linuxplatform

All of you guys are wrong. Let me count the ways.

1. Quit it with the Microsoft conspiracy theories. Apple also doesn't allow Nvidia GeForce Now or Google Stadia either.

2. Microsoft does allow the competing EA Access video game streaming service on XBox. So comments like "Microsoft is (arguably) even more stringent about the Xbox Live store." ARE FALSE.

3. Even if they didn't ... so what? XBox is not a general purpose computing platform. Where are the people running Microsoft Office or Visual Studio on their XBoxes? They have two purposes: video games and home entertainment.

4. Undermining their own platforms? Don't you realize that xCloud means that no one has to buy their lightweight gaming consoles like the XBox One Slim? Or has to buy the cheap (meaning less than $750) 1080p gaming PCs? Also, thanks to Stadia, there is officially no longer a reason to put anything but a free-with-ads or free-to-play-with-IAPs games on Android anymore. And this is despite Google also offering Apple Arcade clone Google Play Pass! Finally, xCloud, Stadia and GeForce Now are (primarily) for AAA PC and console titles, not the mobile titles that go to iPhones, iPads and even Apple TVs. 

I have said it in the past. Apple is a hardware company. Their goal is to convince you that you not only want but actually need (for quality, reliability, privacy and security) Apple's hardware. Google from the beginning and now Microsoft under Nadella are software companies. Their goal is to convince you that you should invest your money and time consuming the best services and it doesn't matter what hardware you access those services from. That's why even Google's hardware efforts - Pixel phones, Chromebooks, Chromecasts - are meant to utilize and show off Google's cloud services. Google is only relaunching the Android TV concept that they basically forgot about - except as a platform for smart TVs - as primarily Chromecast and Stadia devices. (Unlike Apple Arcade and Apple TV, Google is not doing squat with Google Play Pass on Android TV.)

Microsoft's statement is not meant to pressure or turn up the heat on Apple. Instead, it is about Microsoft's own customers. Microsoft knows that tons of their XBox - and Steam - gaming clientele owns iPhones and iPads. (Android fans tend more towards PlayStation. Why? Simple. Apple dominates profits and mindshare in the US but Android dominates overseas. XBox, similarly, is very big in North America and to a lesser extent western Europe but PlayStation is huge everywhere else.) So their goal is to let all of their iPhone/iPad XBox fans know that Apple is the reason for XBox not being on their mobile platform of choice and not them. The natural instinct is to do what a lot of you guys are doing: blame Microsoft with false claims that if Microsoft really wanted to make it work they could have and their being on Android and not iOS is evidence of some nefarious agenda. Microsoft is letting them know that A) there is nothing that they could do to get xCloud on iOS and iOS is the only general purpose computing platform that doesn't allow services like xCloud. And they are 100% true.

You can agree with Apple's stance all you want. I myself am perfectly fine with it. Were Android devices as expensive as iOS ones it would be a bit harder to swallow, but since you can get an Android device capable of playing xCloud, GeForce Now and Stadia for as little as $100 (and as little as $60 if you are willing to side load Google apps on an Amazon Fire tablet!) then I can't really care. Join the 3 billion+ perfectly satisifed Android customers in getting a cheap Android device solely for this service. You can even recycle your existing XBox account as your Android account, so none of this "Google is going to steal invade my privacy, track me and steal my data!" nonsense. And stay safe inside your private, secure Apple walled garden for everything else.

killroy said:

Oh Intel, where is thy sting?

First of all this is very insensitive to religious people. Second, I do not understand how Intel - who worked hard to maintain a great relationship with Apple, provided outstanding driver support and never got involved in lawsuits or IP concerns with Apple as tons of other Apple suppliers do - is now regarded as "the enemy" whose demise Apple fans are rooting for. I can get the animus against Microsoft, Google, Samsung and Qualcomm. While I disagree with it I at least GET it. But Intel has done NOTHING but be as good a partner to Apple as they were capable of. Stuff like this is why so many people hate Apple fans with a passion.

After all, suppose Windows does switch to ARM causing Intel to fall flat on its face. Who benefits? Qualcomm. (You folks weren't thinking that Apple is going to sell its ARM chips to the likes of Dell or Lenovo to make Windows PCs to compete with Apple ones and do so at generally lower prices did you?) Did anyone think of that? Qualcomm will become the primary manufacturer of both mobile devices that have 85% market share against AND and servers/PCs that have 93% market share against macOS. And Qualcomm - unlike Intel - HAS gotten into plenty of conflicts with Apple over IP and lawsuits over the years. Since Qualcomm buys chips in much bigger volume than Apple ever will - again see market share - what on earth will happen if Qualcomm decides to buy up as much of TSMC's capacity as possible in order to delay their #1 competitor's pipeline? (This isn't theory ... Qualcomm HAS done this very thing before AND MORE THAN ONCE.)

Third, Samsung entered 3nm risk testing this year and will produce the world's first 3nm chips next year. It will be their own Exynos chips, likely the ones used in the international version of the Galaxy Note 30. It will not be ready in time for the Galaxy S30, as their new 5nm chip will be used instead, as well as in international versions of the Galaxy Note 20. So Samsung is going to beat Apple getting to 3 nm by 1 year.

Qualcomm will introduce their own 5nm chips with integrated 5G modems next year, the 875, a few months after Apple launches their own 5nm A14. Rumor has it that they are going to charge $100 more than the 865 and people are not pleased. While previously Qualcomm's chips were made by TSMC, their 5nm chips will be made by Samsung. Who knows when Qualcomm will reach 3nm as - unlike Samsung - they likely don't have a design ready yet.

Finally Intel states that they will reach 3nm by 2025. AMD will reach 3nm - using TSMC's foundries - around 2023. However, Intel's transistor design is denser, so a 3nm AMD chip is roughly equivalent to a 5nm Intel chip, a 5 nm AMD chip equal to a 7nm Intel chip and so forth. Thanks to the work of Bill Keller, who got Intel past their road block, Intel will release their first 7nm chip later this year, and that is when all the people who are crowing "AMD has surpassed Intel!" will basically be silenced. And yes, Intel's 7nm chips will add performance and efficiency to their already considered "best available" desktop, workstation and server i7, i9 and Xeon chips. So, Intel is going to be releasing new chip generations on a smaller process every 2 years just like Apple and everyone else. 

Bottom line: Intel isn't going anywhere. Even if Apple Silicon beats them - which I still sincerely doubt but I will concede that point to those who feel otherwise - the performance and efficiency improvements are going to make the gap between Macs and Windows machines more than close enough for Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer and Asus to continue to use them rather than try to find a better performing ARM replacement than Qualcomm (which currently does not exist and there are none on the horizon) and in the process of being stuck with Qualcomm chips that already are no better than half as powerful as Apple Silicon but will have to run most applications in emulation. 

Now what WILL happen is a shift from Intel to ARM for CHROMEBOOKS. The only reason why it happened yet is Oracle's copyright lawsuit against Google. That FINALLY ends in October. Shortly after Google will certify ChromeOS Linux for Qualcomm and Exynos - and likely take it out of beta also - which means we will see Exynos-based Chromebooks from Samsung and a raft of Qualcomm-based Chromebooks from Lenovo, HP, Acer, Asus and possibly even one from LG (who doesn't make many Chromebooks) though likely not Dell (who is an x86-64 loyalist and also doesn't make many Chromebooks) in 2021. But even there, the only reason why this will happen is because ChromeOS on ARM performs similarly to ChromeOS on Intel and there are no app compatibility issues (if anything Android apps run better on the ARM-based Chromebooks than the x86-64 ones, and most of the main Linux applications were ported to ARM ages ago, which is why Apple is encouraging Windows bootcamp and virtualization users to switch to Linux instead for Apple Silicon). But because ChromeOS is more of a tablet OS akin to iPadOS than a desktop/workstation/server OS akin to macOS, Windows and Ubuntu, the Chromebooks will only cost Intel sales of devices in the Celeron, i3 and i5 range. It won't affect Intel's i7, i9 or Xeon business at all.

9secondkox2 said:

Stinking Microsoft. 

Always trying to fight with apple. 

And always banding together with the other also-rans 

Lol

Good luck with that

Stinking Microsoft ... that is subjective so I will let that pass.
Always trying to fight with Apple ... so they AREN'T supposed to offer products and services to compete with Apple's? If that is the case then Apple shouldn't sell iPhones because Microsoft was selling smartphones first. Or the iPad Pro because Surface. Or "Pro" smartphones with bigger screens because Samsung. Or AirPods or the Apple Watch because Samsung had their products first. Or HomePods. Or Apple TV. Or Apple TV+. Or Apple Music. Or iWork because Microsoft Office. Or Apple Arcade because XBox Play Pass. Etc. Meanwhile Microsoft has TONS of VERY PROFITABLE PRODUCTS where Apple doesn't even compete in. Oh I almost forgot ... no Apple Silicon because Microsoft (and Google) had Windows and ChromeOS on ARM years ago.
Always banding together with the older also-rans ... you mean platforms that dwarf Apple's market share? Besides, it isn't as if Apple gave them a choice in the first place. More on that later.

Lol Good luck with that. Again subjective so I won't comment. 

flydog said:

tundraboy said:

mark fearing said:

The complaint alleges that Apple has become a "behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition and stifle innovation," and claims that the company's size and reach "far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history."

A behemoth with how much of the mobile phone market exactly? Of the desktop market? Of the laptop market? Epic just wants free access to customers.  This is a dead suit. Every reseller/store pays a wholesale price. And in grocery stores you also pay a shelving fee. If I won't pay that Safeway won't carry my product. So good luck here...

Yes.  It is amazing how these companies make the claim that Apple is monopolizing the market for Apple products.  Even more amazing that some politicians are swallowing this line.  Maybe they should turn their attention to Sony for monopolizing the market for Sony game consoles.  Or Merceds Benz for their lock on the market for Mercedes Benz cars.  Ridiculously stupid thinking.

The Apple App Store is a subordinate market.  It exists solely because of the iPhone and iPad.  If Apple has a monopoly in the smartphone and tablet market, then sure, Epic has a case because that is the only way consumers can buy and play their games.  But with Android out there, Epic cannot claim that Apple is shutting them out of the market.  If they must sue someone, maybe they should sue Google and the Android phone manufacturers for putting out such lousy product that nobody wants to play Fortnite through their platform.  But that's not true either because a lot of Android phone owners play Fortnite.

Exactly.  One could just as well argue that Epic should allow other game developers to sell games on the Epic store, and do so for free.  But of course Epic will not allow that because it's their store.  And they would be right in doing so because their store is not an industry within the meaning of antitrust law. 

1. Epic DOES allow other developers to sell their games in the Epic store.
2. While Epic doesn't do so "for free" - and claims that they want to be in the App Store "for free" are simply false - they charge much less and offer much better terms than Steam, Origin, EA and the other major console stores. The same rhetoric they are aiming at Apple now, they aimed at Steam a few years ago. So yeah, please endeavour to keep your ripostes true, OK? And again, I say this as someone who is generally sympathetic to Apple on this.

razorpit said:

Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.

There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.

Beats said:

Even if Apple had a monopoly Epic still has no case. Of course anti-Apple Americans will try to screw Apple anyway.

iKnockoffs are having a hard time running Fortnite and Epic knows this. They're stupid for biting the hand that feeds them. I think Apple needs to go on a full on assault on anyone who tries screwing them over.

Man, nothing you said here was true.
Yes, Mercedes-Benz exclusively manufactures and sells Mercedes-Benz cars. But I can buy any parts for that car from anywhere. I can put any gas in that car that I want. I can replace the Mercedes stereo and infotainment system in that car with another one. If I want to replace the locks and alarm system, I can get a third party to do so. If I want to buy my own insurance instead of the Mercedez-Benz warranty, I can. If I want another financier instead of Mercedes-Benz, I can. This means that after I buy - and certainly after I pay off - my Mercedez-Benz, I have 100% control over it. This IS NOT the case with iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs and Apple Watches. This IS, however, the case with macOS devices. So even from the perspective of someone who is sympathetic to Apple's argument - which I am - THIS IS A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE SO STOP USING IT.

Second, Android phones ARE NOT HAVING A HARD TIME RUNNING FORTNITE. If Android games couldn't run Fortnite - which isn't even a particularly demanding mobile game - then why on earth would Android have such large market share? Even in wealthy, affluent countries like America, Canada and western Europe? Why on earth would anyone pay $1300 for a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra or $2000 for a Samsung Galaxy Z Flip if it couldn't run Fortnite? Let me put it another way ... why would Android gaming be an industry with TENS OF BILLIONS IN ANNUAL REVENUE if the devices couldn't run the games? Who is making all these games for devices that can't run them? Who is buying all these games that their devices can't run?

Third, Epic IS NOT biting the hand that feeds it. Fortnite runs on PC (where Epic Games has a long-running battle with Steam) and macOS. Fortnite runs on Playstation. Fortnite runs on Nintendo Switch. Fortnite runs on XBox. AND FORTNITE RUNS ON ANDROID. So take away iOS AND FORTNITE IS STILL ONE OF THE BIGGEST, MOST LUCRATIVE AND SUCCESSFUL VIDEO GAMES IN HISTORY. Epic is doing this PRECISELY BECAUSE A) Apple platforms ARE NOT the reason for their success and they do not rely on Apple as a critical revenue stream. The software companies that DO rely on the App Store are infamous for saying "how high?" whenever Apple says jump, and no matter how much they resent Apple for it they keep quiet about it because were Apple to "review" their app for 30 days (for example) that would wreck them financially. But Epic knows that they will be filthy rich even if they are never on Apple hardware again. They know that the actual fans of this game who spend tons of money on IAPs will simply play it on another platform. They will play it on PC or on a console when at home. On the go, they will just buy a Nintendo Switch/Switch Lite or get a cheap Android device and use their iPhone for tethering their mobile data to it. 

Man, do you have absolutely no shame at all saying things that are so thoroughly, completely untrue?

Beats said:

Well.... this is a first.

WRONG as usual. But this time it isn't QUITE your fault. It is the fault of the UTTERLY DISHONEST columnist WHO KNOWS FULL WELL THE REASON but won't admit it. The entire reason is that while competing full-fledged app stores like the Amazon AppStore and the Samsung Galaxy Store are allowed on Android, they are not allowed on iOS, iPadOS, watchOS or tvOS. 

Let me give you an example. Razer once had (and Nvidia still has!) an Android TV devices with their own app stores that contained their own games and apps. Nvidia cross-lists their apps on the Google Play Store but Razer didn't. But on iOS/iPadOS/tvOS? Such folly isn't allowed. 

Same deal here. Just like Steam and Nvidia GeForce Now, xCloud is going to be an app store for games. Apple only allows competing app stores - especially ones where you set up your own payment arrangements - on macOS. That is why xCloud was only allowed to test a single game on iOS. Offering multiple games would have violated iOS policies.

In other words, xCloud will never be on iOS for the same reason that Nvidia GeForce Now isn't on iOS and why Stadia isn't on iOS. Think about it. Use your heads. Office 365 and all the other Microsoft apps are on iOS. YouTube, Gmail, Chrome and all the other Google apps are on iOS. So if there is a reason why xCloud (Microsoft), Stadia (Google) and GeForce Now (Nvidia, not even a direct Apple competitor unless you count their Android TV box that almost no one buys) aren't available then that reason begisn and ends with Apple.

Let me spell it out for you. With iOS/iPadOS/tvOS you have TWO BILLION USERS ON A PLATFORM THAT IS BY FAR THE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE PAYING SUBSCRIBERS INSTEAD OF PRIMARILY FREE-TO-PLAY OR FREE-WITH-ADS CONSUMERS. You have to be either TOTALLY NAIVE OR COMPLETELY NUTS to think that Nvidia, Microsoft AND Google made the decision to put their subscription gaming service - or ANY subscription service for that matter - on ANDROID but not iOS/iPadOS/tvOS. NO ONE ELSE - NOT EVEN GOOGLE - DOES THIS. I repeat ... NOT EVEN GOOGLE PUTS SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES ON ANDROID AND NOT IOS/IPADOS. IF ANYTHING GOOGLE INTRODUCES SOME FEATURES AND PRODUCTS ON IOS/IPADOS BEFORE THEY GET TO ANDROID AND CHROMEOS.

So instead of allowing this columnist's creative obfuscations cause you to hate and resent Microsoft ... ask yourself why GeForce Now isn't available on anything but macOS either. Ask yourself why Steam isn't supported on iPads even though the A12X is perfectly capable of meeting its performance requirements (older Steam games can run on very cheap Windows and Linux hardware), Steam is on record stating that they NEED to diversify their platforms from being dominated by Windows AND IS GOING TO BE SUPPORTED ON CHROMEBOOKS LATER THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT YEAR. (That is right ... Google is going to enable and promote Steam on ChromeOS DESPITE KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT WILL TAKE STADIA CUSTOMERS FROM THEM. Just as Microsoft has no problem with Steam, Origin or Epic despite fully knowing that they compete with XBox, even more so than they do with PlayStation or Nintendo.)

I repeat. Blame iOS/iPadOS/tvOS (macOS not so much) App Store policies for this. NOT Microsoft. (Or Google or Nvidia.) No matter how much Apple sites like this run interference for them.

This isn't as bad as Daniel Eran Dilger's demonstrably false yet never recanted "Android will fail and Google is going to go broke and Chromecast is a blatant inferior ripoff of AirPlay that will fail" columns from not long ago but still, don't put out nonsense like this that clearly lack a modicum of research.

1. No love lost for Microsoft, as they - along with Apple and Oracle - were among the cabal that tried to push Linux, open source databases and Android out of the marketplace during the last decade using a variety of legal and marketplace pressure tactics. But Microsoft makes it clear that this device is not a phone, is not a tablet and is not meant to compete with the iPhone, iPad or even any Android device. Instead, it is a companion device for their somewhat successful line of Surface 2-in-1s. Basically, if you already like and use their Surface devices at work or in your home/office, you will want this device because it will have the same sort of "ecosystem" benefits that iPads have with MacBooks. But if you are not a Surface user, you will have no need or want for this device. Yes, this device is expensive - but similar to Apple fans - Surface device owners are used to paying a premium instead of just getting Lenovo or Dell devices that offer the same form factor and superior performance/specs for hundreds less.

2. Instead of comparing this device with the Samsung Galaxy Fold - which is an entirely different one - someone who actually knows something about Android would compare them to LG phones. LG has been releasing dual screen devices for over a year ... the LG Thinq G7, the LG Thinq G8 and the LG Velvet. All of them have detachable 6.8' screens, much bigger than the Duo's 5.6' screens. All of them have the latest - meaning much faster - CPUs. They also have more RAM, and lack of RAM is a killer in Android devices with big screens (Google tried lower RAM devices with "software optimizations" for no reasons other than sheer arrogance for years before finally giving up and putting 6 GB of RAM in their Pixel 4A and the Pixel 5 will have 8 GB). Oh yes, and they all have 5G and NFC. A couple of mobile bloggers who are actually knowledgeable about Android - yes such creatures are rare outside Android enthusiast blogs themselves - flat out recommended buying the Thinq or Velvet (especially the Velvet) instead of this device.

3. Claiming the Z Fold has "bad software" is ignorant. Compared to what? Because here's the deal: Apple doesn't have a product in this category yet. As usual. It would have been dumb to call the Samsung Galaxy Note Pro back in 2012 "a device with bad software" because Apple didn't come out with their own "Pro" tablet device with true multitasking support, stylus support and keyboard/trackpad support until later. (Actually MUCH LATER as the iPad Pros were in name only initially with the multitasking and trackpad features not added to OS, turning iOS into iPadOS, for several years.) Similarly, Apple currently has no software to drive a true folding device. The only true folding devices in existence are the 2019 and 2020 Galaxy Fold devices as well as a competing Huawei device that Huawei was only able to manufacture a few thousand units of (but the few who have actually seen and used them say that they are outstanding). Here's the thing: people who have actually used the Galaxy Fold and Flip devices say that they are great, especially the second generation versions of each that were just released and didn't have the "first generation iPhone/first ever MacBook Air" roughness. Which means that - by default - the software on these devices are GREAT until something comes along that's BETTER. We will see a Pixel folding phone (that will probably be similar to the Surface Duo) and allegedly a folding iPhone (which will be more like the Galaxy Z Fold) next year. At that point you will be able to SUBJECTIVELY claim that the Z Fold has bad software. Till then there is no way to even SUBJECTIVELY make that claim because A) the Z Fold's software works great in that it does what it is supposed to do in operating the device and delivers a good experience in the process - a consensus opinion held by nearly everyone who has bought or reviewed the device and no product with "better" software exists.

radarthekat said:

DAalseth said:

I don't play Fortnight but I agree with Epic
I've never agreed with Apple claiming a portion of all sales from an app even if those sales don't go through the AppStore.
Some have compared it to having rules for stocking things in your own store.
That's not it
Some have said that Epic and others are trying to profit while not paying for the store.
Not right either
Look at it this way. I have a store. You want to sell something, a computer let's say, in my store. I can and should get a cut of the price for my trouble of hosting your product That's fair.
But should I then demand a cut of everything else that is bought with that computer? I sell a Dell computer so anything purchased from Dell on that computer has to pay a toll back to me even if you're a thousand miles away from my store? Of course not, that would be absurd. 
Yet Apple is demanding a slice of everything bought on Amazon Prime, and Kindle, and all in game purchases, and more, even if those transactions have nothing to do and go nowhere near Apple's store. 
That has never felt right to me. 
Apple should get a cute of sales in their store.
But that should be the end of it. 
Oh and don't go around saying if they don't like it they can go elsewhere, to Android for example. Apple has the only store where developers make significant money. The profits from the android store is a fraction. 
It's like saying if you don't want to pay my forever cut on sales you can go to the other store in the poor section of town where nobody can afford your stuff. 
Not really a choice for most developers.
It's this kind of behavior that's getting Apple in trouble with antitrust hawks. 

Your argument falls down.  It’s not about poor android customers.  It’s about people who can afford an Apple phone.  Those people, who presumably have the money to buy Apple products and services and software, can take their Apple iPhone money and instead buy an Android phone.  Nothing stopping them.  They aren’t poor, by your own argument.  There’s a clear choice for Epic, sell on Android’s app stores and market to everyone, including those who would buy iPhones, that people should buy an Android phone to play Epic games.  

First off, Android device owners aren't "poor" in North America, western Europe or Asia. Instead, it is that we would rather spend $250 on a phone to play Fortnite with instead of $699. And if we are going to spend $699 - or actually twice that much for a Samsung flagship - we are going to want the latest hardware and software features and tons more freedom to use our devices the way that we want them to in return for that money. 

Second, there is absolutely, positively no evidence that Fortnite is making a fraction of money on Android that it is on iOS. The primary difference in revenue between Google Play and the App Store is that the App Store operates in China and Google Play doesn't. If you were to add the Google Play revenue to the revenue of the top 10 Chinese app stores, then the combination of Google Play+Chinese app stores would equal that of the App Store. Meaning that were Google Play operating in China, its revenues would equal or exceed that of the App Store. 

Third - I have said this many a time and I have no idea why it keeps getting ignored - there is no reason for iOS device owners to "go" anywhere. Want to play Fortnite, Stadia or GeForce Now? Buy an Amazon Kindle tablet - currently selling for as little as $60 - and sideload away. Or if you want to make things a bit easier on yourself ... buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab A for about $150 and download both xCloud and Fortnite from the Galaxy Store. (I just downloaded Microsoft's Forza driving video game from the Galaxy Store a couple of days ago. It. Works. The. Same. Way.) Just tell yourself that it is an Android tablet (which, by the way, all the Nintendo Switch is ... a CHEAPER VERSION of the Nvidia Shield K1 Android tablet - including the Vulkan graphics stack and Nvidia graphics drivers - running the Nintendo 3DS operating system) and game away. Use your iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs and Macs for everything else. It isn't hard and it is what every other rational person on the planet does.

If this review has to resort to "Apple prestige" and denigrating a form factor that both innovates AND is a proven one based on hearing aids - when this same site just trashed OnePlus for ripping off the AirPod design just a couple of weeks ago - it is an admission that there are no real differences between the Samsung and Apple products. In that, this review reaches the same conclusion as everyone else: that this is a fantastic product in its own right. The only legit criticism then is the ANC, which most other reviews cited. So, there has been only one bad review for this much maligned in advance product and that one seems to be an outlier.

As to which one is better: simple. If you own Apple hardware then buying this product makes no sense. Buy AirPods or AirPod Pros. But if you do not own an iPhone, iPad or Mac, then based on the reviewer this is what you need to get. The prestige of the Apple name means nothing to you already apparently, Siri and other ecosystem benefits will be useless for you, and the lack of true ANC isn't worth the $70 price differential.

The key takeaways from this review isn't whether Apple device owners should buy this for their Apple devices over AirPods. They shouldn't and won't. The question is whether Samsung is capable of making an excellent product of comparable quality with Apple's best and do so without copying Apple (indeed quite the opposite, as it is difficult to arrive at a product that is less like the AirPod than this except by sitting down and centering the design of the device around that purpose from the outset). While the reviewer will never concede so the answer to this is clearly yes, which makes this an obvious buy to pair with whatever non-Apple products an Apple fan may find himself owning.