fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
I'm not sure that's a real factor if you're on a two-year upgrade cycle and when you can have the battery replaced so easily.
My understanding is that the two biggest factors in having a shortened lifespan on a battery are voltage fluctuations and temperature. I live in a particularly hot environment and have had a series of battery issues with Apple batteries. The latest was two weeks ago when I had to change an iPhone 6 battery. Apple said it should be good for 500 to 800 cycles. The diagnostics showed a little over 500. I wonder if heat played a role there. Impossible to know. I have been using the supplied Huawei fast charger, nightly for the last two years with no perceivable downgrade in battery life for my use. It's only two phones but I haven't hit that guarantee of having it fail yet and even if it does fail in the coming months I can have it replaced easily.
I will use the phone all day, sometimes heavily. Occasionally I will use a RAVPower backup to get me home. Often, when I get home I will shower and get ready to go out. That's when the phone goes back onto fast charge and by the time I'm ready to leave, I have enough juice to get me through the night. That's when fast charging comes into its own in spite of any shortening of lifespan.
I've come to depend on it now. Maybe I've just been lucky but I would appreciate your opinion on how Huawei designs its Supercharge battery tech as they do it all themselves and are very confident in their entire battery production process from chargers through to chemistry through to safety. This independently of any guaranteed shortened lifespan as I'm not a battery expert.
EDIT: I couldn't find much on Supercharge but this article has a video in it which goes over the basics of the Supercharge approach.
I saw an interview in Spanish with a Spanish Huawei engineer. I will try to locate it and extract the information. Then there was a supposed battery breakthrough by Watt Lab two years ago (Huawei's battery research unit) that claimed quick charging without impacting battery life. No idea if that breakthrough has made it into a shipping product yet.
Here's the snippet:
"Watt Lab, which belongs to the Central Research Institute at Huawei Technology Corporation Limited, unveiled their new quick charging lithium-ion batteries at the 56th Battery Symposium in Japan. Using next generation technology, these new batteries have achieved a charging speed 10 times faster than that of normal batteries, reaching about 50% capacity in mere minutes.
Huawei presented videos of the two types of quick charging lithium-ion batteries: one battery with a 600 mAh capacity that can be charged to 68% capacity in two minutes; and another with a 3000 mAh capacity and an energy density above 620 Wh/L, which can be charged to 48% capacity in five minutes to allow ten hours of phone call on Huawei mobile phones. These quick charging batteries underwent many rounds of testing, and have been certified by Huawei's terminal test department.
According to Huawei, the company bonded heteroatoms to the molecule of graphite in anode, which could be a catalyst for the capture and transmission of lithium through carbon bonds. Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
This completely ignores that most people also use their iDevices to access content. I don't know how many times I've personally asked my kids why they are watching Netflix on the iPad instead of the TV. It's a combination of it's easier and we can't agree on what to watch.
Despite having a home theater and several TVs I probably watch more content on the go than at home.
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
This completely ignores that most people also use their iDevices to access content. I don't know how many times I've personally asked my kids why they are watching Netflix on the iPad instead of the TV. It's a combination of it's easier and we can't agree on what to watch.
Despite having a home theater and several TVs I probably watch more content on the go than at home.
I think that people prefer their own personal version of the viewing experience over a shared one; not always, but enough to make it a "thing" worth noting.
So some case of premature ejaculation of a wanna-be-Apple, or some real innovation? anyway, they beat Apple to the "first post" race.
1) Who wouldn't want to have Apple's mindshare, valuation, or position in multiple markets? I'd like to see more companies strive for better products, over the "innovation" that occurred with the WinPC market where they found more clever ways to cut down on prices.
2) This is a known future in computing and this seems like a great achievement for Huawei. The benchmark seems a bit odd but maybe I don't understand the relevance of "images recognized per minute."
3) We got ML on the A10 a year ago and the Kirin 970 doesn't start shipping until mid October. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an A11 next month shipping to millions of customers by the end of September that blows the 970 out of the water. Designing their own chips has allowed Apple to do amazing things already. I hope we get to see what their in-house GPU designs can do this year.
For the A11, I'm hoping for a fully Apple generated GPGPU design, As for any AI add on, it's still very early in the game, so Apple not having it doesn't seem to be a big deal; maybe Apple will have it on the A11 SOC.
My expectation, though, is that Apple wants the AI architecture on die, for system performance, and hence, why I'm not expecting it on the 12th. I'm certainly open to a surprise.
I'd be VERY surprised if the A11 didn't have a custom GPU. Apple will, like usual, sell the iPhone 7 for one more year at a reduced price. They announced they won't use Imagination GPU tech in 15-24 months back in April. By this time next year (when the iPhone 7 is discontinued) that'll be 18 months. Right in the middle of their 15-24 month notice. Further, the iPhone 8 will also be sold for 2 years, or 30 months after their notice to Imagination (well past their "deadline"). So I find it unlikely the iPhone 8 uses any Imagination IP.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Feh. You’re just making excuses. I’ve not seen one review that didn’t mention the inconvience of a rear mounted ID button. You can’t use it when the phone is on a table without picking it up. Sure, forget things that do matter. Samsung’s is particularly hated.
just because Samsung always has issues with their features, doesn’t mean that Apple will. That’s just a very bad argument from you. Apple came out with Touch ID and it worked great from the very beginning, but Samsung just felt that it HAD to have that bullet point, so they added one that didn’t work, very typical of them.
samsung has options, because its facial and iris unlock options don’t work well. Again, that doesn’t mean that Apple’s won’t work well.
color management is important. I understand that you don’t want to say that, because Android doesn’t have it, and it’s not likely it will.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
Lots of people use the 'can't use it on a table without picking it up' to argue against rear mounted sensors but what use do you make of the phone in those situations?
If you're in a bar a want to look at your screen on the table, for example? That's what double tap to wake is for (and is coming to iPhone soon). If you actually want to do something a bit more involved in a mobile situation then I suppose the phone is in your hand already and the placement is a non-issue in that situation. You'll have to give me a different use situation for the table top scenario for me to evaluate. As things are, even picking the phone up to unlock is far less effort than turning the page of a newspaper, adjusting my glasses or raising a coffee cup to my mouth. That's to say even lifting to unlock is a non-issue. But with tap to wake, that isn't an issue.
Rear sensors are stupid. You're limiting your example to a single use-case (unlocking on a desk) to try and justify a bad implementation.
I do more than just unlock my iPhone when it's on a desk. Numerous Apps I use require Touch ID to work. How does tap to wake offer any benefit to me when the App is requesting Touch ID?
And what if my phone is in a dock on my desk? Why should I have to continually remove and replace it from my dock just to authenticate? When I ride my bike I have my iPhone in a case on my handlebars. I do the same when I ride my ATVs, snowmobiles and on my boat. And I can still use Touch ID in all those scenarios.
Then we have Apple Pay. I'm lucky in Canada where it's accepted almost everywhere. I've come across lots of terminals that have privacy shields mounted on the terminals. If I had a rear sensor it interferes with making payments because my hand will strike the shield when I try to hold the phone close to the reader. I can get around this if I place the phone screen down, but then I risk scratching the screen and I can't see the display for the notification the payment info has been transferred (the little circle that turns into a check mark letting me know I can remove my phone).
Did you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about use-cases other than simply unlocking your phone on a desk?
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Feh. You’re just making excuses. I’ve not seen one review that didn’t mention the inconvience of a rear mounted ID button. You can’t use it when the phone is on a table without picking it up. Sure, forget things that do matter. Samsung’s is particularly hated.
just because Samsung always has issues with their features, doesn’t mean that Apple will. That’s just a very bad argument from you. Apple came out with Touch ID and it worked great from the very beginning, but Samsung just felt that it HAD to have that bullet point, so they added one that didn’t work, very typical of them.
samsung has options, because its facial and iris unlock options don’t work well. Again, that doesn’t mean that Apple’s won’t work well.
color management is important. I understand that you don’t want to say that, because Android doesn’t have it, and it’s not likely it will.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
Lots of people use the 'can't use it on a table without picking it up' to argue against rear mounted sensors but what use do you make of the phone in those situations?
If you're in a bar a want to look at your screen on the table, for example? That's what double tap to wake is for (and is coming to iPhone soon). If you actually want to do something a bit more involved in a mobile situation then I suppose the phone is in your hand already and the placement is a non-issue in that situation. You'll have to give me a different use situation for the table top scenario for me to evaluate. As things are, even picking the phone up to unlock is far less effort than turning the page of a newspaper, adjusting my glasses or raising a coffee cup to my mouth. That's to say even lifting to unlock is a non-issue. But with tap to wake, that isn't an issue.
Rear sensors are stupid. You're limiting your example to a single use-case (unlocking on a desk) to try and justify a bad implementation.
I do more than just unlock my iPhone when it's on a desk. Numerous Apps I use require Touch ID to work. How does tap to wake offer any benefit to me when the App is requesting Touch ID?
And what if my phone is in a dock on my desk? Why should I have to continually remove and replace it from my dock just to authenticate? When I ride my bike I have my iPhone in a case on my handlebars. I do the same when I ride my ATVs, snowmobiles and on my boat. And I can still use Touch ID in all those scenarios.
Then we have Apple Pay. I'm lucky in Canada where it's accepted almost everywhere. I've come across lots of terminals that have privacy shields mounted on the terminals. If I had a rear sensor it interferes with making payments because my hand will strike the shield when I try to hold the phone close to the reader. I can get around this if I place the phone screen down, but then I risk scratching the screen and I can't see the display for the notification the payment info has been transferred (the little circle that turns into a check mark letting me know I can remove my phone).
Did you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about use-cases other than simply unlocking your phone on a desk?
It's just Avon B7 bias due to Android devices lacking in screen touch ID; nothing more.
Some rear sensors are better implementations than others, there are a few side/edge implementations, but they all pale compared to a touch ID sensor on the front. The only superior implementation beyond the lower chin would be touch ID anywhere on the screen, but that isn't an available option today.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
There are some here that I violently disagree. We can't all act like snowflakes. I have nobody on my ignore list.
Above all, AppleInsider can't turn into MacRumors.
Admins and Mods: If there is a way of disabling the ignore feature of this forum, please do it.
People are free to ignore whomever they want. If anything, it could be more beneficial to mute or block people more easily. Maybe a "Mute" button so you could keep seeing a person's comments and they wouldn't see yours, then the "Block" function to obscure their posts entirely, as is done now.
When people violently disagree, it annoys everyone not interested in the argument.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Feh. You’re just making excuses. I’ve not seen one review that didn’t mention the inconvience of a rear mounted ID button. You can’t use it when the phone is on a table without picking it up. Sure, forget things that do matter. Samsung’s is particularly hated.
just because Samsung always has issues with their features, doesn’t mean that Apple will. That’s just a very bad argument from you. Apple came out with Touch ID and it worked great from the very beginning, but Samsung just felt that it HAD to have that bullet point, so they added one that didn’t work, very typical of them.
samsung has options, because its facial and iris unlock options don’t work well. Again, that doesn’t mean that Apple’s won’t work well.
color management is important. I understand that you don’t want to say that, because Android doesn’t have it, and it’s not likely it will.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
Lots of people use the 'can't use it on a table without picking it up' to argue against rear mounted sensors but what use do you make of the phone in those situations?
If you're in a bar a want to look at your screen on the table, for example? That's what double tap to wake is for (and is coming to iPhone soon). If you actually want to do something a bit more involved in a mobile situation then I suppose the phone is in your hand already and the placement is a non-issue in that situation. You'll have to give me a different use situation for the table top scenario for me to evaluate. As things are, even picking the phone up to unlock is far less effort than turning the page of a newspaper, adjusting my glasses or raising a coffee cup to my mouth. That's to say even lifting to unlock is a non-issue. But with tap to wake, that isn't an issue.
Rear sensors are stupid. You're limiting your example to a single use-case (unlocking on a desk) to try and justify a bad implementation.
I do more than just unlock my iPhone when it's on a desk. Numerous Apps I use require Touch ID to work. How does tap to wake offer any benefit to me when the App is requesting Touch ID?
And what if my phone is in a dock on my desk? Why should I have to continually remove and replace it from my dock just to authenticate? When I ride my bike I have my iPhone in a case on my handlebars. I do the same when I ride my ATVs, snowmobiles and on my boat. And I can still use Touch ID in all those scenarios.
Then we have Apple Pay. I'm lucky in Canada where it's accepted almost everywhere. I've come across lots of terminals that have privacy shields mounted on the terminals. If I had a rear sensor it interferes with making payments because my hand will strike the shield when I try to hold the phone close to the reader. I can get around this if I place the phone screen down, but then I risk scratching the screen and I can't see the display for the notification the payment info has been transferred (the little circle that turns into a check mark letting me know I can remove my phone).
Did you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about use-cases other than simply unlocking your phone on a desk?
LOL!
Yes more than two seconds! Makes me wonder how I and millions more can get by without a front facing sensor!
Did you spend more than two seconds considering that?
Do you think that hundreds of handset designers over the years have spent more than two seconds on it?
Did you spend more than two seconds trying to use understand why millions of people have zero problems with rear sensors and many, just like me, actually prefer them?
You know, even on phones with plenty of chin space for a sensor and they still stuck them (and continue to do so) on the back!
You seem to have come up short on your conclusions.
I mentioned tabletop use simply because Melgross mentioned it.
You gave some of your own other uses. Let's go through them.
Apart from using TouchID for unlocking, how often do you use it for those 'numerous apps', because, believe me, the more you have to use it, the more comfortable it will be to have the phone in your hand. Perfect angle, perfect distance. Using your phone actively from a flat desk quickly becomes a pain.
If your phone is on your desk in a dock, the sensor is perfectly accesible if you need it, even on the rear! But I doubt you need it very much. I'm still curious to see how often you are using TouchID for use apart from unlocking.
The same question applies for your use of boats, snowmobiles and bikes.
BTW, having your phone exposed to the cold in a case on a snowmobile probably isn't doing it a lot of good.
What are you authenticating with TouchID with your phone in a case on a snowmobile? Just curiosity. Checking your bank balance?
Paying using your phone. No problem with or without a shield. Did you spend more than two seconds thinking about how millions of Samsung/Huawei pay etc users could manage that with a rear sensor? Because they do and it's a non-issue.
Now, you've given some pretty infrequent use cases to defend your claims. I don't have a boat or a snowmobile and I can assure you the vast majority of people don't either.
I don't have a boat or a snowmobile and I can assure you the vast majority of people don't either.
Yeah, we Canadians often forget that. Both are so ubiquitous in our lives that it never occurs to us that people outside the wilderness only use them for recreation. Since we travel primarily via waterways, partly by necessity and partly to honour the memory of the brave explorers who traversed the massive expanse of this country in bark canoes, we use our boats in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter. Spring and fall are a bitch, because you can't use either on the thin ice of fall or during the spring breakup. That's when we start walking 20 miles barefoot in the snow to school, uphill both ways.
Wanna learn how to saddle a moose or get a bear off your Husky with a frozen garden hose?
But seriously, I don't have a boat or snowmobile either, but I did once ride an inntertube being pulled behind a truck. I don't recommend it. FishLicenseBoy's approach is better. Except during avalanche season, but that's only a problem in the winter. It's perfectly safe to operate a snowmobile through the summer months. Just not on the river.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
I always love personal anecdotal evidence; it tends to reek of perception bias, just as your anecdote does.
It's rampant here at AI as much as other MacOS/iOS websites.
The primary differentiator that Apple has is its ecosystem. Even aside from individual markets that you speak of, that is the big moat that Apple has that others do not.
I'm not suggesting that Apple doesn't need to make inroads in media subscription services, or that a larger market share in media boxes wouldn't' be beneficial, but I find an appalling understanding of the breadth of Apple's ecosystem. More to the point, and with the exception to search on the scale of Google, and Facebook, I'm not seeing many barriers to entry for Apple.
The truth is that there are so many subscription streaming services, that Apple will do well just to be one of the few curators, just as Amazon and Google will be. That's who Apple has to differentiate itself from, and it certainly has advantages as well as disadvantages in implementation. The truth is that Apple has the most desirable customer base of any size in existence. That in itself is the draw for all of these services and Studios.
Apple hasn't been able to align it's expectations with those of the many media providers, but I'm not seeing them ignore Apple either. Sooner or later, a deal will be reached, and Apple will still have those most desired customers.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
I think I don’t have a problem with the verbiage, I’m willing to bet I just think the idea is stupid — cut hardware profits to increase market share. Yeah. Have fun with that. Pass me the netbook, would you?
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Comments
My understanding is that the two biggest factors in having a shortened lifespan on a battery are voltage fluctuations and temperature. I live in a particularly hot environment and have had a series of battery issues with Apple batteries. The latest was two weeks ago when I had to change an iPhone 6 battery. Apple said it should be good for 500 to 800 cycles. The diagnostics showed a little over 500. I wonder if heat played a role there. Impossible to know. I have been using the supplied Huawei fast charger, nightly for the last two years with no perceivable downgrade in battery life for my use. It's only two phones but I haven't hit that guarantee of having it fail yet and even if it does fail in the coming months I can have it replaced easily.
I will use the phone all day, sometimes heavily. Occasionally I will use a RAVPower backup to get me home. Often, when I get home I will shower and get ready to go out. That's when the phone goes back onto fast charge and by the time I'm ready to leave, I have enough juice to get me through the night. That's when fast charging comes into its own in spite of any shortening of lifespan.
I've come to depend on it now. Maybe I've just been lucky but I would appreciate your opinion on how Huawei designs its Supercharge battery tech as they do it all themselves and are very confident in their entire battery production process from chargers through to chemistry through to safety. This independently of any guaranteed shortened lifespan as I'm not a battery expert.
EDIT: I couldn't find much on Supercharge but this article has a video in it which goes over the basics of the Supercharge approach.
https://phoneproscons.com/675/huawei-mate-9/154/supercharge-fast-and-safe-battery-charging-technology/
I saw an interview in Spanish with a Spanish Huawei engineer. I will try to locate it and extract the information. Then there was a supposed battery breakthrough by Watt Lab two years ago (Huawei's battery research unit) that claimed quick charging without impacting battery life. No idea if that breakthrough has made it into a shipping product yet.
Here's the snippet:
"Watt Lab, which belongs to the Central Research Institute at Huawei Technology Corporation Limited, unveiled their new quick charging lithium-ion batteries at the 56th Battery Symposium in Japan. Using next generation technology, these new batteries have achieved a charging speed 10 times faster than that of normal batteries, reaching about 50% capacity in mere minutes.
Huawei presented videos of the two types of quick charging lithium-ion batteries: one battery with a 600 mAh capacity that can be charged to 68% capacity in two minutes; and another with a 3000 mAh capacity and an energy density above 620 Wh/L, which can be charged to 48% capacity in five minutes to allow ten hours of phone call on Huawei mobile phones. These quick charging batteries underwent many rounds of testing, and have been certified by Huawei's terminal test department.
According to Huawei, the company bonded heteroatoms to the molecule of graphite in anode, which could be a catalyst for the capture and transmission of lithium through carbon bonds. Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
Despite having a home theater and several TVs I probably watch more content on the go than at home.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine
I think that people prefer their own personal version of the viewing experience over a shared one; not always, but enough to make it a "thing" worth noting.
I'd be VERY surprised if the A11 didn't have a custom GPU. Apple will, like usual, sell the iPhone 7 for one more year at a reduced price. They announced they won't use Imagination GPU tech in 15-24 months back in April. By this time next year (when the iPhone 7 is discontinued) that'll be 18 months. Right in the middle of their 15-24 month notice. Further, the iPhone 8 will also be sold for 2 years, or 30 months after their notice to Imagination (well past their "deadline"). So I find it unlikely the iPhone 8 uses any Imagination IP.
Be nice, be reasonable. Don't hold your own opinion in such high regard you can't see other's point of view.
You might not end up on anyone else's ignore list.
Rear sensors are stupid. You're limiting your example to a single use-case (unlocking on a desk) to try and justify a bad implementation.
I do more than just unlock my iPhone when it's on a desk. Numerous Apps I use require Touch ID to work. How does tap to wake offer any benefit to me when the App is requesting Touch ID?
And what if my phone is in a dock on my desk? Why should I have to continually remove and replace it from my dock just to authenticate? When I ride my bike I have my iPhone in a case on my handlebars. I do the same when I ride my ATVs, snowmobiles and on my boat. And I can still use Touch ID in all those scenarios.
Then we have Apple Pay. I'm lucky in Canada where it's accepted almost everywhere. I've come across lots of terminals that have privacy shields mounted on the terminals. If I had a rear sensor it interferes with making payments because my hand will strike the shield when I try to hold the phone close to the reader. I can get around this if I place the phone screen down, but then I risk scratching the screen and I can't see the display for the notification the payment info has been transferred (the little circle that turns into a check mark letting me know I can remove my phone).
Did you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about use-cases other than simply unlocking your phone on a desk?
Some rear sensors are better implementations than others, there are a few side/edge implementations, but they all pale compared to a touch ID sensor on the front. The only superior implementation beyond the lower chin would be touch ID anywhere on the screen, but that isn't an available option today.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
When people violently disagree, it annoys everyone not interested in the argument.
Yes more than two seconds! Makes me wonder how I and millions more can get by without a front facing sensor!
Did you spend more than two seconds considering that?
Do you think that hundreds of handset designers over the years have spent more than two seconds on it?
Did you spend more than two seconds trying to use understand why millions of people have zero problems with rear sensors and many, just like me, actually prefer them?
You know, even on phones with plenty of chin space for a sensor and they still stuck them (and continue to do so) on the back!
You seem to have come up short on your conclusions.
I mentioned tabletop use simply because Melgross mentioned it.
You gave some of your own other uses. Let's go through them.
Apart from using TouchID for unlocking, how often do you use it for those 'numerous apps', because, believe me, the more you have to use it, the more comfortable it will be to have the phone in your hand. Perfect angle, perfect distance. Using your phone actively from a flat desk quickly becomes a pain.
If your phone is on your desk in a dock, the sensor is perfectly accesible if you need it, even on the rear! But I doubt you need it very much. I'm still curious to see how often you are using TouchID for use apart from unlocking.
The same question applies for your use of boats, snowmobiles and bikes.
BTW, having your phone exposed to the cold in a case on a snowmobile probably isn't doing it a lot of good.
What are you authenticating with TouchID with your phone in a case on a snowmobile? Just curiosity. Checking your bank balance?
Paying using your phone. No problem with or without a shield. Did you spend more than two seconds thinking about how millions of Samsung/Huawei pay etc users could manage that with a rear sensor? Because they do and it's a non-issue.
Now, you've given some pretty infrequent use cases to defend your claims. I don't have a boat or a snowmobile and I can assure you the vast majority of people don't either.
Wanna learn how to saddle a moose or get a bear off your Husky with a frozen garden hose?
But seriously, I don't have a boat or snowmobile either, but I did once ride an inntertube being pulled behind a truck. I don't recommend it. FishLicenseBoy's approach is better. Except during avalanche season, but that's only a problem in the winter. It's perfectly safe to operate a snowmobile through the summer months. Just not on the river.
It's rampant here at AI as much as other MacOS/iOS websites.
The primary differentiator that Apple has is its ecosystem. Even aside from individual markets that you speak of, that is the big moat that Apple has that others do not.
I'm not suggesting that Apple doesn't need to make inroads in media subscription services, or that a larger market share in media boxes wouldn't' be beneficial, but I find an appalling understanding of the breadth of Apple's ecosystem. More to the point, and with the exception to search on the scale of Google, and Facebook, I'm not seeing many barriers to entry for Apple.
The truth is that there are so many subscription streaming services, that Apple will do well just to be one of the few curators, just as Amazon and Google will be. That's who Apple has to differentiate itself from, and it certainly has advantages as well as disadvantages in implementation. The truth is that Apple has the most desirable customer base of any size in existence. That in itself is the draw for all of these services and Studios.
Apple hasn't been able to align it's expectations with those of the many media providers, but I'm not seeing them ignore Apple either. Sooner or later, a deal will be reached, and Apple will still have those most desired customers.
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.