ManyMacsAgo

vision33r said:

This is what happens when you become an Apply supplier and give all you've got to them.  Samsung didn't just became an Apple supplier they became a competitor in order to be around in case Apple doesn't need them anymore.

Really? Samsung was an Apple supplier first, and then a competitor? So, the giant corporation that sells literally everything from ships to consumer electronics got into phones so that it could protect itself from Apple who eventually tries to become less reliant on suppliers?

Well, Samsung better get cracking: Funny that Samsung's unit that supplies Apple is more profitable that it's mobile division that uses a lot of its own components to actually build phones -- The same mobile unit that indeed seems to produces pretty much the majority of ALL phone handsets in the world.

Perhaps Samsung should get down to business and come up with a profitable flagship that actually sells in some volume and makes them some money, instead of exploding in their customers' hands.

tmay said:

IMHO, their are only three relevant areas of hardware that Android OEM's exceed Apple today; screens, camera modules, and modems, and those, not by a great amount...

I'm not sure Android OEMs are necessarily ahead of Apple in screens. Of course there will always be some Android models into which OEMs try to throw the absolute latest tech, spec-sheet wise. They put out a whole range of phones at all price points every few months, and some models will always exceed Apple in some aspects, certainly on paper spec-wise (though integration with software is another story).

But re: screens: how do Android device screens "exceed" Apple today? Maybe number of pixels on a couple of flagship models; maybe because OLED came out after LCD; maybe because the blacks are blacker? ...a lot of this is like comparing a showroom full of TVs under fluorescent lighting, with the TVs settings all at random values.

So, Apple is just now moving to OLED? Maybe they have been wanting to take the time to incorporate their own advances when the tech is more mature. I think Apple has got its own proprietary screen advances that most OEMs don't have: Apple works with Corning, etc. to develop specific laminations, with the sensors just so in certain layers closest to the user's fingers, etc.; or specific densities and types of sensors, such as those used to track the pencil in iPad Pros; or "tru-tone" color sensing; or, power use and saving; or, certain color reproduction and gamut (Apple has traditionally been concerned with accurate color reproduction); not to mention photo processing, etc....

Sure, there are going to be a couple of metrics, certainly on paper, where an unprofitable OEM that is trying to compete with all the other OEMs to differentiate a couple of their offerings from the mass of other Android devices is going to "exceed" something that Apple has on paper, especially when software integration is completely discounted.

sog35 said:

This makes me laugh.

I remember last year when Google/Facebook all were spewing that phone hardware isn't that important. Its the software.  LOL. Duh, a software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.

Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.

There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.

Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU.  In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.

Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.

What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.

He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.

Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).

So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards, and "choice" (until that moment they make a choice for the one Android phone they end up with, that doesn't come with the latest version of Android and will never get an update ...but, apparently Apple "plans obsolescence", go figure!) ;P

cloudmobile said:

Yet out of everything I stated only the $1 billion part was wrong. You are just someone who doesn't like differing opinions. But I would like to hear your opinion over Apple demanding $50 per device from Samsung because of rounded corners and icon shapes in comparison to what Qualcomm wants for the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place. You could pack all the horsepower in the Ax chips that you want, and it wouldn't be much good if your data connection was limited to 1G analog signals would it? And by the way ... Apple was sued for patent infringement over their ARM designs for the Ax chips by the University of Wisconsin ... and lost and had to pay up big. So yeah, I guess that is why you would rather I comment elsewhere, right?

"the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place":
Exactly, that is called an SEP. Apple has paid (notice, "has paid"), for something that every phone has, however cheap or expensive that phone may be. 
iPhones don't sell because they can make a phone call. Qualcomm's tech is non-differentiating, it is a "commodity" that has to be used by all phones. And, arguably, Apple has paid twice.

By contrast, Samsung (which had not paid for alleged non-SEP patent infringement) was being sued for making an obvious pivot and selling phones on the basis of their similarity to the iPhone.

So, there is your difference. (And I think it was you to whom I responded similarly in the last article about this subject).

Apple had been paying what Qualcomm asked, for years. This whole thing started, because Qualcomm withheld a promised rebate following Apple's cooperation with an inquest into Qualcomm's practices! Apple initially asked for what Qualcomm was supposed to have reimbursed. Qualcomm has escalated this from there. And, this isn't just Apple -- it's numerous companies and governmental bodies looking at Qualcomm.

Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.

Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.

No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.

Hope that educates you.

Glad you used Wal-mart as a comparison. I always wondered this: So Walmart (or any other store/grocer) can sell Cherrios in its store and charge them for shelf space. Then, right along side Cherrios, they can sell their own Walmart-O's at a much lower price. Is this anti-competitive? Kind of feel App Store is the same. Apple charges you for shelf space in the App Store and right along side offers there own similar services to what you offer (Spotify, Apple Music). Seems there are very similar parrallels but I don't ever hear people or companies complaining about this. I could be way off though, not as smart as most here....

"Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product."

No, it simply does NOT. You can buy Cheerios from any other of millions of stores around the world. And you can go elsewhere to buy the non-Cheerios cereal rings that Walmart doesn't stock.

I'm pretty sure Walmart can refuse to carry Cheerios. And General Mills can refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios. After all, does every store carry every brand of everything? As long as that refusal isn't a bargaining chip in getting the other to do something regarding their own competitor...

The danger that someone in a position to abuse Monopolistic power poses, is generally business to business in the first instance; that's why it is called "anti-competive".

The danger in a Cheerio scenario would be:
a) Like Microsoft's issues with Windows, and potentially Google's issue with Android, General Mills would refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios, unless Walmart agreed to certain placement and stopped stocking Kellog's rings.
b) Walmart would stop carrying Cheerios, unless General Mills gave it an exclusive and stopped supplying them to Walmart's competitors down the street.

But once we are talking about Cheerios in the Walmart, then it is between General Mills and Walmart to agree terms : what does General Mills charge Walmart? What markup does Walmart place on it (30%?); does General Mills consider Cheerios a desirable, premium product that needs some better placement than other brands of cereal rings, etc. Can Walmart run specials? And if so, does General Mills lower its price to Walmart, or doe Walmart take a loss on that product in order to get people in the store to buy other things?

Again, once the product is actually in the store, other "reasonable" stipulations may be agreed -- Walmart may say, please don't advertise right on the cereal box that consumers should run out to the road next to our parking lot to buy your product from your pop-up outlet truck, so that consumers can avoid our 30% markup for keeping the lights on, keeping the atmosphere in the store tolerable, and providing staff who smile. You can sell it in your truck, but please don't encourage people to do that right on the cereal boxes you supply us with. And if you also supply to our next door-neighbour competitor, and let them sell for less than your RRP, then we would like to be able to sell it for less while retaining our 30% for stocking it in our store.