Herbivore2

Google is the true corporate thief. Samsung never had a corporate executive sit in on the iPhone/iOS development process like Eric Schmidt of Google did. 

When Google released Android, if my recollection is correct, it was first released on Motorola's Droid. And that phone was essentially a clone of the iPhone. 

Samsung was an opportunist, but can they really be blamed? Sony, HTC, LG, Motorola, Xiaomi and Huawei also produce Android based clones. 

Samsung makes nice products. Their DRAM and flash memory products are top notch. They as a company would actually like to abandon Android all together with Tizen now being used in all of their wearables. Tying those wearables into iOS is a good thing. Samsung is following a proprietary vertically integrated model like Apple as opposed to the commodity model of Intel and Google. 

Samsung and LG are going to produce components for Apple. While TSMC is able to build CPUs, they don't build displays and they don't build memory. 

At least Samsung is moving away from Android unlike the rest of the handset makers. 


I actually like many of Samsung's products including the chip and memory inside of my iPhone 6S. Google on the other hand is a totally different story. 

josu said:

jameskatt2 said:

It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts  Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue. 

I Better Subaru, is cheaper, well positioned to grow into a premium competitor if it wasn't for the derivative styling. With Ive leading the design team Subaru could go really for the premium market. Style wise it resembles the pre-Jobs Apple, but with record profits, sales and bulletproof reliability.

Subaru and bulletproof reliability? Surely you jest. The boxer engine is a joke. And when serious repairs are required, the engine needs to be pulled. And Fuji heavy industries is pitiful when it comes to powertrain technology and advanced metallurgy. They had to partner with Toyota to obtain gasoline direct injection technology and even then, it is a half-baked solution that increases the fuel delivery complexity by requiring both conventional fuel injectors along with direct injection.  

Subaru doesn't have anything in the way of serious electric or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Much less advanced internal combustion technology. 

Subaru is a not a company that Apple should approach with a 100 foot pole. LG's battery technology is state of the art. Hyundai is producing advanced light weight steels, fuel cells, hybrids and even working on advanced internal combustion technology. They even have an internally developed 8 speed automatic transmission along with automated dual clutch units. Toyota and Honda are further behind, but producing hybrids and have plans to bring fuel cell technology to market. GM and Ford are also working on advanced internal combustion technology and producing hybrid vehicles also. BMW is working on advanced internal combustion technology, fuel cells and electrified powertrains also. Most companies have fuel cell technology of some sort in the works, but Subaru is not one of them. If they have one, it must be of a secret nature. 

The biggest factor in all of this is that the Koreans have figured out how to extract lithium from the ocean inexpensively. But Once an advanced technology carbon nanotube catalyst comes to market, hydrogen fuel cell technology will come to dominate propulsion systems. 

Apple is first and foremost a technology company. Subaru makes low technology vehicles even by Japanese standards. A Subaru purchase by Apple makes no sense. 

Google is not the best search engine for my needs. It used to be, but Bing has become better in many ways. Duck duck go is the engine I use, but it returns results similarly to Google. 

When I put the name of a professional into a search engine. Google and DDG return the results of a bunch of rating firms. While Bing does similarly, they have a spot on the front page that lists the person, address and phone number such that I am not forced into clicking on a site. That single feature alone makes Bing far more valuable as a search engine to me than Google. 

The billion that Google pays Apple is a fraction of what they make off of iOS search. Apple would do well to drop Google for default search. I mistakenly used Google for search a year ago when at a desktop at work. I immediately changed the default engine to Bing and no one seems to care as it hasn't been changed back. 

I am not buying google's superiority as a search engine. At this time, Apple no longer needs them. The loss of the billion to Apple is meaningless compared the multiple billions Google stands to lose 

Google was always more interested in getting Android devices out to as many users as possible without thinking of the consequences of doing so. 

There is a lot of marketshare for Apple to take. Google is now a sinking ship. 

And Intel's troubles continue to multiply. 

Apple will be forced to go to the A series CPU for the MacBook line. The discrepancy between the performance of the core i7 and the A10X, not to mention the A11X, will simply be too great. 

As far as GPU performance goes, Intel chips are even further behind. 

Intel should have granted Apple an x86 license or built the mobile CPU as originally requested by Jobs. It's now too late. The momentum behind the A series and the newly released S series is simply too great to stop it now. 

The Intel apologists are hoping TSMC's 10 nm process will not able to be introduced until 2017. From the looks of things, TSMC might be able to introduce 10 nm for the iPhone 7 at the end of 2016. And if 10 nm InFO goes into the next version of the iPad pro running the A10X, from a pure performance perspective, not to mention battery life, Intel won't be able to field a competitive CPU of any type for a portable machine. 

Unlike the heady days of the PowerPC when IBM and Motorola, allowed complacency to set in, Apple won't let it happen this time. The A series CPU will hold the performance crown and the discrepancy with x86 will grow worse with the development of each new generation.