Herbivore2

Google’s primary concern isn’t Apple Pay. It’s Samsung pay. Especially the ease of using Samsung pay from a Gear S3 smartwatch. None of the android wear watches even come close to the Samsung product. It’s a big problem for Google over the long term. Because Samsung is moving over to Tizen. 

Since the majority of people on the Android are using Samsung devices and therefore using Samsung pay, this is a big problem for Google. Especially with the paltry demand for the Pixel and the ongoing developments at Samsung which are beginning to rout the rest of the smartphone industry with respect to hardware. 

When google pay fails as it will because of Samsung’s dominance, Google will try to rebrand it again. Maybe Alphabet Pay?

Haibane said:

Lets see... so you're posting misinformation on at least two things.
Its 4GB not 3GB.
It does have OIS, in fact they spent a significant amount of time on that feature.
As a user of both phones, I find this to be a very difficult choice between the two.
You should really double check your sources cause they are wrong.

Where are you getting your information? Multiple websites and sources including the Android sites all state there is no optical image stabilization. You might be confusing electronic image stabilization which is a software feature and significantly inferior to OIS. In the real world, phones with OIS take much better pictures especially accounting for movement or low light situations. I have a 6S and I will wait for the 7S/8. I already have an Amazon echo and the Google assistant offers nothing that Alexa doesn't already provide. I don't use Siri these days as the latency is annoying and she does not recognize my words much of the time. I don't see Google assistant as being a killer app that drives adoption of the device. I see the product selling to a small group of Google enthusiasts while the vast majority of the public purchases less expensive Samsung and LG devices.

Apple will be moving their entire computing line up over to ARM CPUs. It's a no-brainer. 

Intel is stuck at 10 nm and TSMC is down to 5 nm. That is an enormous advantage that Intel cannot overcome. In any scenario, including their high end Xeon CPU lineup. If Apple decides to build a high performance server chip based on the ARM ISA and TSMC's processes, Intel's Xeon is toast. 

For laptops, ARM CPUs will decimate Intel's lineup. There was a very good reason Intel left the mobile CPU market. Apple's ARM units enable better performance, lower cost and better battery life than any portable Intel CPU. Especially with Intel stuck at 10 nm. And I will say it now. Intel will NOT leapfrog TSMC in Fabrication technology. Not going to happen. Take that one to the bank. And Apple's CPU design team is better than Intel's. That is a killer combination that Intel will never overcome. Ever. Intel will be lucky if they can stay competitive with AMD. In addition Intel's integrated graphics units perform abysmally. 

Moving the laptop lineup over to ARM is absolutely going to happen. Apple may continue to offer x86 based units for a time. But eventually, the entire line up will be moving. The market will decide that. Most people will take a higher performance ARM based laptop with better battery life and lower cost than an x86 based laptop where the only advantage is the ability to run Parallels, VMWare or Boot camp. 

Face the facts, the majority of computing is already done on ARM. Mostly on phones and tablets, but it is what it is. Developing for a single common CPU architecture makes more sense than doing so simultaneously for two platforms. One for x86 based Macbooks and Macs along with another for ARM based iphones and iPads not to mention all of the Android development going on exclusively for ARM. Android on x86 died years ago. 

I just don't see thunderbolt as being a problem with Intel open sourcing the technology. Apple could just adopt it or dust off FireWire again. 

Intel is one messed up company. But they were the ones that turned down Steve Jobs offer to build a CPU for the iPhone. They had no vision. Even after benefiting from Apple switching to x86 from PowerPC. But that's another story for another time. 

Apple is relentlessly pushing development of the ARM platform. Pushed more by Android, Samsung and Qualcomm to a far greater degree than Intel and Windows. But the gap is becoming ridiculous. It makes no sense to stay on x86 just for backwards compatibility when the advantages of ARM are superior in every other sense. And Apple is always focused on the future, not the past and backwards compatibility. Otherwise, we would still be using ADB based mice and SCSI interfaces. I personally would love an OS 10.6 upgrade for my dual G5 machine. But sadly it won't be forthcoming. Which means I will never get a USB3 interface. At least the G5 is far more secure hooked up to the internet running ten4fox than any Intel based Mac running Safari. I doubt that even the NSA is looking for zero day exploits on the PowerPC platform at this time. But that is also another discussion for another time.

Apple abandoned the powerpc and never looked back. Even at a time when the G5 was better than x86 on the desktop. X86 was just that much better for laptops. Now, ARM is superior to x86 for portable computing. The discrepancy is even bigger than it was for the G4 against Intel's Core solo. 

Let those who want x86 and Windows compatibility purchase the slower and power hungry Intel based machines. I will choose an ARM based MacBook. At least the ARM CPUs won't have the inherent security flaws which were literally baked into Intel CPUs. With the ability to design chips for all of their computing devices, Apple could spread the costs of CPU development, integrate low power GPUs, enhance security, improve battery life and all kinds of things that they absolutely cannot do using off the shelf generic Intel parts. 

So for those who are in denial over the upcoming switch to an all ARM based line up. It's time to come to grips with reality. The upcoming move is a poorly kept secret. 

I hated the move to x86 from PowerPC. Even today, I remain committed to the PowerPC line up. But I still won't be purchasing an x86 based machine. I will purchase an ARM based machine, however, when Apple finally releases one. My powerbook g4 even at 1.67 GHz feels like a dinosaur. Amazingly, it is still useful. Thankfully Apple did give us an iPad pro but I would like to have a real laptop again. Something that does not come with an x86 CPU. Who knows what kind of zero day exploits the NSA already has found for that dog of a CPU. Even if running Mac OS. 

As an aside, I have been looking for an xserve G5. They just aren't available. My suspicion is that IT personnel familiar with them know what they have and aren't letting them go. At least the aluminum encased work station
 beasts are widely available. Even G4 based xserves are difficult to find. Intel based xserves are widely available. That tells me a lot about the security and peformance of the two platforms. G4 mac minis are still available and I have one running my home automation network. I have absolutely no trust in the security of the Intel x86 platform. 

I have waited for a long time for Apple to give me a non x86 based laptop. It seems that the wait will soon be over. That is, if Covid19 doesn't destroy the economy. Which is looking more and more likely. Again, another story for another time. 

The title of the article is a bit click baitish. That being said, as Apple moves to becoming more of a services oriented company, they will be competing more and more with Google's services. 

Apple is much bigger than Google and more importantly develops cutting edge hardware with unique capabilities. No one else in the industry has been able to follow and keep up with Apple. Google's hardware initiatives have all essentially failed. Samsung's Tizen is essentially crushing Android Wear. And with the sanctions against Huawei, Android Wear is virtually on life support. 

The Pixel is dead. Apple controls nearly all of the cutting edge technologies when it comes to hardware. The watch OS is now in an unassailable position. Apple's chip designs are the best in the industry (better than Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, Samsung and Huawei). Apple gets the best of Samsung's display technology. Google does not control a single cutting edge hardware technology. And Microsoft is tied to an incompetent and flailing Intel. 

Apple could cut Google off in an instant. All Apple would have to do is make Bing or Yahoo the default search engine on their devices and computers. The vast majority of users would not change the default. Apple maps may be inferior, but how many iPhone users have installed and are using Google maps instead? It's not many. And Apple maps are good enough. Apple could make the app superior to the Google product, but the incentive just isn't there. Not at present anyway. For Google, it's actually an urgency that they keep ahead of Apple. Google is far more dependent on that revenue stream than Apple. 

Hence Apple continues their relentless focus on hardware. Superior hardware enables elegant state of the art total solutions. Apple controls its destiny from the hardware perspective. Google is desperately trying, but has been utterly incapable of developing competitive state of the art hardware. Google is dependent on others. Apple now is getting ready to go places that Google cannot. Microsoft is also in the same boat. And like Google, Microsoft is dependent on others for their hardware initiatives. 

Microsoft and Google are just software companies. Neither of them will be able to compete with Apple over the long term. 

What surprises me is why companies like Microsoft or even Samsung, maybe Huawei don't purchase a company like DuckDuckgo or the perhaps the Korean search engine Naver and make a decent attempt to compete with Google. If I were in Jeff Bezos shoes and sitting on the fortune he is, I would seriously have purchased a company like. Naver and retool the program for an international market. Integrate it into a home grown browser based on WebKit and optimized for the best experience on the Amazon website. Naver should also be integrated into Alexa. 

Apple is also sitting on a fortune. Cook should also seriously look into purchasing the Korean company. Apple would instantly own the South Korean search market. Google is totally inept in Korea. Google search is hardly even used over there. Apple could leverage Naver by extending it to the North American market and making it the default search engine for safari. 

And while desktop Chrome gets a lot of love, developers cannot afford to ignore safari users if nothing else than the fact that safari dominates the best mobile platform, iOS. There have been occasions where I have been forced to use Firefox or tenfourfox. I found using Chrome a dreadful experience and stopped using it altogether. I haven't personally found a need for the Chrome browser, nevermind a compelling use scenario. Even when using Android, I disable Chrome and use other browsers like Opera. 

Apple's move to its own silicon is an ominous development for both Google and Microsoft. Neither company will be able to compete with Apple over the long term. Google and Microsoft have excellent software teams. But Apple is equivalent to them. The far bigger issue is that Apple has a stellar hardware team. Google and Microsoft do not. Google has the Pixel and Microsoft has the Surface line of machines. And neither the Pixel nor the Surface (Pro) compete very well in their own markets, nevermind competing with Apple. Microsoft is even closing their own stores. 

Google cannot put an array of Tensor AI chips into the Pixel. Apple will incorporate AI subprocessors right into their own SOC. AI will be native to the iPhone. Android will be dependent on network access to Google's servers for AI. That's just the start, people. The S series for the watch will be much more powerful than anything from Qualcomm. And Intel doesn't build mobile CPUs of any kind these days. 

Eric Schmidt made a colossal blunder in stealing iOS. His vision of duplicating the Microsoft business model but with Google the dominant software platform for mobile has failed. Google could have been the eternal search engine on Apple hardware along with software such as maps and such. Google is going to have to envision a future in being displaced from Apple hardware. It's a very bad place to be right now. 

Otellini of Intel also made just as colossal a blunder by rejecting Steve Jobs request of building a Strong ARM CPU for the original iPhone. Intel is also going to have to envision a future in which they are also displaced from Apple hardware. 

Samsung also made a colossal mistake. Samsung should have abandoned Android. Developed Tizen independently and kept Apples business as the exclusive supplier of chips for the iOS platform. Samsung lost Apple's business. Samsung makes the best display panels and has managed to get Apple's business there. But the loss of the CPU and even the memory business was far bigger than any of the gains afforded by embracing Android. Samsung has had to compete with the Pixel and has lost the China market. The only bright spot are the Trump sanctions on China and companies like Huawei. Samsung, at least, no longer has to compete with Huawei on a worldwide basis on the Android platform. Samsung should have worked with Apple instead of antagonizing Steve Jobs when it came to Android. Now that TSMC has Apple's business, Samsung won't be getting it back.

Apple is poised to utterly dominate computing in another decade. That is, if the world can manage to keep the Covid crisis under control. That isn't guaranteed. At all.  

Thank you jbdragon, iaeen2, and rs1919 for explaining how size matters in the function of the transistors in a CPU with respect to power consumption and performance. 

I myself am amazed at the progress that has been made. So much in so short time that the designers and engineers are running into trouble with the laws of physics. 

That being said, TSMC is ahead of all others in chip fabrication. As Intel and Samsung catch up as they will because the transistors are hitting the limit in terms of size and shrinkage, TSMC will be able to continue to "tweak" their facilities for greater yields and lower cost. Apple will have ongoing access to TSMC's most advanced developments and should be able to stay ahead of everyone else. They have essentially passed Intel. 

I do see 12 nm FDSOI making a big splash as the power consumption is much lower than the latest FinFet designs with very good performance. The Chinese are betting big on the technology and companies that rely on software only are going to be in for a rude awakening as the Chinese leverage a hardware edge to take over the market. It is very likely the reason that Google is so keen to get into hardware. They better assemble a chip design team fast, because a day is coming when Huawei and Xiaomi sell phones that do not come with Google Play. 

Apple will still be in a good spot and could always take advantage of Global Foundries 12 nm FDSOI process for the S series SIP in the watch. 

In any case, Apple's mobile processors are the best in the business. No one else is even close. 

dreyfus2 said:

sog35 said:

I'm curious why all these POS brands can release super HD OLED screens and Apple can't?

Putting in even more resolution than the eye can resolve only wastes battery. That OLED thing may be a matter of taste, but I have yet to see an OLED screen on a mobile device that is not oversaturated and fake-looking. No idea if this is a technical issue, or just lack of proper calibration ex factory. But since I can't really calibrate a mobile myself... what's the difference? And judging by the Apple Watch (pre first generation)... OLED does not really help with visibility in daylight either. The screen on the new 7 Plus is the best I have ever seen on a mobile device. It has no peers. No idea why you want worse?

OLED is stil a superior technology to backlit LCDs. 

I beg to differ regarding the iPhone 7+ having the best screen on a mobile device. The screen resolution and brightness on the Apple Watch 2 beats the 7+. 

When Apple releases the next iPhone with the OLED panel, it will be properly calibrated and will allow Apple to push the boundaries of the phone even further. I very seriously doubt the Apple watch would be nearly as elegant with an LCD panel. 

To say that OLED would be a worse solution is quite ignorant. Apple has done wonders with LCD technolgy. I won't argue with that. But OLED is still better and the technolgy is still quite new. 

Apple did not include OLED panels in their current devices because there is no company that could meet the demand. But OLED is still coming to the iPhone and iPad. It's just a matter of time. 

Yawn. I am actually eagerly awaiting the next iteration of the large screen iPad Pro. 

I understand that there are those whose work flow requires OS X or Windows. This will come as a welcome upgrade. 

It's hard for me to get excited as I've completely adapted to iOS. 

Hence, I eagerly await the inclusion of an OLED screen and an upcoming 7 nm A series SoC from Apple and TSMC. 

metrix said:

As much as we hate to admit it, these MacBooks are more about style than function but that is the market that they are shooting for. They are suited for high school , college students, professionals that aren't looking for performance but quick access to e-mail and internet access and an occasional spreadsheet. There are many more of these customers than high powered users. It's absolutely crazy to complain about the higher price of a Macbook compared to a Windows laptop when you are facing $20,000/yr for college tuition, room and board.

That's true and it makes such a machine meaningless with the availability of the iPad Pro. 

Intel's glacial pace of CPU development these days is in contrast to the incredible advancements of the A series which powers up the mobile devices. The pencil also makes note taking far easier and quieter than typing on a keyboard. 

I just don't see much value in a MacBook. For the same price, a fully tricked out iPad Pro or the MacBook Pro with a real GPU makes far more sense. 

EsquireCats said:

A few interesting facts to combat FBI director's obvious snooping agenda.

1. Anyone, including potential terrorists, can roll their own encryption. They don't need Apple or other IT firm to provide it to them as a built in feature. Thus requiring Apple to break the security of their devices will not stop a terrorist from using encryption, it only harms the ordinary, law-abiding individuals right to privacy.

2. The most successful terrorist attacks in recent history have used devices that did not employ any encryption. Secondly terrorists are now making a habit of destroying devices that they presumably used to coordinate their attacks, completely circumventing any advantage weaker security would bring to the FBI.

3. For each terror attack in recent history, including September 11, there were sufficient clues, warning signs, signals and chatter which were completely overlooked by the government authorities leading up to the attack.

4. Terrorism such as ISIL is the direct result of the USA's exceedingly poor approach to foreign policy. The USA had a president that described the war in Iraq as a "crusade", a high ranking general who proudly bragged that he'd be "eating a big mac in Baghdad." The indiscriminate killing of foreign civilians is a significant driver of recruitment for terrorist groups and those that which to convey extremism. To them it would look as if USA is the aggressor in a genocide-like campaign. It would be trivial for an extremist group to spin the USA's actions as Zionism. This is the USA's core problem, not whether or not they can unlock a digital device used by an attacker after the fact.

Well thought out and logical post. Farouk and his wife physically destroyed their personal iPhones. And encryption is not a difficult to develop or implement project such that only the terrorists will be protected should the government do this. 

My answer will be to vote for Trump. That way people like Comey will also have his personal cell phone monitored also. Obama loves the patriot act so much that it's time for him to be subject to its actions as Trump monitors all of his personal communications also.