apple v. samsung

cali said:

apple v. samsung said:

I notice that DED uses an example of a vzw GS5 a phone that coindently is upgradable to to Android 5.0 lollipop. Just pointing out that Is purposefully being misleading as many places where you can buy a new iPhone 5s market it with iOS 7 we all know the truth there.

As far as software updates Android manufacturers will often stop updating phones when they will not stand to benefit from the update and it will cause negative user experience. Apple tends to never do this sometimes updating phones to they are unusable. Just pointing out a few observations. And for your pleasure a screen shot of my device. some smart people go the Nexus route. If only more people knew it could be Apple vs Nexus true great devices

No, I have an old 5C and every update is a pleasure and makes my iPhone feel like new again adding value that wasn't there 3 years ago.

knockoffs don't compare. The manufacturer just doesn't give a sh** enough for the end user. Apple on the other hand tries to update as far back as possible for our benefit.

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?