None of you mouth frothing, chomping at the bit psycho Apple fans have ever used a pixel phone it seems. Like really used, for weeks, fully taking advantage of its intelligence.
All smart phones are just conduits to using *Google's* services. Internet? Chrome. Email? Gmail. Calendar? Gmail again. Maps? Google Maps. Videos? YouTube. Photos? Google Photos. All these apps are best in class and have the biggest user base (i.e. I don't care if you don't use them, since you should)
A Pixel phone makes life easy. Get hotel and/or flight confirmations to your email? Google adds it to your calendar, notifies you the day of the trip, and gives you travel times/info. Traffic worse than normal for commute? Google warns you. If you want smart home features, Google Home is the best. Google Assistant is light-years ahead of every other smart assistant. Alexa is ok, but doesn't have Google's search integration. Siri is a joke. All the rest are just as bad as Siri.
Chromecast is better than other smart TV products. Nest has the best security cameras and thermostat. Google WiFi is the prettiest and most intuitive mesh network. Soon self driving cars will dominate, and Waymo (Google) is a half decade farther along than the nearest competitor (which is GM, then Uber, with Apple not really making the list at all). Google is the ecosystem of the future. Apple is doing the same old crap, and doing it worse. They're focusing on building better hardware, while Google is focusing on building better software and letting the hardware market develop itself. The result is that the user experience with Google products blows Apple out of the water.
Also, the pixel camera beats the iPhone camera year after year. And stock Android is prettier, easier to use, and isn't locked in iOS' horrible, basically-unchanging-for-ten-years app layout (an app drawer is indisputably BETTER).
You have a little spittle on your chin that you might want to clean up.
That happens when people go on, and on, with delusional rants.
I'm sure that you feel better now though.
Oh, and find a better name, first time poster.
Imagine paying for and then putting (on your own, without any duress) a Nest Camera, a Google home and a Google Wifi network in your home. Google should be paying you.
My iPhone auto puts calendar events in from my email. My iPhone connects to my vehicles bluetooth and Maps auto pops up and tells me time and can get map in a click. We have seen that no one can tell the difference bw a Pixel photo and a XS photo. And still see that the P20 Pro camera might be the best in the market. All google apps are available and given lots love in iOS. I pop my airpods in and siri auto pops up my latest podcasts or music. Siri learns and recommend all the similar things you say but hey have you used an iPhone? Like c’mon people.
Many of these features were introduced on Android and are becoming synonymous with its name. When's the last time Apple introduced an exciting new (original) software product? Or even a new tech concept in general? People on Android like being at the front of the line, and for the most part we don't sacrifice anything for it.
Haha. What feature is synonymous with Android? Like seriously. The A12 is the front of the line. How about true depth face ID? Apple is the only company that gives you these features with full privacy and security. iMessage is real and Google cant implement an answer that sticks. Heck, Google cant get a video chat option to stick. AirPods are incredible. The Watch has no competitor. Idk, I work with both OS’s everyday. Not one person comes in and mentions, I need an Android device bc of x festure. But I hear people say I want an iPhone so I can Facetime my grankids or join an iCloud photo sharing group.
iPhone IS the smartphone. This category didn't exist before iPhone.
One-post-moron see yourself out.>>>
False.
SAUCE: The first commercially available device that could be properly referred to as a "smartphone" began as a prototype called "Angler" developed by Frank Canova in 1992 while at IBM and demonstrated in November of that year at the COMDEX computer industry trade show.
I assumed he meant the category of modern smartphone was defined by the iPhone and its mass marketed feature set. It wasn’t the first smartphone, or the first touch screen, but it was the first smartphone that mattered.
Can't blame you for making a common mistake. But you'd still be wrong. BlackBerry demonstrated that such a device could be manufactured and commercially successful. They were extremely popular, and powerful at the time.
Is it not enough to satisfy you that your device is the most powerful? Must it also be of pure lineage from the first device as well?
iPhone was a pioneer product, but it rested the success of its many features on the successes and failures of older products and the pioneering research and development of many other scientists from many other companies and the legal acquisition of the patents for its component pieces, of which all preceding "smartphone" devices, including the blackberry, were crucial contributors.
Also, you have to give Alexander Graham Bell some credit for the telephone. The first telephone that mattered, that is. No avoiding that. Apple had nothing to do with it .
Apple is not a self-contained universe. It lacks the resources to ever accomplish that. Amazon and Google, on the other hand, might be able. I'm excited to see.
There are plenty of phones in the lineage prior to the release of the iPhone, but as you are quite aware, the death of physical keyboards can trace its demise directly to the release of the iPhone. The iPhone was the disruption in the then current market. This isn't in dispute.
I wasn't aware that Blackberry still made phones with physical keyboards, until today.
These must sell in the thousands, and you must be so proud.
Point is Blackberry preceded the iPhone as a commercially successful smartphone
,,,passed the smartphone baton to Apple and entered a slow death spiral in the marketplace...
None of you mouth frothing, chomping at the bit psycho Apple fans have ever used a pixel phone it seems. Like really used, for weeks, fully taking advantage of its intelligence.
All smart phones are just conduits to using *Google's* services. Internet? Chrome. Email? Gmail. Calendar? Gmail again. Maps? Google Maps. Videos? YouTube. Photos? Google Photos. All these apps are best in class and have the biggest user base (i.e. I don't care if you don't use them, since you should)
A Pixel phone makes life easy. Get hotel and/or flight confirmations to your email? Google adds it to your calendar, notifies you the day of the trip, and gives you travel times/info. Traffic worse than normal for commute? Google warns you. If you want smart home features, Google Home is the best. Google Assistant is light-years ahead of every other smart assistant. Alexa is ok, but doesn't have Google's search integration. Siri is a joke. All the rest are just as bad as Siri.
Chromecast is better than other smart TV products. Nest has the best security cameras and thermostat. Google WiFi is the prettiest and most intuitive mesh network. Soon self driving cars will dominate, and Waymo (Google) is a half decade farther along than the nearest competitor (which is GM, then Uber, with Apple not really making the list at all). Google is the ecosystem of the future. Apple is doing the same old crap, and doing it worse. They're focusing on building better hardware, while Google is focusing on building better software and letting the hardware market develop itself. The result is that the user experience with Google products blows Apple out of the water.
Also, the pixel camera beats the iPhone camera year after year. And stock Android is prettier, easier to use, and isn't locked in iOS' horrible, basically-unchanging-for-ten-years app layout (an app drawer is indisputably BETTER).
You have a little spittle on your chin that you might want to clean up.
That happens when people go on, and on, with delusional rants.
I'm sure that you feel better now though.
Oh, and find a better name, first time poster.
Imagine paying for and then putting (on your own, without any duress) a Nest Camera, a Google home and a Google Wifi network in your home. Google should be paying you.
My iPhone auto puts calendar events in from my email. My iPhone connects to my vehicles bluetooth and Maps auto pops up and tells me time and can get map in a click. We have seen that no one can tell the difference bw a Pixel photo and a XS photo. And still see that the P20 Pro camera might be the best in the market. All google apps are available and given lots love in iOS. I pop my airpods in and siri auto pops up my latest podcasts or music. Siri learns and recommend all the similar things you say but hey have you used an iPhone? Like c’mon people.
Many of these features were introduced on Android and are becoming synonymous with its name. When's the last time Apple introduced an exciting new (original) software product? Or even a new tech concept in general? People on Android like being at the front of the line, and for the most part we don't sacrifice anything for it.
Haha. What feature is synonymous with Android? Like seriously. The A12 is the front of the line. How about true depth face ID? Apple is the only company that gives you these features with full privacy and security. iMessage is real and Google cant implement an answer that sticks. Heck, Google cant get a video chat option to stick. AirPods are incredible. The Watch has no competitor. Idk, I work with both OS’s everyday. Not one person comes in and mentions, I need an Android device bc of x festure. But I hear people say I want an iPhone so I can Facetime my grankids or join an iCloud photo sharing group.
Ye olde FaceTime isn't going to save the company from the inevitable turning of the tides in favor of the cutting edge. Innovation is the game, and Google and Amazon are the frontrunners. Facebook has more of a stake than Apple. The fact that the A12 is a highlight and selling point shows Apple's age. Voice recognition computing and artificial learning are the future tech, and Apple seems immoveably rooted in the past, resting on its laurels while new features are introduced daily, elsewhere.
It's about control. In a future with net neutrality in doubt, the man who owns the internet is King. Hardware is almost irrelevant at this point. But I think Apple is in bed with Amazon. Rest assured, your data is bought and sold. Apple has stated this. It's not true privacy, it's Differential Privacy. Big difference.
Google is giving the internet eyes and ears. The possibilities and potential of such a thing are baffling. In reality, there probably is no greater or lesser evil, but if I had to put my trust in a company, it would be the one that has already made the web a more efficient tool and accessible resource. That's the innovation that sets Google's precedence. And they continue to change and shape the landscape of tech in new and exciting ways.
None of you mouth frothing, chomping at the bit psycho Apple fans have ever used a pixel phone it seems. Like really used, for weeks, fully taking advantage of its intelligence.
All smart phones are just conduits to using *Google's* services. Internet? Chrome. Email? Gmail. Calendar? Gmail again. Maps? Google Maps. Videos? YouTube. Photos? Google Photos. All these apps are best in class and have the biggest user base (i.e. I don't care if you don't use them, since you should)
A Pixel phone makes life easy. Get hotel and/or flight confirmations to your email? Google adds it to your calendar, notifies you the day of the trip, and gives you travel times/info. Traffic worse than normal for commute? Google warns you. If you want smart home features, Google Home is the best. Google Assistant is light-years ahead of every other smart assistant. Alexa is ok, but doesn't have Google's search integration. Siri is a joke. All the rest are just as bad as Siri.
Chromecast is better than other smart TV products. Nest has the best security cameras and thermostat. Google WiFi is the prettiest and most intuitive mesh network. Soon self driving cars will dominate, and Waymo (Google) is a half decade farther along than the nearest competitor (which is GM, then Uber, with Apple not really making the list at all). Google is the ecosystem of the future. Apple is doing the same old crap, and doing it worse. They're focusing on building better hardware, while Google is focusing on building better software and letting the hardware market develop itself. The result is that the user experience with Google products blows Apple out of the water.
Also, the pixel camera beats the iPhone camera year after year. And stock Android is prettier, easier to use, and isn't locked in iOS' horrible, basically-unchanging-for-ten-years app layout (an app drawer is indisputably BETTER).
You have a little spittle on your chin that you might want to clean up.
That happens when people go on, and on, with delusional rants.
I'm sure that you feel better now though.
Oh, and find a better name, first time poster.
Imagine paying for and then putting (on your own, without any duress) a Nest Camera, a Google home and a Google Wifi network in your home. Google should be paying you.
My iPhone auto puts calendar events in from my email. My iPhone connects to my vehicles bluetooth and Maps auto pops up and tells me time and can get map in a click. We have seen that no one can tell the difference bw a Pixel photo and a XS photo. And still see that the P20 Pro camera might be the best in the market. All google apps are available and given lots love in iOS. I pop my airpods in and siri auto pops up my latest podcasts or music. Siri learns and recommend all the similar things you say but hey have you used an iPhone? Like c’mon people.
Many of these features were introduced on Android and are becoming synonymous with its name. When's the last time Apple introduced an exciting new (original) software product? Or even a new tech concept in general? People on Android like being at the front of the line, and for the most part we don't sacrifice anything for it.
Haha. What feature is synonymous with Android? Like seriously. The A12 is the front of the line. How about true depth face ID? Apple is the only company that gives you these features with full privacy and security. iMessage is real and Google cant implement an answer that sticks. Heck, Google cant get a video chat option to stick. AirPods are incredible. The Watch has no competitor. Idk, I work with both OS’s everyday. Not one person comes in and mentions, I need an Android device bc of x festure. But I hear people say I want an iPhone so I can Facetime my grankids or join an iCloud photo sharing group.
Ye olde FaceTime isn't going to save the company from the inevitable turning of the tides in favor of the cutting edge. Innovation is the game, and Google and Amazon are the frontrunners. Facebook has more of a stake than Apple. The fact that the A12 is a highlight and selling point shows Apple's age. Voice recognition computing and artificial learning are the future tech, and Apple seems immoveably rooted in the past, resting on its laurels while new features are introduced daily, elsewhere.
It's about control. In a future with net neutrality in doubt, the man who owns the internet is King. Hardware is almost irrelevant at this point. But I think Apple is in bed with Amazon. Rest assured, your data is bought and sold. Apple has stated this. It's not true privacy, it's Differential Privacy. Big difference.
Google is giving the internet eyes and ears. The possibilities and potential of such a thing are baffling. In reality, there probably is no greater or lesser evil, but if I had to put my trust in a company, it would be the one that has already made the web a more efficient tool and accessible resource. That's the innovation that sets Google's precedence. And they continue to change and shape the landscape of tech in new and exciting ways.
Amazon is developing Alexa microwaves and Google is selling $600 iPad ripoffs. Blazing all the new tech trails. Where do these trolls come from?
I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!
The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite.
I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones.
To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.
But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested. I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.
No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02
But if you can't compare 'em yourself, fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor.
EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience.
Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.
So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?
Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to.
Huh? I’m pretty sure I....
- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective. - Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway. - Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.
Don’t try to turn this back on me.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?
Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.
Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.
Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).
To help you, here are a three examples:
- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster. - Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner. - A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.
I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!
The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite.
I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones.
To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.
But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested. I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.
No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02
But if you can't compare 'em yourself, fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor.
EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience.
Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.
So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?
Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to.
Huh? I’m pretty sure I....
- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective. - Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway. - Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.
Don’t try to turn this back on me.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?
Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.
Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.
Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).
To help you, here are a three examples:
- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster. - Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner. - A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.
None of you mouth frothing, chomping at the bit psycho Apple fans have ever used a pixel phone it seems. Like really used, for weeks, fully taking advantage of its intelligence.
All smart phones are just conduits to using *Google's* services. Internet? Chrome. Email? Gmail. Calendar? Gmail again. Maps? Google Maps. Videos? YouTube. Photos? Google Photos. All these apps are best in class and have the biggest user base (i.e. I don't care if you don't use them, since you should)
A Pixel phone makes life easy. Get hotel and/or flight confirmations to your email? Google adds it to your calendar, notifies you the day of the trip, and gives you travel times/info. Traffic worse than normal for commute? Google warns you. If you want smart home features, Google Home is the best. Google Assistant is light-years ahead of every other smart assistant. Alexa is ok, but doesn't have Google's search integration. Siri is a joke. All the rest are just as bad as Siri.
Chromecast is better than other smart TV products. Nest has the best security cameras and thermostat. Google WiFi is the prettiest and most intuitive mesh network. Soon self driving cars will dominate, and Waymo (Google) is a half decade farther along than the nearest competitor (which is GM, then Uber, with Apple not really making the list at all). Google is the ecosystem of the future. Apple is doing the same old crap, and doing it worse. They're focusing on building better hardware, while Google is focusing on building better software and letting the hardware market develop itself. The result is that the user experience with Google products blows Apple out of the water.
Also, the pixel camera beats the iPhone camera year after year. And stock Android is prettier, easier to use, and isn't locked in iOS' horrible, basically-unchanging-for-ten-years app layout (an app drawer is indisputably BETTER).
You have a little spittle on your chin that you might want to clean up.
That happens when people go on, and on, with delusional rants.
I'm sure that you feel better now though.
Oh, and find a better name, first time poster.
Imagine paying for and then putting (on your own, without any duress) a Nest Camera, a Google home and a Google Wifi network in your home. Google should be paying you.
My iPhone auto puts calendar events in from my email. My iPhone connects to my vehicles bluetooth and Maps auto pops up and tells me time and can get map in a click. We have seen that no one can tell the difference bw a Pixel photo and a XS photo. And still see that the P20 Pro camera might be the best in the market. All google apps are available and given lots love in iOS. I pop my airpods in and siri auto pops up my latest podcasts or music. Siri learns and recommend all the similar things you say but hey have you used an iPhone? Like c’mon people.
Many of these features were introduced on Android and are becoming synonymous with its name. When's the last time Apple introduced an exciting new (original) software product? Or even a new tech concept in general? People on Android like being at the front of the line, and for the most part we don't sacrifice anything for it.
Haha. What feature is synonymous with Android? Like seriously. The A12 is the front of the line. How about true depth face ID? Apple is the only company that gives you these features with full privacy and security. iMessage is real and Google cant implement an answer that sticks. Heck, Google cant get a video chat option to stick. AirPods are incredible. The Watch has no competitor. Idk, I work with both OS’s everyday. Not one person comes in and mentions, I need an Android device bc of x festure. But I hear people say I want an iPhone so I can Facetime my grankids or join an iCloud photo sharing group.
Ye olde FaceTime isn't going to save the company from the inevitable turning of the tides in favor of the cutting edge. Innovation is the game, and Google and Amazon are the frontrunners. Facebook has more of a stake than Apple. The fact that the A12 is a highlight and selling point shows Apple's age. Voice recognition computing and artificial learning are the future tech, and Apple seems immoveably rooted in the past, resting on its laurels while new features are introduced daily, elsewhere.
It's about control. In a future with net neutrality in doubt, the man who owns the internet is King. Hardware is almost irrelevant at this point. But I think Apple is in bed with Amazon. Rest assured, your data is bought and sold. Apple has stated this. It's not true privacy, it's Differential Privacy. Big difference.
Google is giving the internet eyes and ears. The possibilities and potential of such a thing are baffling. In reality, there probably is no greater or lesser evil, but if I had to put my trust in a company, it would be the one that has already made the web a more efficient tool and accessible resource. That's the innovation that sets Google's precedence. And they continue to change and shape the landscape of tech in new and exciting ways.
Amazon is developing Alexa microwaves and Google is selling $600 iPad ripoffs. Blazing all the new tech trails. Where do these trolls come from?
Yes, Amazon is developing, Google is selling, and Apple is double re-releasing its tenth anniversary phone because it didn't sell enough last year.
I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!
The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite.
I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones.
To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.
But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested. I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.
No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02
But if you can't compare 'em yourself, fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor.
EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience.
Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.
So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?
Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to.
Huh? I’m pretty sure I....
- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective. - Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway. - Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.
Don’t try to turn this back on me.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?
Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.
Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.
Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).
To help you, here are a three examples:
- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster. - Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner. - A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.
Tasker
You’re either a complete idiot or a troll. First off, Tasker doesn’t require any processor power. Second, Tasker isn’t available for iOS making it impossible to do a comparison.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
I'm sure all that extra performance makes Facebook, WhatsApp and phone calls rock, not!
The value of speed in a smartphone includes; 1. Intensive games like Fortnite.
I think @ericthehalfbee is actually testing how much better the gaming performance of Fornite is on his iPhone compared to a couple of other higher-end Android phones.
To really test performance you need to perform tasks where the completion time can be measured. Like rendering a video, applying complex effects to a photo or recalculating a complex spreadsheet.
But you have no way of comparing those as you've said before and you were the one that offered to if presented with some other apps that COULD be tested. I offered two that my son knew both he and his friends have played in competitions on both Android and iOS. I'm no gamer myself, nor someone who would do their photo processing on a smartphone for that matter.
No doubt there may be some smallish percentage of users like you who really do their "complex photo processing" on their smartphone or do "complex spreadsheet computations" on one, but wouldn't gaming be a far more common use (perhaps THE most common use based on app store revenues) and and a more insightful comparison? Personally I think it would be a great real-life everyday measuring stick. Just my .02
But if you can't compare 'em yourself, fair enough. While AI found the X and Note were a toss-up (thanks for that link) the dropped frames on the Note compared to the XS is certainly a plus in Apple's favor.
EDIT: A cursory look on YouTube indicates game loading on Battlefields and Fortnite is much faster on the XS compared to the Galaxy, and by a significant amount. Game play itself is reported as pretty much on par with each other. But again I'm no gamer so cannot comment from personal experience.
Thats not what I said. I said there are no high-end Apps on Android to allow a comparison against iOS equivalents.
So I’ll ask again: Can any of you Android users select some Apps for me to compare to make this fair?
Huh? I'm pretty sure I just gave you two to test for yourself: Battlefield and Fortnite. The same ones I gave you exactly a week ago but you never got around to.
Huh? I’m pretty sure I....
- Already stated why games are a poor example as results are subjective. - Linked to the AI article on Fortnite so there’s no need to repeat a test someone has already done anyway. - Have been the person on AI to repeatedly ask others for Apps to compare, making countless others here the ones who “never got around to it”.
Don’t try to turn this back on me.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, Evernote, Trello, Maps or navigation. But if the performance results of games per device is subjective, wouldn't all other performance results be subjective?
Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.
Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.
Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).
To help you, here are a three examples:
- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster. - Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner. - A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.
Tasker
You’re either a complete idiot or a troll. First off, Tasker doesn’t require any processor power. Second, Tasker isn’t available for iOS making it impossible to do a comparison.
You've explained in rich detail just how useless and impractical the A12 processor's power actually is. Full disclosure.
If games are subjective and the picture quality is indistinguishable from the competition, what could the point possibly be? Except to name off an app that evidently doesn't exist but would demand that much power.
None of you mouth frothing, chomping at the bit psycho Apple fans have ever used a pixel phone it seems. Like really used, for weeks, fully taking advantage of its intelligence.
All smart phones are just conduits to using *Google's* services. Internet? Chrome. Email? Gmail. Calendar? Gmail again. Maps? Google Maps. Videos? YouTube. Photos? Google Photos. All these apps are best in class and have the biggest user base (i.e. I don't care if you don't use them, since you should)
A Pixel phone makes life easy. Get hotel and/or flight confirmations to your email? Google adds it to your calendar, notifies you the day of the trip, and gives you travel times/info. Traffic worse than normal for commute? Google warns you. If you want smart home features, Google Home is the best. Google Assistant is light-years ahead of every other smart assistant. Alexa is ok, but doesn't have Google's search integration. Siri is a joke. All the rest are just as bad as Siri.
Chromecast is better than other smart TV products. Nest has the best security cameras and thermostat. Google WiFi is the prettiest and most intuitive mesh network. Soon self driving cars will dominate, and Waymo (Google) is a half decade farther along than the nearest competitor (which is GM, then Uber, with Apple not really making the list at all). Google is the ecosystem of the future. Apple is doing the same old crap, and doing it worse. They're focusing on building better hardware, while Google is focusing on building better software and letting the hardware market develop itself. The result is that the user experience with Google products blows Apple out of the water.
Also, the pixel camera beats the iPhone camera year after year. And stock Android is prettier, easier to use, and isn't locked in iOS' horrible, basically-unchanging-for-ten-years app layout (an app drawer is indisputably BETTER).
You have a little spittle on your chin that you might want to clean up.
That happens when people go on, and on, with delusional rants.
I'm sure that you feel better now though.
Oh, and find a better name, first time poster.
Imagine paying for and then putting (on your own, without any duress) a Nest Camera, a Google home and a Google Wifi network in your home. Google should be paying you.
My iPhone auto puts calendar events in from my email. My iPhone connects to my vehicles bluetooth and Maps auto pops up and tells me time and can get map in a click. We have seen that no one can tell the difference bw a Pixel photo and a XS photo. And still see that the P20 Pro camera might be the best in the market. All google apps are available and given lots love in iOS. I pop my airpods in and siri auto pops up my latest podcasts or music. Siri learns and recommend all the similar things you say but hey have you used an iPhone? Like c’mon people.
Many of these features were introduced on Android and are becoming synonymous with its name. When's the last time Apple introduced an exciting new (original) software product? Or even a new tech concept in general? People on Android like being at the front of the line, and for the most part we don't sacrifice anything for it.
Haha. What feature is synonymous with Android? Like seriously. The A12 is the front of the line. How about true depth face ID? Apple is the only company that gives you these features with full privacy and security. iMessage is real and Google cant implement an answer that sticks. Heck, Google cant get a video chat option to stick. AirPods are incredible. The Watch has no competitor. Idk, I work with both OS’s everyday. Not one person comes in and mentions, I need an Android device bc of x festure. But I hear people say I want an iPhone so I can Facetime my grankids or join an iCloud photo sharing group.
Ye olde FaceTime isn't going to save the company from the inevitable turning of the tides in favor of the cutting edge. Innovation is the game, and Google and Amazon are the frontrunners. Facebook has more of a stake than Apple. The fact that the A12 is a highlight and selling point shows Apple's age. Voice recognition computing and artificial learning are the future tech, and Apple seems immoveably rooted in the past, resting on its laurels while new features are introduced daily, elsewhere.
It's about control. In a future with net neutrality in doubt, the man who owns the internet is King. Hardware is almost irrelevant at this point. But I think Apple is in bed with Amazon. Rest assured, your data is bought and sold. Apple has stated this. It's not true privacy, it's Differential Privacy. Big difference.
Google is giving the internet eyes and ears. The possibilities and potential of such a thing are baffling. In reality, there probably is no greater or lesser evil, but if I had to put my trust in a company, it would be the one that has already made the web a more efficient tool and accessible resource. That's the innovation that sets Google's precedence. And they continue to change and shape the landscape of tech in new and exciting ways.
Amazon is developing Alexa microwaves and Google is selling $600 iPad ripoffs. Blazing all the new tech trails. Where do these trolls come from?
Apple is double re-releasing its tenth anniversary phone because it didn't sell enough last year.
OK, now even trolls will admit that you are a troll.
When I can post a video , I'll use 7+ iOS 12.1 with safari vs pixel 2XL pie with chrome to download a video from whatever website to see which is faster.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
I wonder if there is any consumer facing app to break down the use of the cores over time.
My guess is that for huge usage periods, the performance cores remain idle.
I agree with Gatorguy that I would never spend long periods of time doing photo editing on a phone.
Speed stopped being a deal-breaker in the mid tiers a few years ago. I haven't seen anyone complain about it. That said, things get faster. However, should anyone with an A11 rush out and get a new phone just to have more speed? No. And they don't. Upgrade cycles for iPhones are slowing. People are sticking with their iPhones and (and old processors) for years and not worrying about it.
'Slower' can still mean 'fast' and clearly does for the vast majority of users. In fact, millions of Android users upgraded to ultra premium phones this year and got far more out of the deal than with any iPhone currently available.
That's because processor cores are less important now than before. Far less important.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
Your argument with ericthehalfbee falls flat with me. It's just a "gotcha" argument that he walked into.
Weak sauce.
The only important issue is that Apple silicon gives its devices an additional year, or more, of performance advantage versus comparable releases of Android OS devices. For a smartphone market that is flat, and for customers that are keeping there devices longer, that is invariably an advantage for Apple; it builds user base.
To date, I haven't seen any developer state that they had enough performance, memory, storage, battery life, or thermal cooling, available in a smartphone to accomplish what they need to in their market niche. Given that anecdotal evidence is that iPhone X series gives equal or better frame rate and visual quality for the cross platform games that have been compared on other devices using the Snapdragon 845, I'm not seeing that Google would do any better with the Pixel 3.
It's interesting that this particular AI thread has become a target for first time posters, unusually so, I might add.
Who knew that there were some many supporters of the Pixel in the wild.
Now, I can look forward to the release of the iPad Pro, a device that does in fact demonstrate that there is a continued desire for more performance, and a path to delivering that with new apps, on a platform that isn't x86/x64.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
I wonder if there is any consumer facing app to break down the use of the cores over time.
My guess is that for huge usage periods, the performance cores remain idle.
I agree with Gatorguy that I would never spend long periods of time doing photo editing on a phone.
Speed stopped being a deal-breaker in the mid tiers a few years ago. I haven't seen anyone complain about it. That said, things get faster. However, should anyone with an A11 rush out and get a new phone just to have more speed? No. And they don't. Upgrade cycles for iPhones are slowing. People are sticking with their iPhones and (and old processors) for years and not worrying about it.
'Slower' can still mean 'fast' and clearly does for the vast majority of users. In fact, millions of Android users upgraded to ultra premium phones this year and got far more out of the deal than with any iPhone currently available.
That's because processor cores are less important now than before. Far less important.
It impresses me no end that the new meme is that Apple's silicon advantage doesn't matter. Yet I recall you personally touting how great the Kirin 980 was going to be; well of course before the inevitable comparisons. You even attempted to convince yourself that Huawei was first with 7nm silicon, which is actually laughable, given Apple's current iPhone X deliveries. Announced first isn't the same as shipping.
I would note that Apple's advantage in silicon is so vast, that Huawei, Samsung, and Google, are all in the race to build their own silicon. All of those companies are attempting to migrate their customers and their product lines to match Apple's marketing model, and all will fall short.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
I wonder if there is any consumer facing app to break down the use of the cores over time.
My guess is that for huge usage periods, the performance cores remain idle.
I agree with Gatorguy that I would never spend long periods of time doing photo editing on a phone.
Speed stopped being a deal-breaker in the mid tiers a few years ago. I haven't seen anyone complain about it. That said, things get faster. However, should anyone with an A11 rush out and get a new phone just to have more speed? No. And they don't. Upgrade cycles for iPhones are slowing. People are sticking with their iPhones and (and old processors) for years and not worrying about it.
'Slower' can still mean 'fast' and clearly does for the vast majority of users. In fact, millions of Android users upgraded to ultra premium phones this year and got far more out of the deal than with any iPhone currently available.
That's because processor cores are less important now than before. Far less important.
Well, I completely agree with this post from yours, compared to the previous ones which were debatable.
Edit: My mistake. Reading comprehension issues. I thought this was written by Ericthehalfbee, only to realize Avon B7.
I’m not sure who mentioned it, but a comment was recently made that 75% of App Store revenues were games, therefore they should be used to test performance. The implication is, obviously, that most people don’t do work on their iOS devices and people mostly played games, thus trying to undermine the requirements for fast processors to run powerful Apps.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
I wonder if there is any consumer facing app to break down the use of the cores over time.
My guess is that for huge usage periods, the performance cores remain idle.
I agree with Gatorguy that I would never spend long periods of time doing photo editing on a phone.
Speed stopped being a deal-breaker in the mid tiers a few years ago. I haven't seen anyone complain about it. That said, things get faster. However, should anyone with an A11 rush out and get a new phone just to have more speed? No. And they don't. Upgrade cycles for iPhones are slowing. People are sticking with their iPhones and (and old processors) for years and not worrying about it.
'Slower' can still mean 'fast' and clearly does for the vast majority of users. In fact, millions of Android users upgraded to ultra premium phones this year and got far more out of the deal than with any iPhone currently available.
That's because processor cores are less important now than before. Far less important.
It impresses me no end that the new meme is that Apple's silicon advantage doesn't matter. Yet I recall you personally touting how great the Kirin 980 was going to be; well of course before the inevitable comparisons. You even attempted to convince yourself that Huawei was first with 7nm silicon, which is actually laughable, given Apple's current iPhone X deliveries. Announced first isn't the same as shipping.
I would note that Apple's advantage in silicon is so vast, that Huawei, Samsung, and Google, are all in the race to build their own silicon. All of those companies are attempting to migrate their customers and their product lines to match Apple's marketing model, and all will fall short.
A processor goes live at its presentation. The Kirin 980 pipped Apple to that post. The A12 pipped Huawei to the post for the first phone to become available on 7nm.
In both cases by very short periods.
None of this admits discussion. The facts are too clear.
In fact both chips were rolling out of TSMC at the same time.
The Kirin 980 is great. Latest variants of virtually everything on board. Including the world's first mobile Cat 21 modem and in house designed ultra fast wi-fi chip.
To date, I haven't seen any developer state that they had enough performance, memory, storage, battery life, or thermal cooling, available in a smartphone to accomplish what they need to in their market niche.
Yes, NONE of the developers have YET come up with an App that is USEFUL for the masses (hundreds of millions of users) which can be run ONLY with the additional power that A series processers provide, but NOT by mid-range Snapdragon SoCs (Snapdragon 600/700 series, leaving aside the 835/845 for a moment). It is a fact, that smartphone SoCs have reached a level where MAJORITY of the "common" users do NOT NEED the absolute best when it comes to performance. People are buying the latest and greatest phones for MANY other reasons, performance may NOT be the first and foremost reason unlike 3-4 years ago.
To date, I haven't seen any developer state that they had enough performance, memory, storage, battery life, or thermal cooling, available in a smartphone to accomplish what they need to in their market niche.
Yes, NONE of the developers have YET come up with an App that is USEFUL for the masses (hundreds of millions of users) which can be run ONLY with the additional power that A series processers provide, but NOT by mid-range Snapdragon SoCs (Snapdragon 600/700 series, leaving aside the 835/845 for a moment). It is a fact, that smartphone SoCs have reached a level where MAJORITY of the "common" users do NOT NEED the absolute best when it comes to performance. People are buying the latest and greatest phones for MANY other reasons, performance may NOT be the first and foremost reason unlike 3-4 years ago.
I agree that most users don't require that performance, but even you would have to agree that there are benefits to performance in common applicants that are in daily use.
Computational imaging is better and faster, so the user sees little latency in the capture of an HDR* portrait image. Tasks are initiated and completed faster, something that users notice; again the reduction in latency that give a better experience throughout the day.
The fact that iOS on the iPhone X models operates so smoothly is commonly mentioned in reviews, certainly a result of all those additional computations that are available to Apple and its developers.
I'm literally laughing at all of you that are downplaying performance as if it isn't relevant to the user experience, all because the of lesser benchmarks of the Pixel.
If you are satisfied with less than optimal performance, then buy an older iPhone, or buy a flagship Android OS device like the Pixel, because it just doesn't matter to you.
For the rest of us that aspire to the smoothest user experience, those few hundred extra dollars are well spent.
Comments
,,,passed the smartphone baton to Apple and entered a slow death spiral in the marketplace...
That's also a point.
It's about control. In a future with net neutrality in doubt, the man who owns the internet is King. Hardware is almost irrelevant at this point. But I think Apple is in bed with Amazon. Rest assured, your data is bought and sold. Apple has stated this. It's not true privacy, it's Differential Privacy. Big difference.
Google is giving the internet eyes and ears. The possibilities and potential of such a thing are baffling. In reality, there probably is no greater or lesser evil, but if I had to put my trust in a company, it would be the one that has already made the web a more efficient tool and accessible resource. That's the innovation that sets Google's precedence. And they continue to change and shape the landscape of tech in new and exciting ways.
Isn’t that cute. One of the brand-new accounts created yesterday thinks they can play with the big boys.
Are you dense, or do you have reading comprehension issues? I already stated in this thread you need to test something that takes considerable processor power (and thus, can be timed/measured). Not one of the Apps you mentioned requires significant power to run.
Why don’t you list some Apps that perform tasks I mentioned? Like video or photo editing? Or any other App you can think of. The only requirements are that they do something that stresses a processor and allows you to perform a measurement (how long to complete a task or how many tasks you can complete).
To help you, here are a three examples:
- Encoding a video. One device takes 20 seconds, another takes 40 seconds. Pretty easy to measure performance and which device is faster.
- Real-time mixing audio. One device can mix 48 tracks, the other can only do 24. Again, easy to determine a winner.
- A complex spreadsheet. One device can recalculate in under 1 second, the other takes 2-3 seconds.
You’re either a complete idiot or a troll. First off, Tasker doesn’t require any processor power. Second, Tasker isn’t available for iOS making it impossible to do a comparison.
Last year Adobe had revenues of $7 billion. Autodesk had revenues of $2 billion. Two companies that make expensive, complex software used by professionals.
Activision/Blizzard had revenues of $51 billion. Should I then claim PCs are only used to play games because game revenues vastly outpaced revenues of professional applications?
Gaming is popular and generates a LOT of revenue. You can’t draw conclusions about what people do with their devices just because gaming companies make lots of money.
If games are subjective and the picture quality is indistinguishable from the competition, what could the point possibly be? Except to name off an app that evidently doesn't exist but would demand that much power.
GG mentioned it. But never mind. Your responses to GG and Morgle in this thread (despite your own incitement) are less than adequate. The examples provided by GG and Morgle are VALID, because those are the ones which are COMMONLY used. If you want to choose a NICHE application for comparison, then you have to "admit" that ALL the ADDITIONAL power that Apple's A series processors is useful for a small set of NICHE users ONLY.
The specific App examples that you gave in one of your comments (video encoding, complex spreadsheet, audio mixing etc) would have come up in the TOP 10 most APPS used list if they are used by "majority" of the users. They are NOT used by majority of the people (I am talking about iPhone users only), hence they are not coming up in the TOP 10 or 100 most frequently used Apps.
Either you have to admit the A series processors performance has reached a "niche" category - much like 18 core Xeon processors in the iMac Pro that is needed only by a small sub segment of Mac owners Vs iMacs with i5/i7 (in mobile terms, the snapdragons and exynos would fit that category) satisfying the needs of common people. Is an 18 core Xeon processor much more powerful than quad core i7? Of course, Yes. Does everyone NEED it? Absolutely NO. Only a small set of niche users need that 18 core Xeon processor.
OR
prove that it is useful for "generic" users with "generic" App/Game examples.
My guess is that for huge usage periods, the performance cores remain idle.
I agree with Gatorguy that I would never spend long periods of time doing photo editing on a phone.
Speed stopped being a deal-breaker in the mid tiers a few years ago. I haven't seen anyone complain about it. That said, things get faster. However, should anyone with an A11 rush out and get a new phone just to have more speed? No. And they don't. Upgrade cycles for iPhones are slowing. People are sticking with their iPhones and (and old processors) for years and not worrying about it.
'Slower' can still mean 'fast' and clearly does for the vast majority of users. In fact, millions of Android users upgraded to ultra premium phones this year and got far more out of the deal than with any iPhone currently available.
That's because processor cores are less important now than before. Far less important.
Weak sauce.
The only important issue is that Apple silicon gives its devices an additional year, or more, of performance advantage versus comparable releases of Android OS devices. For a smartphone market that is flat, and for customers that are keeping there devices longer, that is invariably an advantage for Apple; it builds user base.
To date, I haven't seen any developer state that they had enough performance, memory, storage, battery life, or thermal cooling, available in a smartphone to accomplish what they need to in their market niche. Given that anecdotal evidence is that iPhone X series gives equal or better frame rate and visual quality for the cross platform games that have been compared on other devices using the Snapdragon 845, I'm not seeing that Google would do any better with the Pixel 3.
It's interesting that this particular AI thread has become a target for first time posters, unusually so, I might add.
Who knew that there were some many supporters of the Pixel in the wild.
Now, I can look forward to the release of the iPad Pro, a device that does in fact demonstrate that there is a continued desire for more performance, and a path to delivering that with new apps, on a platform that isn't x86/x64.
I would note that Apple's advantage in silicon is so vast, that Huawei, Samsung, and Google, are all in the race to build their own silicon. All of those companies are attempting to migrate their customers and their product lines to match Apple's marketing model, and all will fall short.
Well, I completely agree with this post from yours, compared to the previous ones which were debatable.
Edit: My mistake. Reading comprehension issues. I thought this was written by Ericthehalfbee, only to realize Avon B7.
In both cases by very short periods.
None of this admits discussion. The facts are too clear.
In fact both chips were rolling out of TSMC at the same time.
The Kirin 980 is great. Latest variants of virtually everything on board. Including the world's first mobile Cat 21 modem and in house designed ultra fast wi-fi chip.
Computational imaging is better and faster, so the user sees little latency in the capture of an HDR* portrait image. Tasks are initiated and completed faster, something that users notice; again the reduction in latency that give a better experience throughout the day.
The fact that iOS on the iPhone X models operates so smoothly is commonly mentioned in reviews, certainly a result of all those additional computations that are available to Apple and its developers.
I'm literally laughing at all of you that are downplaying performance as if it isn't relevant to the user experience, all because the of lesser benchmarks of the Pixel.
If you are satisfied with less than optimal performance, then buy an older iPhone, or buy a flagship Android OS device like the Pixel, because it just doesn't matter to you.
For the rest of us that aspire to the smoothest user experience, those few hundred extra dollars are well spent.
Your milage evidently varies.