- Last Active
The phones are not 2017 "flagship" caliber. Yet they went up $50 on their base model. They have horrifically large bezels that I was complaining about last year. It's really uncomfortable on the Plus models. They've been rumored to go to OLED for years now, and yet couldn't get their supply chain ready in time, so we're back to LCD. There's just too many OLED phones on the market and most of them are incredible displays with super thin bezels. Their stupid obnoxious tween marketing for things like animojis and studio mode are not going to get people rushing in line for these things.
Apple still has the best OS on the market, the best CPU under the hood, and a lot of nifty hardware advantages like Taptic, 3D Touch. They've made some ridiculous hardware decisions over the past two years that have been costly to their customers, and maybe this is the year it will bite them in the ass.
sog35 said:SpamSandwich said:Probably well designed, but there's really no excuse for Nintendo to not have nearly their entire back catalog on iOS by now. They must really hate to make money.
Which is DUMB. Nintendo has been horrible with hardware since the N64. Plus hardware is a massively risky model. They could easily transfer that risk to Nintendo.
What Nintendo needs is an incentive to move exclusively to iOS/TVOS. Cook needs to write a BILLION check to Nintendo. He makes the offer and the shareholders will pressure Nintendo to sign.
Cook needs to present Nintendo with a $1 Billion check for exclusive rights to Nintendo's classic games.
On top of that, we don't actually know the valuation of Nintendo's classics as an exclusivity deal. Nintendo's classics are regularly sold in their 3DS eshop, their Wii U eshop and are now bundled into hardware like the NES Mini that is sold out everywhere. What kind of revenue stream those classics provide, and the value of keeping them exclusive to Nintendo systems is unknown.
It's a reality fans have to accept. If you want Nintendo's best, you buy their hardware. Besides the Switch looks pretty cool.
NY1822 said:nothing more personal than knowing the person you are texting is choosing from 3 bland responses to your text message...
apple ][ said:anantksundaram said:And everybody condescendingly bloviates that "fake news" is an affliction of Trump supporters (which, of course, it is).... No, it's endemic. It's all around us, from both the Right and the Left.
When I hear the term 'fake news', I immediately think of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, New York Times etc. The mainstream media is the #1 culprit behind fake, BS news and lies.
I find it funny that those same outlets are now worried about so-called 'fake news'. They can all kiss my ass. They're not needed anymore, and their game is up. The charade is over, they can all go to hell, or even better, they can go out of business, and then go to hell.
I'm sure Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush would be proud.
MacPro said:No in depth rebuttal in defense of Google so far. Gatorguy must have the night off.
Sounds to me like Google and Apple are playing to their strengths. The interesting question is if Apple's hardware advantage continues to be meaningful in 5 years. That's not being antagonistic towards the iPhone, as I think iPhones right now are in the best place they've ever been when it comes to just straight up hardware prowess. The iPhone X will be an amazing showcase for Apple's design team.
As some people have said though, we're asking our phones questions more and more. Our phones are becoming less computers where our fingers are the mouse, and more A.I. that responds to needs as we ask them, or simply by gazing at the environment through passive noise, or cameras pointed at something. This is something that doesn't necessarily demand an A11 Bionic, or a Taptic system under the hood. All awesome hardware advantages now.
I love my iPhone 7, but I don't love Siri. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem every year. I've used Google Assistant, and on Android it's becoming an increasing advantage. Apple claims Siri is getting better every year, but until she can tap into the huge database of information Google has, it's always going fumble in many questions I ask on a daily basis. How long Apple can fall behind in this category is a much bigger deal than the widening lead they have in CPU benchmarks.
qwwera said:koop said:I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
The truth is that Google is far better at services. But Android itself is a major liability. Who in their right mind would spend what the Pixel costs with not just inferior specs, but running the liability that is Android. From a purely value equation, a consumer is risking their privacy, risk malware, and risk a purchase that will most likely not be kept up to date and abandoned in a a few short years as precedent has shown. And all in an uglier package.
Google is fantastic at services and will no doubt continue to exceed in that, but the vessels to their services in Android is a major problem. No amount of specs in hardware or free services will offset that fact for people who are willing to pay for a premium product. It HAS to be a premium product to have a premium asking price.
And those great Google service are also available in a truly premium product like the iPhone. So again, who in their right mind would pay a premium price for a second rate product?
As long as any device runs Android it is not a premium product, it will always be a second rate product. Look at Samsung, a company truly able to compete hardware wise with Apple, ...but their Galaxy line no matter how great their hardware, are always seen as second rate to the iPhone for that very fact. That it runs a second rate software. A shiny package can't change that.
Android looks destined to be an OS for a low margin, low cost commodity gadget than what Samsung or the Pixel pretend it to be.
I think we have a different interpretation of 2 years of guaranteed updates being short. Not as long as Apple, but not short.
We just have to disagree on Android being a second rate product. I'm reading into you saying that because iOS is exclusive to a phone, and Android is not, that the Pixel phone can not be considered a premium product. I think that interpretation is shallow as well.
I would listen to Sundar Pichai's at the beginning of the Pixel announcement to get some idea of why Google decided to release their own branded device.
I would also stress that Google Assistant will likely never be built into an iPhone in any meaningful way, just like Google Now isn't. Not until Apple opens up the ability to switch default voice assistant that also attaches to different APIs, until Apple is willing to let Google talk to different services, as well as replace functions Apple has under lock and key, they will continue making devices with their vision for information delivery and artificial intelligence.
I'm not entirely convinced it's going to help Apple, considering how hard it is to get your hands on an iPhone 7 Plus right now.
Google Pixel XL? Good chance they'll get a hefty sales boost.
michael scrip said:jonl said:
It's really very simple. Spotify, like Netflix and others, has its own billing department. It doesn't need Apple to facilitate charging for subscriptions. Their app should be able to send people to their web site to sign up just like when trying to use the app on a TV, BD player, etc.
The problem is, many users aren't aware of the rules. As I wrote earlier, Spotify has put out a sort of PSA, and I hope it educated a lot of people who Apple might otherwise have tricked into paying an exorbitant recurring tax to Apple. In fact, it did educate CNBC anchor Brian Sullivan, who stated at 2:44 EDT today that "he was one of the idiots who subscribed to Spotify through iTunes, and he's got to go back and fix that." Good for him!
The clapping seals supporting Apple in these threads are certainly concentrated here but few in number in the real world. Real people who hear about this are outraged and feel like idiots for paying Apple 30% more for nothing. They feel like Apple tricked them. Like Brian Sullivan, they're going to fix the problem.
Brian might feel like an idiot... but that was a decision made by Spotify. I'm sure he's not the only person who didn't know about the two different prices. But shame on Spotify for even putting their customers into this situation.
Netflix, on the other hand, charges the same in the App Store as they do on their website. They just eat that cost. I haven't heard Netflix complain about it in countless articles... so perhaps they realize this is the cost of doing business.
Lots and lots of bloviating by the Apple crowd as usual. Stinks when you have and twist and contort yourself to make an argument.
lkrupp said:I built my restaurant business from scratch with blood, sweat and tears. Now my competitor wants to set up shop in my restaurant and sell their food alongside mine thereby giving customers a choice. Choice is great for customers they say. And my competitor doesn’t want to pay any rent or utilities. I tell my competitor to go pound salt so they write a letter to a politician who is only too happy to warn me that my attitude is anti-competitive.
Amazon gets to choose which products they will sell in their online store and they DON’T sell the Apple TV. It’s banned. Why can’t Apple choose whose products it sells in its online store? Why is Amazon competitive and Apple is anti-competitive?
Why can’t GM sells it trucks on Ford’s showroom floors?
Apple of course just spouted a red herring as a response to Spotify and people think it was amazing. If Apple's device sales begin to nose dive, you better believe Google, Amazon, Spotify and service leaders will be waiting to hold their head underwater and help them to the grave that much quicker. This is the same shit that Microsoft pulled in the 90's except they didn't have as many clapping seals.