die shrink offers them a lot of room no matter how you look at it. At some point they will consider more cores for the CPU, but looking at todays SoC the CPU's really don't take up a lot of space. So You have to imagine one big GPU advance, if not that then real estate gets split over several other units. One big possibility is a bigger onboard cache or maybe even an entire video buffer. At least to my thinking an onboard video buffer could save the a lot on power usage which might be a good alternative use for all that die space. Also expect the GPU to be all new, if they intend to cut Imagination out of the picture they need to get the new GPU into circulation now.
In any event it will be interesting to see what Apple delivers. I just see another significant step forward. I'm also hoping that the iPhone 7S series get the new chip as I don't see myself going iPhone 8 right at the moment.
The GPU's are interesting in their own right, merely as it may be Apple's first fully in-house Architecture and IP.
As for the iPhone 7s, I'm thinking it gets the A11 processor, merely because Apple wants to utilize as much fab time/die as possible; a monopsony move if I ever saw one.
I guess some people cannot see the obvious even if it is right in their face.
It's no wonder they cannot create anything different that is useful. They are questioning the usefulness of something that has now (more-or-less) passed the learning curve and has become a natural method for performing enhanced actions on the phone and watch.
There fixed it for you.
But re: screens: how do Android device screens "exceed" Apple today? Maybe number of pixels on a couple of flagship models; maybe because OLED came out after LCD; maybe because the blacks are blacker? ...a lot of this is like comparing a showroom full of TVs under fluorescent lighting, with the TVs settings all at random values.
So, Apple is just now moving to OLED? Maybe they have been wanting to take the time to incorporate their own advances when the tech is more mature. I think Apple has got its own proprietary screen advances that most OEMs don't have: Apple works with Corning, etc. to develop specific laminations, with the sensors just so in certain layers closest to the user's fingers, etc.; or specific densities and types of sensors, such as those used to track the pencil in iPad Pros; or "tru-tone" color sensing; or, power use and saving; or, certain color reproduction and gamut (Apple has traditionally been concerned with accurate color reproduction); not to mention photo processing, etc....
Sure, there are going to be a couple of metrics, certainly on paper, where an unprofitable OEM that is trying to compete with all the other OEMs to differentiate a couple of their offerings from the mass of other Android devices is going to "exceed" something that Apple has on paper, especially when software integration is completely discounted.
Problems that should never have existed.
You make good points. Mine was that Apple is in fact closing the gap with OLED's with the iPhone 8, the primary benefit at this point being reduced bezels, and smaller form factors for a given screen size. That Apple has been delayed in this is likely due to both technology and production constraints. Otherwise, Apple has been exemplary in image delivery to the screen, as you state. Will Apple leap ahead at some point with microLED screens? That's an interesting possibility.
Camera modules will continue to be one feature that Android OEM's will use as differentiation, though the reality is that the pixel peepers pushing IQ metrics like DXOMark, are on the wrong side of marketing history; very few are buying a smartphone strictly for the best imagining metric. Little has been stated about camera modules for the iPhone 8, though image stabilization for the "telephoto" lens is almost certain, and I doubt that Apple will change the current minimalist camera bump.
- Apple has stuck with LCD (up until now) most likely due to supply. For delivery in 2017 for one high-end model we see that a number of vendors had to increase supply. No one else was selling the high-end OLED screens in volume comparable to what Apple demanded.
- OLED technology has only in last couple of years reached LCD w.r.t. important areas like longevity
- Apple's approach to screens/images is to provide as "natural looking" as possible. Samsung and others take the approach to make the screens/images "vibrant", by increasing the colour saturation. To many people (perhaps most) that makes the screen look "better", but when looking at photos of videos it is also not a natural representation. This is of course done by many TV vendors, and retailers.
On camera modules, while a few phone models might be better than iPhone (better does not equal more pixels), Apple has superior image processing capabilities, making the overall "camera experience" still better.