- avon b7
- Last Active
They have to try. That is clear, but Google is well out in front at the moment.
I went to a funeral yesterday up on the mountain. Google gave me directions for public transport right down to the unique identifier of the bus stop and the minutes to wait for the next bus. Updated in real time to reflect delays caused by traffic.
Apple also fell afoul to EU consumer watchdogs (Italy springs to mind) for not being clear with buyers of AppleCare. They were pushing a sale in store without making it clear that EU statutory rights gave them consumer a two-year guarantee from the start.
It's a logical (and correct) move and better late than never.
At this rate they could end up around three years late to market and going up against competing third or fourth generation integrated modems, but from a consumer perspective, performance isn't really that big of an issue (borne out by the intel experience) as long as the core technology is in the phone. Be it an on SoC Apple designed 5G multimode modem or a QC part which isn't on the SoC.
They will also have to make sure that the corresponding antennas do a great job too because antenna performance is important the user experience although most don't give it a second thought when buying a phone.
That's why the Mate 30 Pro 5G has 21 bleeding edge antennas in it. 14 alone for 5G, and antennas will be increasingly important as the industry moves to 5G.
A 5G Antenna white paper was officially released just two days ago at the Global Antenna Technology & Industry Forum held in Amsterdam.
Lots of focus on success in the C band and AI and beam forming. A new commercially deployed 5G milestone was hit recently in Switzerland:
It won't be easy in the time frame suggested here but I think designing an in-house modem makes sense in the long run.
avon b7 said:rogifan_new said:mubaili said:Apple must not talk itself into believing that it cannot gain more market share. It must act aggressively, speed up the cycle, and push more variety of devices, i.e., do what they have done to the iPad line up to the iPhone line up.
With the X I think Apple was testing how much of a price increase the market would bear (and the higher ASP would allow them to show revenue growth even when sales were flat to down). I think they got their answer. I’d be surprised if there are any price cuts this year and I’ll bet the XS gets removed from the lineup. But I don’t think we’ll see any price increases or storage configurations that push up the price. And I’ll bet we see Apple aggressively pushing trade-ins again.
The problem with this statement is that the iPhone X sold really well.
Apple never revealed any numbers beyond saying it was the most popular iPhone. It's all relative if the less popular iPhones weren't far behind iPhone X but didn't of course reach 'most popular' status. So, I think Apple made that claim for two or maybe three quarters and for the last quarter they said nothing.
That ties in with some analysts reporting at the time that iPhone X sales had dropped off faster than any other new release before it.
It was retired in the 2018 refresh and the first quarter of that cycle Apple issued a profit warning.
While we will probably never know all of what happened, it is very reasonable to speculate that the iPhone pool of purchasers simply ran out of 'financial steam' and sales dropped as a result.
Tim Cook said it sold well.
Your theories are irrelevant.
Tim Cook saying it 'sold well' doesn't say much. If you only release three phones a year (or only two, prior to the X) but ship over 200 million handsets, it likely that sold well could be applied to all of them.
What the OP was referencing was that overall, prices for new releases had gone up. As a result people bought those new releases in smaller numbers.
What I was referencing was an extension to that logic. That, at any given time, there are only so many people who can reach those high prices. Some of them probably bought the iPhone X and most of those left the group of potential buyers as a result. Others may have been able to afford one but didn't see enough value in the Xr, Xs lines so opted out.
It's possible that when the 2018 refresh occurred (with those prices) there were simply far fewer takers.
At first Apple upped the promotion of financing deals on top of the regular upgrade/trade in offers.
As they went 'all hands' just before Christmas, they went one step further and introduced new trade in deals with bigger discounts and put them on the front page of the Apple websites. Originally they were called 'limited time' promotions. The last time I checked, they were still on the front page.
That tells us a lot about expectations and sales even in the absence of official numbers.
And if you want to quote Tim Cook, remember it was him who said Apple had miscalculated.
IMO, they miscalculated on various aspects and price was just one of them
nunzy said:This is why the devs always come out with the iOS version of an app before they come out with the Android version, and lots of them never even bother to make an Android version.And the iOS version is always much better quality than the Android version.Android cannot survive much longer. They tried to kill the iPhone, but they failed.
That should have put you on alert.
However, you jumped in and used it four times in three very short paragraphs!
This piece isn't really about Android. It is about the Google Play store. When it says the Google Play Store isn't available in China but the App Store is, didn't it occur to you that removing China from any smartphone tally would seriously distort the numbers?
The linked article only compares Google's and Apple's stores. It doesn't compare Android with iOS in any meaningful way.
In 2016, non-Play Store Android app revenue was sitting at 10 billion dollars. In 2017 it was expected to double and combined Android app at revenues were expected to surpass Apple App Store revenue:
Now, I don't know the figures for the first half of 2018 for combined Android app store revenue nor the Apple figures without the China numbers but if you want a meaningful platform comparison, the numbers really should take Apple's China revenues off the total or add non-Play Store Android app revenue onto the total.
So Apple gets a media storm, memes, countless hate videos for less than 1% bent iPhones while Samsung gets away with 100% defected bent phones that break?
No. In a word.
Samsung didn't ship any and 100% didn't break. Also, if they are near ready to launch it is probably that the fixes were minor. Probably important but minor.
We'll now have to wait for the new official date.
Still a PR disaster but the phone itself might not be as much of a hardware failure as some thought. When it reaches users, we'll know soon enough.
supadav03 said:rogifan_new said:All 3 lenses on Huawei P20 have OIS. Wonder if this will be the same with the next iPhone. The P20 camera is getting really good reviews.
I was holding off on any opinion until the first reviews appeared (as opposed to hands on) and they are now appearing.
All of them put the P20 Pro triple camera front and foremost and agree that it is taking photos that simply aren't achievable on any other phones (Huawei Mate RS excepted of course). That, coupled with the versatility of the three camera set-up.
Some don't like the post processing on the 'mode' shots but that can be disabled or you can shoot RAW if you prefer.
So far, it seems to have been well worth the effort. Not sure if we'll see triple front facing cameras but dualies already exist.
Stopped reading after this:
"Cook didn't even mention the millions of Huawei Androids that were diverted from Western markets to the domestic Chinese market in a desperate rash of discounting promotions this year. That's pretty clearly because Huawei's phones are not being sold to iPhone users, despite the constant insistence that Huawei is somehow pushing Apple out of business in China, when clearly that's not the case. "
Please provide supporting links to back this claim up.
As for the supposed claim by certain watchers that Apple wouldn't be able to shift X series phones, why did Apple pay a 'penalty' clause to Samsung for not reaching the contracted orders for displays?
Clearly someone got their estimates very, very wrong.
There's no getting away from it. This is cutting edge technology and it doesn't matter how it plays out - today - from a technology perspective. This is first generation. A necessary first step. If there are to be more steps in this area, it will be thanks to these phones, both in terms of technology improvements and for price.
Lessons will be learnt and we will all benefit.
Right now, these phones are only for those who have $2,000 of readily disposable income and I mean truly disposable. I very much doubt that any of the first gen Fold buyers are looking at a two year upgrade. They will upgrade as soon as there is a new one.
Many of the people in this thread are almost willing it to fail. I prefer to at least give the thing a chance. I think we all should.
With the release of the iPhone X I suggested this same solution but with existing technology. It meant taking the notch elements out of the screen and placing them in a tiny hump (like the Pismo curves) at the top of the phone. If the elements can be miniaturised to eliminate the hump, it's another way to succeed in getting them out of the screen.
I've always loved the Pismo curves, though (but hated the clamshell shape).