apple v. samsung

freerange said:

apple v. samsung said:

But we can wager in the next few months that it will get the update to marshmallow. I would love to have a discussion about this. I acknowledge Apple is better at updates. I also don't see that large of a problem on Android. Security updates are independent and are released monthly. Most SDK hooks are in play services. It is a problem in reality Google has done a phenomenal job breaking things out of Android to bypass the OEM and carriers. Remember we are comparing apples to oranges. Apple has a vertical intergration this is one of the benefits to that. Google has an open intergration this is one of the downsides to it. No matter what we compromise. With Nexus I don't have to compromise software.

"With Nexus I don't have to compromise software." Really? Apparently you do have to "update security every month". Laughable.... No, sad.

spheric said:

It is NOT the same, because that S5 Samsung CANNOT be updated to the latest OS - which is precisely the point of this article: people aren't upgrading to the latest Android versions! 

It would be similar if that 5s still sold today were only upgradeable to iOS 8 (though Android L was replaced by M six months earlier than iOS 9 was released).

tmay said:

melgross said:

Perhaps writers should stop having Apple as the cause of everything that happens. Even before the slump Apple had this last quarter, iPhones composed just 16.3% of worldwide smartphone sales. Intel didn't look at that and decide to discontunue its products in the mobile area. They looked at Android device sales and the lack of movement there in the direction of x86 SoCs.

they also looked at the continuing drop in the sales of Win Phone , and area in which it looked as though x86 has a chance. And as the very first post here said, the M series chops are what Intel is pushing for tablets, such as the lower end Surface models, and light weight notebooks. No doubt, if there is an interest in it, we'll see an SoC with an M series chip.

It most certainly is an Apple story!

Apple was successful, derived most of the profits mobile and with those, created a SoC line around ARM that still defines the high end of mobile. I don't know what factor that Intel looked at, but I'd guess that they looked at their pathetic penetration in smartphones and tablets, and the fact that they couldn't compete.

Intel made a string of bad decisions beginning a decade ago, and did not or could not acknowledge that there was a mobile market for other than x86 processors. Apple's iPhone was the prototypical new device, followed by iPad, that did not require x86, and since Intel sold Xscale to Marvel, Intel was committed to a competitive low power processor family, Atom, that ultimately could not compete on price, power efficiency or performance with the rate of ARM advance, the choice of almost 100% of the mobile market, including ubiquitous Android devices.

Apple innovation drove the "ARM' race well past what Atom what able to deliver, so yeah, this is correctly an Apple story, and frankly, Intel's vaunted technical abilities haven't been a factor in that; they picked the wrong horse, same as MS.

Sucks to be Intel, but they have never been successful with any architecture other than x86 so why would we even expect them to be competitive in mobile? 

As for Core M, it's just going to drive x86 hybrids, and how's that working out?

tzeshan said:

crowley said:

By many accounts Google Now works better than Siri.  But you're right, it's not exactly the same, by virtue of not being the exact same thing, so I guess you win.

You missed my point.  Does Google Now works with Apple EarPods?  

Herbivore2 said:

Apple is the dominant computing hardware manufacturer period. At this point, Apple is leveraging that dominance to render the remaining competitors impotent. 

Samsung no longer builds the SoC for the iPad and is losing the iPhone business completely. That move will cripple Samsung's ability to compete with TSMC with respect to the development of advanced CPU manufacturing processes. TSMC is threatening to blow open the race with Apple's considerable help. 

QCOM has partnered with Samsung, but is on the verge of losing Apple's considerable business in supplying modems for the iPhone. That move will cripple QCOM's ability to design advanced smartphone SOCs.  

Very soon, the differences with respect to iPhone and Android hardware are going to become far more apparent. 

It will result in Android OEMs getting SOCs that are a generation old or potentially even more as Apple seems to be putting the one generation old SOCs into the Apple TV. 

Google might be able to beat Amazon in getting an AI/ML process out to the market, although Amazon has already gained a considerable head start with echo and Alexa. It won't ultimately make any difference. 

Google seems to recognize the fact that they need to tie themselves to the iPhone in order to remain relevant and successful. However, the feeling does not appear to be mutual. Apple still isn't pre-installing any Google apps on iOS. A long time ago, YouTube did come pre-installed. Amazon and Microsoft are also gravitating to the platform. Samsung may release the Gear with iPhone compatibility also. 

Soon it will be able about getting the eyes of the iPhone users. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out. 

williamlondon said:

apple v. samsung said:

I personally don't mind. Example I am considering getting a truck and me and a friend have been emailing each other about this. If I start getting adds for manual transmission trucks nearby I am happy and it makes it easier for me to research. I don't think some nerf is readinitmy email I know the computer hit key words for truck and manual transmission.

Yeah, because 1) we all know how honest advertisers are, and 2) nothing says comprehensive research like being guided to a specific place of business (so they can sell you *their* wares) by grabbing your attention to the exclusion of the rest of what's out there in the market.

This attitude also, I'm sorry I'm not meaning to offend, but I see it all the time - it's a form of intellectual apologism. It's always "the other guy who falls prey to their [manipulative] tactics, not me" false belief. Someone has to pay for all those ads, it's just ironic how often it's the *other* guy. And of course that's not a problem because *other people* falling prey to their manipulations is okay, right? ;-)

Personally, I'm not someone who agrees any reason either justifies a violation of anyone's privacy [by scanning private communications] or provides them a right to attempt to manipulate someone in their purchase decisions in the first place [via advertising]. I'm constantly amazed, though, how many are absolutely fine with it.

bkkcanuck said:

apple v. samsung said:

I think it's insulting for Microsoft to go so low. Apple is 5gb yes. But on the other end of the spectrum you have google with 15gb and free video and photo storage. Apple should anounce at MWC this year that they are upping there free tier to compete with Google or passing them. At worst they could do it based off of active iDevices and macs. For every 5gb on your idevice 1gb of storage, every 25gb Mac 1gb of storage.


(Que: but but Google sales you idiot post)

Google makes money from your data, Apple has committed to that your data is your data and it will not use it for other purposes.

I find it funny that people think companies owe them free stuff.  "Free" stuff is often not so free (you are selling your personal information to advertisers) or it is buried in the cost of something else (like telco's "free" telephone under contract).  The small initial amount is really just a taster, give you a taste hoping that you will opt to buy in (common advertising practice).