avon b7


avon b7
Last Active
  • iPhone 11 versus Pixel 4 -- Benchmark and hands on comparison

    Soli said:
    If there were no such thing as the iPhone I would get a Pixel.
    LOL AppleExposed is right to point out that the Pixel you're looking at wouldn't exist. Android only exists because Apple carved out a path for them to fill the void for markets Apple didn't want to serve.

    What pisses me off is that Android just piggybacked Apples work and did it so quickly that the consumer thought iPhone/iKnockoffs were an organic way forward for phones. It wasn't. So fast forward to today Android users don't know they're using iPhone knockoffs. iPhone alternatives were supposed to be Windows Mobile, Blackberry and Symbian but greedy Google fu**ed that up too.
    That is a very distorted way to see things. Put bluntly, modern Android phones are far more than stock Android. There is almost an entirely new layer sitting on top of it. That alone is enough to make a striking difference on almost every level (even at the level of the file system and deeply integrated hardware like NPUs). If you add onto those differences the functionality of Google Services, the difference is far greater still, and Google Services have pretty much always been better than Apple's equivalents (where they exist). Search, Maps, email, voice assistants.

    A modern Android phone is not, as you claim, an 'iKnockoff'.

    The recent Anandtech review of the iPhone 11 Pro went as far as to say this:

    "Finally, we have Apple's new cameras. Over the last year and a half we’ve seen tremendous innovation from the competition, and Apple’s sole task here this generation was to catch up and to keep up. The new triple camera setup is one feature that Apple really needed a checkmark on if it wanted to compete with the versatility presented by the competition".

    It is widely accepted that on modern smartphones, the camera set-up is a critical element and much of the focus over the last few years has been in that area. Make no mistake, one of the key areas of comparison between the iPhone 11 Pro and the Pixel 4 will be precisely the camera.

    That area is not 'Android' so focussing your bitterness on the OS is wholly misplaced.

    Apple has played catch-up in practically every major area on the iPhone 11 series (better, more versatile camera hardware, better connectivity, better battery life etc) but now Apple has to keep up.

  • Editorial: Why the Apple A13 Bionic blows past Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Plus

    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    Years ago I had this piece of SW installed on a desktop that would download a chunk of data, process it, and upload the answer.  I think it was for S.E.T.I or something.  Distributed (donated) computing.

    Thinking of the A13, and Apple's advances into medical with Apple Watch:  Perhaps pretty soon we'll be able to donate some of the IMMENSE computational computing to protein-modelling or some other amazing medical-research (Billions of $ worth of computing power......free), and cure cancer or other such wonder....

    Really really cool.

    Quantum computing will eliminate the need for distributed processing. Just saying.
    Nope. It’s for very different kinds of problem solving.
    And problem making, depending on your point of view ;-)

  • Editorial: Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?

    madan said:
    At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]

    You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars.  No, I'm not kidding.
    Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
    He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?

    He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why
    he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).

    He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.

    When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.

    From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.

  • Editorial: Apple's American-made Mac Pro isn't an exit from China

    "Journalists like to talk about how Huawei has 5G and Apple doesn't, but they don't often understand that Huawei's 5G silicon is limited to operating on sub-6 GHz frequencies, which can't deliver the astoundingly fast data speeds associated with mmWave 5G being built out in the U.S. Of course, Huawei also can't really operate in the U.S. at all. And Apple is aligned with Qualcomm for its initial 5G modems, which would be "real 5G," but whatever, who cares, right? Huawei "has" 5G. And because it isn't Apple, Huawei a media darling even if it is interwoven with the political structure driving China."

    Huawei's technology can fully support mmWave. 

    The reason they don't implement it today and worldwide is that no networks are really using it except for the U.S. where Huawei is banned. As of H1 2019, 30 countries had auctioned parts of the spectrum. Only five of them included mmWave and those five cases (U.S included) will only see mmWave in areas with a very high density of users.

    It's pretty simple to understand this. The press definitely does understand it.

    Samsung is in a similar situation with its 5G modems.

    Huawei (and others) can still deploy ultra fast connections using non-mmWave 5G.


    I have seen estimations of mmWave hitting high percentage coverage (worldwide) around 2022/23. It is considerably more expensive and difficult to deploy mmWave and the cost is not seen by the user so lower frequency 5G is what many operators have chosen to allow them to start recouping outlay immediately. mmWave will simply be rolled into the mix at a later date.

    "Real 5G"?

    What is being rolled out now is real 5G. What makes you think it isn't?

    The claim itself (even when presented between inverted commas) shows a  lack of understanding of how 5G is planned to work. 5G is a mix of technologies and implementations running across different frequency bands.

    mmWave will become a key part of 5G worldwide at a later date.

    This is not dissimilar to how 4G progressed to 4.5G.

    Some regions are still figuring out how to auction off the frequencies. Until that happens, not a lot can be done with the ultra high  frequency range.

    Journalists can talk about 'how Huawei has 5G and Apple hasn't', because that is exactly what it is.

    Huawei has it because it was involved in designing the technology and the standards that govern it it. Some estimate that Huawei is around 18-24 months ahead of rival 5G infrastructure providers.

    Apple is 'aligned with Qualcomm' because its options (and some strategic decisions) basically left it with no real alternative. Even when it isn't aligned with Qualcomm at some future date, it will still be paying Qualcomm, Huawei and others for use of their patents.

    And Huawei is hardly a media darling. It receives a lot a flak. Some is warranted but a lot of it isn't.




  • Apple reportedly aims to integrate own 5G modem in iPhone by 2022

    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    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.



    "5G phones get hot. Really hot. Probably not hot enough to ignite your battery (probably), but enough to generate a definite burning sensation in your pants pockets. At Mobile World Congress in February, we spoke with an engineer from Sony who was demo’ing a phone (behind glass) that was clocking 1 Gbps speeds. Wow, fast. We asked the engineer why it was not going faster and he said “It overheats.” A good solid answer, from a nuts-and-bolts-and-antenna person. We will wager any amount that at next year’s show, no one on the floor will be as open about this problem."

    It's an even greater problem with mmwave.

    Apple will have the Qualcomm modem next year, so an integration two years later into the SOC isn't an issue in the market.

    Heat is always a concern and each new generation brings news challenges. However, if heat were such an issue, it simply wouldn't be on the SoC. Neither would the non SoC versions have 3GB of memory stacked on the modem!

    As for mmWave:

    "Like Samsung’s Exynos chip, the 5G version of the Kirin 990 doesn’t support mmWave 5G. The company said that it chose to omit the technology because it’s mainly used in the US, where Huawei doesn’t currently sell its devices. Instead it will focus its attention on the sub-6GHz variant of 5G, which is more widely used across the rest of the world."