iPhone 11 is far from X. OLED and 3D Touch are gone. A13 is a minor twist on A12 which itself was a 7nm shrink of the A11 Bionic in the X. Apple is doing a great job at stripping features and standing still in certain areas to let costs come down.
First of all, not sure why you're comparing iPhone 11 with X? iPhone 11 is positioned the same as the iPhone 8 of that generation, and iPhone XR of from last year.
The article is comparing iPhone 11 to X. Just read the first few words after the headline. That is why.
If Apple had raised prices the other day we’d be getting an “editorial” about how what matters is profit share not market share and if people want cheap they should buy an Android. That’s why you can’t take DED’s “editorials” seriously. He’s like Lou Dobbs on Fox Business shilling for whatever position Trump has taken on the day.
I'm sorry you have self-esteem problems. Maybe talk to a therapist rather than smear hateful rants on a blog.
Well, I was going to say that "hateful" was an over-the-top word choice...but for cripes sake he compared you to Lou Dobbs, a feeble-brained useless waste of carbon, water and oxygen, so OK, hateful it is.
No he’s exactly like Lou Dobbs or any of the other Trump flacks on Fox News.
“if it weren't for Apple selling price-insensitive early adopters on its most advanced tech each year, it simply wouldn't be possible for the company to keep reintroducing the same features a couple years later a prices anyone can afford.”
...this is exactly right.
It is in fact completely wrong from a technology perspective.
How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?
All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.
The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway.
On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.
I would say you can compare Mac Pro and iPhone. The first iPhone didn't have Retina, didn't have 3G or 4G, a giga display, multi lenses, memory, storage, or the CPU/GPU power of the current models. But the cost was the same as for an iPhone XR. So how come the cost of a Pro desktop Mac has moved from $2000 to $6000?
Those two boxes are completely different animals. You are getting a thousand times the capability at today's $6000 compared to what you got at $2000 twenty or twenty-five years ago. Plus the obvious adjustment for inflation. How are you not seeing this?
No he’s exactly like Lou Dobbs or any of the other Trump flacks on Fox News.
So you don't dispute my characterization of Lou Dobbs.
So we just disagree with the approbation being applied to DED. Just seems a little bit on the angry side of an evaluation for no real reason, Information and entertainment, guy. Nobody's puppy got kicked.
“if it weren't for Apple selling price-insensitive early adopters on its most advanced tech each year, it simply wouldn't be possible for the company to keep reintroducing the same features a couple years later a prices anyone can afford.”
...this is exactly right.
It is in fact completely wrong from a technology perspective.
How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?
All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.
The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway.
On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.
Um, theft? Oh, and a TON of state-sponsored support?
But DED made the most cogent point, which you've glossed over. Apple only makes cutting edge devices, in huge numbers. Not only does that give them the lion's share of profit, but it sets it up, as DED clearly pointed out, for that cutting edge tech to seep downward in price and availability.
Start looking at the really important metric, installed base, and you MAY figure out what's really happening. Although somehow I doubt it....
“if it weren't for Apple selling price-insensitive early adopters on its most advanced tech each year, it simply wouldn't be possible for the company to keep reintroducing the same features a couple years later a prices anyone can afford.”
...this is exactly right.
It is in fact completely wrong from a technology perspective.
How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?
All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.
The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway.
On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.
Um, theft? Oh, and a TON of state-sponsored support?
But DED made the most cogent point, which you've glossed over. Apple only makes cutting edge devices, in huge numbers. Not only does that give them the lion's share of profit, but it sets it up, as DED clearly pointed out, for that cutting edge tech to seep downward in price and availability.
Start looking at the really important metric, installed base, and you MAY figure out what's really happening. Although somehow I doubt it....
Yes. I largely agree with that observation (apart from the first two lines, eh!). I was taking issue the 'most advanced technology technology...' claim and it not being possible without those price insensitive consumers.
This may be thr most hypocritical article I've ever read. On 8/28 the same author posted this about night sight on Android phones:
What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around 6 seconds
14 days ago that was posted to discount the value of the night sight feature. Now in this article he praises the new iPhone for taking a night sight photo in around 5 seconds.
The quote here is taken out of context. The fact it takes 6 seconds is not the main point. It is not even close to the main point. The main point about night mode with Google Pixel and Huawei Honor in that DED article (link below) is that it doesn't actually work very well, and results in fake-looking pictures if you are photographing anything other than still life images.
So when Apple introduces this capability, it uses an image of a person. iPhone does it better. This is pretty much exactly the point of DED's prediction article from August 28 -- the iPhone 11 will advance Apple's lead in mobile imaging. True to form, Apple now does night mode better than the competition.
Google used an image of a person when they introduced night sight. They even used giant billboards with a person specifically advertising night sight. Do you always make up crap out of thin air?
This may be thr most hypocritical article I've ever read. On 8/28 the same author posted this about night sight on Android phones:
What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around 6 seconds
14 days ago that was posted to discount the value of the night sight feature. Now in this article he praises the new iPhone for taking a night sight photo in around 5 seconds.
The quote here is taken out of context. The fact it takes 6 seconds is not the main point. It is not even close to the main point. The main point about night mode with Google Pixel and Huawei Honor in that DED article (link below) is that it doesn't actually work very well, and results in fake-looking pictures if you are photographing anything other than still life images.
So when Apple introduces this capability, it uses an image of a person. iPhone does it better. This is pretty much exactly the point of DED's prediction article from August 28 -- the iPhone 11 will advance Apple's lead in mobile imaging. True to form, Apple now does night mode better than the competition.
You need to read the comments on his pieces to get a better idea of what is real and what is twisted. Many of us have actually stopped reading them as they lack any balance and often credibility.
You have highlighted a good example and you are rehashing what was said in that article but what was claimed wasn't presented correctly. In fact the claims you are making (that came from that article) are incorrect as a result.
Please read the comments on that piece where I specifically quoted the article he linked to.
But none of that changes the fact that gregjaehn3's drive-by influencer post was disingenuous at best.
I followed up your other point and you are correct, as you know. DED did completely misrepresent what Joshua Swingle said. It's not defensible, but I will point out that his basic prediction in that article, that the iPhone 11 Pro would keep Apple out in front with respect to mobile imaging, was accurate. It's just that he missed an easy way to gauge Apple's responsiveness and agility in the marketplace by not asking the obvious question at that point: Will iPhone 11 have night mode? I mean, it's obviously something people want in the real world. For Apple to maintain their lead, they would have to catch up there. It seems they did. So good for them!
So in his defense, I'll say that it is hard to do what he does. In retrospect it is obvious that Apple needed to respond to night mode. But in real time, it's not so easy to be clear-headed and think things completely through. You have a deadline and you go with what you've got. You don't get a do-over.
I haven't read the thread you refer to, but I'll say in general that the arrogance of many commenters is astounding. I don't mean you, not necessarily. I just mean it's hard to stay on top of all this and also see the big picture. You're going to make mistakes. That said, it doesn't excuse what Daniel did there.
How was it disingenuous? It was a completely fair and valid point.
This may be thr most hypocritical article I've ever read. On 8/28 the same author posted this about night sight on Android phones:
What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around 6 seconds
14 days ago that was posted to discount the value of the night sight feature. Now in this article he praises the new iPhone for taking a night sight photo in around 5 seconds.
The quote here is taken out of context. The fact it takes 6 seconds is not the main point. It is not even close to the main point. The main point about night mode with Google Pixel and Huawei Honor in that DED article (link below) is that it doesn't actually work very well, and results in fake-looking pictures if you are photographing anything other than still life images.
So when Apple introduces this capability, it uses an image of a person. iPhone does it better. This is pretty much exactly the point of DED's prediction article from August 28 -- the iPhone 11 will advance Apple's lead in mobile imaging. True to form, Apple now does night mode better than the competition.
You need to read the comments on his pieces to get a better idea of what is real and what is twisted. Many of us have actually stopped reading them as they lack any balance and often credibility.
You have highlighted a good example and you are rehashing what was said in that article but what was claimed wasn't presented correctly. In fact the claims you are making (that came from that article) are incorrect as a result.
Please read the comments on that piece where I specifically quoted the article he linked to.
Avon your comments are drifting toward abusive, you need to check yourself.
There is no twisting, and repeatedly implying that I'm lying to confuse people is just reprehensible. You should apologize and stop doing this. It's really ugly.
I stated that Dark Mode was overblown as a feature because 1) it requires special conditions and holding the camera still for several seconds (~6 sec, I linked to an Android blog as the source of that comment) 2) it's not a feature people use frequently, because in low lighting it often makes more sense to use a flash than hold the camera still 3) it's clearly not a feature that singularly sold Pixel cameras- despite massive MASSIVE hype, Pixel sales were an inconsequential rounding error, and sales decreased this year from a super low starting point. Google wasn't building up a base over time based on all this camera hype, despite lying to investors in its conference call that Pixel just needed a year to two to gain traction.
On iPhone 11, while I haven't really tested it in detail, the feature looks like its doing less overprocessing. Pixel renders its effects, like single lens Portrait, using ML algos that often result in fake-looking shots. That's not my original, exclusive opinion. Again it's what android fan bloggers write.
You can lie up and down that I'm twisting facts but there's nothing to twist. Here I only stated that Apple erased what had been an exclusive feature on Pixel and Honor phones, and that's absolutely correct. And it appears Apple's version of this is better, which is to be expected because Apple has better ISP silicon, more and better lenses, and wasn't rushing out a feature to have some exclusive to use against a competitor with an all-around better photography experience, which includes video.
You lost us when you claimed "The reality is right now, there aren’t a lot of people who will be willing to pay $1k for a smartphone, whether it’s Apple or Samsung. " Newsflash, OVER A HUNDRED MILLION people worldwide have bought one of Apple's $1K phones, and this year TENS of MILLIONS more will buy one. Other than hundreds of millions, you're right, not many people. LOL.
And elsewhere on the fake news front, more people continue to switch to iPhone from Android, then the other way around as you claim.
Don't forget that that is over a hundred million but out of 1.5 billion sold in just 2018.
Seen in context, it isn't a lot.
How are you calculating the switchers to iOS and vice versa?
This is false too. Apple sold more than half of its +200M iPhones in 2017 as the $999 and up X. There's also another year you're forgetting about where it sold another nearly 100M iPhone XS models at or above $999. This is the third year of selling +$999 phones, with other models like the XR not terribly far behind. That's close to a quarter billion ~$999 phones. So he's right: you're way off base and misrepresenting reality to repeat this false idea that Apple didn't sell many or that few customers "could afford" or wanted a $999+ phone.
And in fact, a $999 phone that lasts 3 years, gets updated for 5 and has a substantial resale value is far more cost-effective than a $300 Android that barely gets 18 months of support and is nearly worthless second hand. Look at all these young people who don't have lots of money but carry an X or better iPhone. It's absurd to suggest what you're repeating. It's purely false.
Quite the opposite. I have always pointed out how much Apple depended on iPhone and how that was potentially dangerous for the company and why.
I don't understand how you can say I 'always' fail to note that iPhone is less than half of Apple's business when that is something that has only just happened and surely will rebound over the Christmas quarter. We will see what happens after that.
Also, I have periodically made it clear that I refer to the iPhone as a business within Apple. The focus has been on that precisely because it made up a huge chunk of Apple's business (and still does).
That doesn't mean I don't comment on other aspects, I do, but iPhone remains a key focus point on all things Apple.
Again as ridiculous as saying that Google and Facebook are "dangerously dependent" on ads. Absolute nuttery.
Great article. One correction: the iPhone 11 price starts at $699 with 64GB, not $650.
I'm to busy rolling on the floor to read this now. DED spends years saying apple shouldn't lower prices on their phones and now he flips his tune. I really believe that this was written up before the unveiling and he just copied and pasted and then posted this editorial with the $650 price point. I think he's just like PRAVDA arguing for what ever the Communist party says NOW ignoring what they wrote the week before. LMAO. Now I am glad that Apple responded and lowered prices $50 (not the pre-imagined $100) .
I'm looking forward to the tear-down video from iFixit. I'll buy the iPhone when the QualComm chip is back in it. Hopefully this year, maybe next at the latest. I expect when the QualComm chip is back in it DED will pull another 180 and write a pro QC article.
If Apple had raised prices the other day we’d be getting an “editorial” about how what matters is profit share not market share and if people want cheap they should buy an Android. That’s why you can’t take DED’s “editorials” seriously. He’s like Lou Dobbs on Fox Business shilling for whatever position Trump has taken on the day.
I'm sorry you have self-esteem problems. Maybe talk to a therapist rather than smear hateful rants on a blog.
You regularly write hateful editorials attacking other journalists. You're the BreitBart of tech media. If you can't handle a few comments from him I think you should see a therapist.
Great article. One correction: the iPhone 11 price starts at $699 with 64GB, not $650.
I'm to busy rolling on the floor to read this now. DED spends years saying apple shouldn't lower prices on their phones and now he flips his tune. I really believe that this was written up before the unveiling and he just copied and pasted and then posted this editorial with the $650 price point. I think he's just like PRAVDA arguing for what ever the Communist party says NOW ignoring what they wrote the week before. LMAO. Now I am glad that Apple responded and lowered prices $50 (not the pre-imagined $100) .
I'm looking forward to the tear-down video from iFixit. I'll buy the iPhone when the QualComm chip is back in it. Hopefully this year, maybe next at the latest. I expect when the QualComm chip is back in it DED will pull another 180 and write a pro QC article.
Not remotely true. I didn't write Apple shouldn't have lower prices. I've pretty consistently stated that when you introduce technology at a higher end point you have room to bring the price down as you mass-produce it, via economies of scale. That's what I wrote here.
The alternative is bringing middling tech to market at low prices that can't drop, and will be obsolete before they can be resold for any lower, ie Pixel.
I never before read an article from you where you said "Apple should lower prices back down $50 - $100 because the main stream price point has created up over the last 5-6 years" Lowering the price $50 doesn't in anyway imply that it will be "middling tech" like the Pixel - of course my two friends who switched to the Pixel love theirs despite that fact that I told them that even a lot of the Android Press criticized the Pixel. I believe that Apple can be make even a less expensive phone for $399 that is very good quality and better value. I know because they are mostly smart guys.
So where is the New Apple TV box and where is the new Game Controller from Apple? Why isn't there an article attacking Apple. (Or is the real back story that Apple has done a lot of work on a AR/VR entertainment system that Cook pulled within the last week because he didn't want another AirPower disappointment and just want to make sure everything is more than perfect.
2019, iPhone 11 $699, 2018, iPhone XR $749 ... $50 dollars cheaper, explain what was stripped to bring that cost down?
Nothing was stripped. China devalued their currency in response to Trump's Tariffs. Now Apple can buy the phone cheaper from FoxConn. Apple is passing that savings on to stimulate sells as the economy appears to be going into a slow down.
“if it weren't for Apple selling price-insensitive early adopters on its most advanced tech each year, it simply wouldn't be possible for the company to keep reintroducing the same features a couple years later a prices anyone can afford.”
...this is exactly right.
It is in fact completely wrong from a technology perspective.
How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?
All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.
The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway.
On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.
If there is a recession on the way, and I think that there is evidence of that, there is going to be a absolute race to the bottom in pricing by the various Android OS device makers. Worse, there will be a general overproduction by device makers thinking that they will win the market on volume sales.
Apple gains volume sales from a limited offering of current models, iPhone 11, 11 Pro, and 11 Pro Max, that share most of the same BOM. The rest are previous models, currently the Xr, 8, and 8 Plus.
Just 6 models.
Apple sells 180m to 210m iPhones a year with an iPhone user base of about a billion. That's about a 5 year lifecycle for an iPhone. Historically, about 70% of those sales are of the current models, which is about 125m.
I would say you can compare Mac Pro and iPhone. The first iPhone didn't have Retina, didn't have 3G or 4G, a giga display, multi lenses, memory, storage, or the CPU/GPU power of the current models. But the cost was the same as for an iPhone XR. So how come the cost of a Pro desktop Mac has moved from $2000 to $6000?
Those two boxes are completely different animals. You are getting a thousand times the capability at today's $6000 compared to what you got at $2000 twenty or twenty-five years ago. Plus the obvious adjustment for inflation. How are you not seeing this?
You don't see the difference in features between an iPhone 1 and 11? Or the first Ti Book and the latest Retina TouchBar monster? In both cases the price hasn't moved. So what happened on the desktop? Or perhaps more interesting based on the article - can Apple do for the Mac as they have for the iPhone? Can Apple make a Mac XR?
I would say you can compare Mac Pro and iPhone. The first iPhone didn't have Retina, didn't have 3G or 4G, a giga display, multi lenses, memory, storage, or the CPU/GPU power of the current models. But the cost was the same as for an iPhone XR. So how come the cost of a Pro desktop Mac has moved from $2000 to $6000?
Those two boxes are completely different animals. You are getting a thousand times the capability at today's $6000 compared to what you got at $2000 twenty or twenty-five years ago. Plus the obvious adjustment for inflation. How are you not seeing this?
You don't see the difference in features between an iPhone 1 and 11? Or the first Ti Book and the latest Retina TouchBar monster? In both cases the price hasn't moved. So what happened on the desktop? Or perhaps more interesting based on the article - can Apple do for the Mac as they have for the iPhone? Can Apple make a Mac XR?
Sure, Apple could make a Mac XR, whatever that would be, though I don't know of any marketing reason that would make sense.
I had an 128 Mac, with a resolution of 512 x 342 which I purchase in early 1984.
I currently have a first generation iMac 5K that I paid about the same price for as the 128k, some 30 years later.
Resolution increase of 84.2X, among other things.
Case made; Apple did in fact do the same thing for the Mac as the iPhone.
\What you want, is a modern Mac IICX, which was $5,369 in 1989, and was the "small and cheap" Mac Ii. So I'm guessing that you just want aa a compact Mac Pro that's cheaper.
This may be thr most hypocritical article I've ever read. On 8/28 the same author posted this about night sight on Android phones:
What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around 6 seconds
14 days ago that was posted to discount the value of the night sight feature. Now in this article he praises the new iPhone for taking a night sight photo in around 5 seconds.
The quote here is taken out of context. The fact it takes 6 seconds is not the main point. It is not even close to the main point. The main point about night mode with Google Pixel and Huawei Honor in that DED article (link below) is that it doesn't actually work very well, and results in fake-looking pictures if you are photographing anything other than still life images.
So when Apple introduces this capability, it uses an image of a person. iPhone does it better. This is pretty much exactly the point of DED's prediction article from August 28 -- the iPhone 11 will advance Apple's lead in mobile imaging. True to form, Apple now does night mode better than the competition.
You need to read the comments on his pieces to get a better idea of what is real and what is twisted. Many of us have actually stopped reading them as they lack any balance and often credibility.
You have highlighted a good example and you are rehashing what was said in that article but what was claimed wasn't presented correctly. In fact the claims you are making (that came from that article) are incorrect as a result.
Please read the comments on that piece where I specifically quoted the article he linked to.
Avon your comments are drifting toward abusive, you need to check yourself.
There is no twisting, and repeatedly implying that I'm lying to confuse people is just reprehensible. You should apologize and stop doing this. It's really ugly.
I stated that Dark Mode was overblown as a feature because 1) it requires special conditions and holding the camera still for several seconds (~6 sec, I linked to an Android blog as the source of that comment) 2) it's not a feature people use frequently, because in low lighting it often makes more sense to use a flash than hold the camera still 3) it's clearly not a feature that singularly sold Pixel cameras- despite massive MASSIVE hype, Pixel sales were an inconsequential rounding error, and sales decreased this year from a super low starting point. Google wasn't building up a base over time based on all this camera hype, despite lying to investors in its conference call that Pixel just needed a year to two to gain traction.
On iPhone 11, while I haven't really tested it in detail, the feature looks like its doing less overprocessing. Pixel renders its effects, like single lens Portrait, using ML algos that often result in fake-looking shots. That's not my original, exclusive opinion. Again it's what android fan bloggers write.
You can lie up and down that I'm twisting facts but there's nothing to twist. Here I only stated that Apple erased what had been an exclusive feature on Pixel and Honor phones, and that's absolutely correct. And it appears Apple's version of this is better, which is to be expected because Apple has better ISP silicon, more and better lenses, and wasn't rushing out a feature to have some exclusive to use against a competitor with an all-around better photography experience, which includes video.
There is nothing 'abusive' or even 'drifting towards' it in my comments. Zero. On the other hand, you have attacked posters in the past. I never do.
First off, some perspective. I mostly don't even read your articles. You lost credibility in my book too long ago and they are also too lengthy for my limited time. When I do read one I am often astounded by the skewed, twisted or just plain wrong information contained in them. Occasionally I will pick out a couple of examples and take issue with them the vast majority I just let go. Sometimes I comment on the comments.
When people start calling you a bitter fanboy and attacking you, you rarely see me jumping in. I understand an editorial gives writers a lot of slack and I honour that right to a personal opinion. Fair game, fair play and all that.
However, that said, you twist things to deliberately fit your own narrative. Yes, so much criticism of people's narratives and calling them 'pundits' when you yourself are a pundit (like all of us if you want to use that word) but you very much have a narrative.
The other day I simply pointed out via copy/paste what you had done. Your words against the words of the author you were referencing (and completely misrepresenting).
I largely left it for the reader to form their own opinion. Quite fair IMO.
No one accused you of lying.
For clarity here is what I put in that thread:
-------------------
This is from this article:
"What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around six seconds, and then often ultimately results in a fake-looking picture anyway, as noted by Joshua Swingle, writing up a comparison of the Huawei P30 Pro and iPhone XS Max for Phone Arena."
And this is from the linked article:
"The iPhone XS Max suddenly struggles to produce consistently good photos and the P30 Pro excels by combining four pixels into one, therefore producing a higher-quality 10-megapixel photo. It’s worth pointing out that the shots produced by Huawei’s phone can sometimes appear artificial but it’s still better than what Apple’s device can do.
If the Huawei P30 Pro’s standard night shots aren’t good enough, there’s also a dedicated Night Mode. This drastically increases the amount of light captured and can ultimately produce some incredible pictures that blow the iPhone out of the water. The only downside to this feature is that you need to hold the phone steady for around six seconds."
See the difference?
----------------
Ok. So let's look at where you twisted things to fit your own narrative which is sitting in the title of that article (and I let pass). Here it is:
Editorial: 'iPhone 11' design will advance Apple's mobile imaging lead
'Apple's mobile imaging lead'?
What lead? Optical zoom? No. Camera sensor and size? No. AI camera tech. No. Low light. No. Motion blur reduction? No. Noise reduction? No. Overall imaging versatility? No.
If Huawei and more recently Google and Samsung have stood out for anything it is the imaging advances and Apple hasn't made the same strides but suddenly you paint a picture of Apple already having a lead and not only that but extending it on a phone that hadn't even been released.
Did you ever admit that competitors were leading Apple in many areas regarding imaging?
So, onto what you said in the piece:
You said:
"What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around six seconds"
False. It only requires you to hold the camera still to capture the scene if you choose to enter Night Mode. Why? Because it is a long exposure mode that can be done handheld. This was literally impossible on an iPhone without a tripod. Huawei Night Mode uses the NPU based AIIS to all but eliminate handheld camera shake.
What seems to have gone completely over your head is that low light photography on phones like the P30 Pro is now so good that you don't have to enter Night Mode in the first place! That means that to get the shot, you are NOT required to hold the phone still for up to six seconds to capture the scene. For that to occur you would have chosen to enter Night Mode. Believe me, users without good low light capable cameras spend more than six seconds repeatedly trying to get a decent photo! But the actual seconds involved are totally irrelevant when the choices are getting the shot or not getting the shot. You should be able to grasp that. In that context the whole time situation is moot. And Night Mode can also be used to great effect in daylight!
"The beauty of P30 Pro is that everything happens in auto-mode. Users don’t need to switch to a dedicated mode (they rarely do). Also, P30 Pro can capture better photos than the Pixel 3’s night sight in a much shorter time (sub-second vs. 4-6 seconds), making it that much more natural as a point and shoot."
You said:
"then often ultimately results in a fake-looking picture anyway"
Really? 'Often'? 'fake-looking'? 'Anyway'?
No. He said 'sometimes' (not often), artificial (not fake) and 'anyway' doesn't even have a place here because he said (and very, very clearly):
"sometimes appear artificial but it’s still better than what Apple’s device can do."
So let's try to fit 'anyway' in there somehow, just for the heck of it.
"sometimes appear artificial but anyway it’s still better than what Apple’s device can do."
Yes, sometimes the results can look artificial, just like heaps of HDR photos can look artificial! But the reality is that this is personal preference and many actually prefer it that way. Like the Instagram crowd!
You deliberately twisted what was being said through omission and substitution. On top of being factually incorrect with the low light processing claims. You could have avoided that error by dedicating a little more effort to understand what you were trying to leave in poor light.
You are free to read my - very limited - criticism as unfair. That's your (and everybody else's call) but there is nothing reprehensible there.
If I post response to one of your articles (I often don't) it is to correct points and inject some balance into the discussion. In the past you have claimed you don't write to be balanced but accurate. Lately you haven't even been accurate but I let those pass as oversights (you got the iPhone 11 pricing wrong, you claimed Dark Mode instead of Night Mode here, errors in titles etc) unless there is something incorrect that isn't a simple oversight.
I think you have been overstretched with all the news lately.
DED IMHO has gone from commentator to Apple apologist.
I don’t remember the writer of Roughly Drafted turning a blind eye to Apple’s shortcomings.
The reality is right now, there aren’t a lot of people who will be willing to pay $1k for a smartphone, whether it’s Apple or Samsung. Just read some of the comments on sites that are reviewing the Samsung Note 10, especially the 5G version.
Apple had to do something to get more people to upgrade rather than hold on to their devices even longer. Dropping the price of the iPhone 11 $50 cheaper than the XR was a start, including a free year of Apple TV+ family helps, but there are still plenty of iPhone users who are not loyal to Apple and this is what affects the bottom line.
In the days days before the iPhone, Apple loyalists were the ones keeping Apple profitable, and in turn Apple made products we loved. Once the iPhone was released, people who never bought anything Apple were flashing their devices around as if they were a status symbol of their wealth, taste or intelligence. It’s popularity was it’s attraction, not it’s ease of use, or how powerful it can be.
Apple was addicted to the attention and started releasing more and more products that while were still attractive to Apple loyalists, they also had things that they didn’t like about them, like soldered memory and hard drives and plenty of quality programs that dealt with issues that Apple should have predicted. It didn’t affect sales, Apple was like a bear catching salmon during spawning season, it just can’t miss.
Now, people are still weary of trusting Apple after that stupid battery replacement program. They don’t want to upgrade for 1k or even $700. You can try to spin it and give the customer the monthly cost because that’s more palatable, but customers are not stupid. They played that game already with the carriers.
There are millions of iphone users who don’t really use their device to its potential and they are realizing that. This is why they are willing to abandon Apple and buy a cheap android phone.
So now Apple has to win their business all over again. Apple retail isn’t prepared to explain why an iPhone is better than other devices. They don’t have Apple loyalists as employees anymore, they have more people who think it’s cool to work there but don’t know enough about Apple products.
You lost us when you claimed "The reality is right now, there aren’t a lot of people who will be willing to pay $1k for a smartphone, whether it’s Apple or Samsung. " Newsflash, OVER A HUNDRED MILLION people worldwide have bought one of Apple's $1K phones, and this year TENS of MILLIONS more will buy one. Other than hundreds of millions, you're right, not many people. LOL.
And elsewhere on the fake news front, more people continue to switch to iPhone from Android, then the other way around as you claim.
Don't forget that that is over a hundred million but out of 1.5 billion sold in just 2018.
Seen in context, it isn't a lot.
How are you calculating the switchers to iOS and vice versa?
100 million is far more than a niche market and given the profit Apple makes on this “small” sales number, more than enough to move their capacity to scale new technologies and improvements to future devices, some of which will be lower cost.
Commodity devices do not advance the industry. Companies like Apple push the industry and over time these advancements make it into the commodity sector.
Comments
How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?
All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.
The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway.
On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.
So we just disagree with the approbation being applied to DED. Just seems a little bit on the angry side of an evaluation for no real reason, Information and entertainment, guy. Nobody's puppy got kicked.
But DED made the most cogent point, which you've glossed over. Apple only makes cutting edge devices, in huge numbers. Not only does that give them the lion's share of profit, but it sets it up, as DED clearly pointed out, for that cutting edge tech to seep downward in price and availability.
Start looking at the really important metric, installed base, and you MAY figure out what's really happening. Although somehow I doubt it....
There is no twisting, and repeatedly implying that I'm lying to confuse people is just reprehensible. You should apologize and stop doing this. It's really ugly.
I stated that Dark Mode was overblown as a feature because 1) it requires special conditions and holding the camera still for several seconds (~6 sec, I linked to an Android blog as the source of that comment) 2) it's not a feature people use frequently, because in low lighting it often makes more sense to use a flash than hold the camera still 3) it's clearly not a feature that singularly sold Pixel cameras- despite massive MASSIVE hype, Pixel sales were an inconsequential rounding error, and sales decreased this year from a super low starting point. Google wasn't building up a base over time based on all this camera hype, despite lying to investors in its conference call that Pixel just needed a year to two to gain traction.
On iPhone 11, while I haven't really tested it in detail, the feature looks like its doing less overprocessing. Pixel renders its effects, like single lens Portrait, using ML algos that often result in fake-looking shots. That's not my original, exclusive opinion. Again it's what android fan bloggers write.
You can lie up and down that I'm twisting facts but there's nothing to twist. Here I only stated that Apple erased what had been an exclusive feature on Pixel and Honor phones, and that's absolutely correct. And it appears Apple's version of this is better, which is to be expected because Apple has better ISP silicon, more and better lenses, and wasn't rushing out a feature to have some exclusive to use against a competitor with an all-around better photography experience, which includes video.
You also misrepresented tenthousandthings' comments, which were accurate. Stop being like this and just admit you are wrong and making false accusations.
And in fact, a $999 phone that lasts 3 years, gets updated for 5 and has a substantial resale value is far more cost-effective than a $300 Android that barely gets 18 months of support and is nearly worthless second hand. Look at all these young people who don't have lots of money but carry an X or better iPhone. It's absurd to suggest what you're repeating. It's purely false.
I never before read an article from you where you said "Apple should lower prices back down $50 - $100 because the main stream price point has created up over the last 5-6 years" Lowering the price $50 doesn't in anyway imply that it will be "middling tech" like the Pixel - of course my two friends who switched to the Pixel love theirs despite that fact that I told them that even a lot of the Android Press criticized the Pixel. I believe that Apple can be make even a less expensive phone for $399 that is very good quality and better value. I know because they are mostly smart guys.
So where is the New Apple TV box and where is the new Game Controller from Apple? Why isn't there an article attacking Apple.
(Or is the real back story that Apple has done a lot of work on a AR/VR entertainment system that Cook pulled within the last week because he didn't want another AirPower disappointment and just want to make sure everything is more than perfect.
Nothing was stripped. China devalued their currency in response to Trump's Tariffs. Now Apple can buy the phone cheaper from FoxConn. Apple is passing that savings on to stimulate sells as the economy appears to be going into a slow down.
Apple gains volume sales from a limited offering of current models, iPhone 11, 11 Pro, and 11 Pro Max, that share most of the same BOM. The rest are previous models, currently the Xr, 8, and 8 Plus.
Just 6 models.
Apple sells 180m to 210m iPhones a year with an iPhone user base of about a billion. That's about a 5 year lifecycle for an iPhone. Historically, about 70% of those sales are of the current models, which is about 125m.
I had an 128 Mac, with a resolution of 512 x 342 which I purchase in early 1984.
I currently have a first generation iMac 5K that I paid about the same price for as the 128k, some 30 years later.
Resolution increase of 84.2X, among other things.
Case made; Apple did in fact do the same thing for the Mac as the iPhone.
\What you want, is a modern Mac IICX, which was $5,369 in 1989, and was the "small and cheap" Mac Ii. So I'm guessing that you just want aa a compact Mac Pro that's cheaper.
Good luck on that.
First off, some perspective. I mostly don't even read your articles. You lost credibility in my book too long ago and they are also too lengthy for my limited time. When I do read one I am often astounded by the skewed, twisted or just plain wrong information contained in them. Occasionally I will pick out a couple of examples and take issue with them the vast majority I just let go. Sometimes I comment on the comments.
When people start calling you a bitter fanboy and attacking you, you rarely see me jumping in. I understand an editorial gives writers a lot of slack and I honour that right to a personal opinion. Fair game, fair play and all that.
However, that said, you twist things to deliberately fit your own narrative. Yes, so much criticism of people's narratives and calling them 'pundits' when you yourself are a pundit (like all of us if you want to use that word) but you very much have a narrative.
The other day I simply pointed out via copy/paste what you had done. Your words against the words of the author you were referencing (and completely misrepresenting).
I largely left it for the reader to form their own opinion. Quite fair IMO.
No one accused you of lying.
For clarity here is what I put in that thread:
-------------------
This is from this article:
"What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around six seconds, and then often ultimately results in a fake-looking picture anyway, as noted by Joshua Swingle, writing up a comparison of the Huawei P30 Pro and iPhone XS Max for Phone Arena."
And this is from the linked article:
If the Huawei P30 Pro’s standard night shots aren’t good enough, there’s also a dedicated Night Mode. This drastically increases the amount of light captured and can ultimately produce some incredible pictures that blow the iPhone out of the water. The only downside to this feature is that you need to hold the phone steady for around six seconds."
See the difference?
----------------
Ok. So let's look at where you twisted things to fit your own narrative which is sitting in the title of that article (and I let pass). Here it is:
Editorial: 'iPhone 11' design will advance Apple's mobile imaging lead
'Apple's mobile imaging lead'?
What lead? Optical zoom? No. Camera sensor and size? No. AI camera tech. No. Low light. No. Motion blur reduction? No. Noise reduction? No. Overall imaging versatility? No.
If Huawei and more recently Google and Samsung have stood out for anything it is the imaging advances and Apple hasn't made the same strides but suddenly you paint a picture of Apple already having a lead and not only that but extending it on a phone that hadn't even been released.
Did you ever admit that competitors were leading Apple in many areas regarding imaging?
So, onto what you said in the piece:
You said:
"What's often left out is the fact that the processing needed to deliver these low light images requires that users hold their phone still for around six seconds"
False. It only requires you to hold the
camera still to capture the scene if you choose to enter Night Mode. Why? Because it is a long exposure mode that can be done handheld. This was literally impossible on an iPhone without a tripod. Huawei Night Mode uses the NPU based AIIS to all but eliminate handheld camera shake.
What seems to have gone completely over your head is that low light photography on phones like the P30 Pro is now so good that you don't have to enter Night Mode in the first place! That means that to get the shot, you are NOT required to hold the phone still for up to six seconds to capture the scene. For that to occur you would have chosen to enter Night Mode. Believe me, users without good low light capable cameras spend more than six seconds repeatedly trying to get a decent photo! But the actual seconds involved are totally irrelevant when the choices are getting the shot or not getting the shot. You should be able to grasp that. In that context the whole time situation is moot. And Night Mode can also be used to great effect in daylight!
To make this crystal clear to you:
https://www.ubergizmo.com/articles/huawei-p30-pro-low-light-photo-tests/
"The beauty of P30 Pro is that everything happens in auto-mode. Users don’t need to switch to a dedicated mode (they rarely do). Also, P30 Pro can capture better photos than the Pixel 3’s night sight in a much shorter time (sub-second vs. 4-6 seconds), making it that much more natural as a point and shoot."
You said:
"then often ultimately results in a fake-looking picture anyway"
Really? 'Often'? 'fake-looking'? 'Anyway'?
No. He said 'sometimes' (not often), artificial (not fake) and 'anyway' doesn't even have a place here because he said (and very, very clearly):
"sometimes appear artificial but it’s still better than what Apple’s device can do."
So let's try to fit 'anyway' in there somehow, just for the heck of it.
"sometimes appear artificial but anyway it’s still better than what Apple’s device can do."
Yes, sometimes the results can look artificial, just like heaps of HDR photos can look artificial! But the reality is that this is personal preference and many actually prefer it that way. Like the Instagram crowd!
You deliberately twisted what was being said through omission and substitution. On top of being factually incorrect with the low light processing claims. You could have avoided that error by dedicating a little more effort to understand what you were trying to leave in poor light.
You are free to read my - very limited - criticism as unfair. That's your (and everybody else's call) but there is nothing reprehensible there.
If I post response to one of your articles (I often don't) it is to correct points and inject some balance into the discussion. In the past you have claimed you don't write to be balanced but accurate. Lately you haven't even been accurate but I let those pass as oversights (you got the iPhone 11 pricing wrong, you claimed Dark Mode instead of Night Mode here, errors in titles etc) unless there is something incorrect that isn't a
simple oversight.
I think you have been overstretched with all the news lately.
Commodity devices do not advance the industry. Companies like Apple push the industry and over time these advancements make it into the commodity sector.