techconc

9secondkox2 said:

3.7 GHz??? And an additional GPU core? 
if true…
at 3 nm this thing is going to absolutely rip! 

But… how will the performance be utilized in a phone? 

This doesn't look like the update many of us have been hoping for.  Many are hoping for significant architecture changes with higher IPC in the CPU and a GPU with hardware ray tracing support.  This looks more like the same CPU and GPU architecture with a slightly higher clock speed and an extra GPU thrown in thanks to the move to 3nm. 

gatorguy said:

Google Pixel sales were up 48%?? That sounds excessive, but there's nothing I can find disputing it. Still questionable IMO, which makes the overall figures at least a little suspect. 

As the saying goes, "twice nothing is nothing".  Google's Pixel market share is so low, that even changing by 1% of actual market share would make a dramatic difference to their phone sales numbers.

chadbag said:

tht said:

I'm frankly in disbelief that Apple can achieve this level of penetration in any market any where. An average iPhone is about 2 to 3 times more expensive than an average Android or other competitor device. It really speaks to the zero interest 30mo payment plans, at least in the USA, that carriers use as incentives to lock in customers.

That creates no customer lock-in to iPhone.   It does create lock-in to the carrier.    They’ve already bought the iPhone and have no lock in due to these plans when it comes time to upgrade.   And I believe the carriers offer similar deals for at least some of the android phones.  

Maybe for low end phones... However, for higher end smartphones like iPhones, I believe people are much more locked into their platform of choice than they are their carrier.  If I had a choice between giving up my iPhone or giving up my carrier, it would be a very quick decision... the carrier is just a dumb pipe. 

hmurchison said:

Anytime you have to make a claim that something is the best that means it isn't the best.    Excellence always speaks for itself.

Quotes like that are meaningless unless they are able to articulate a reason why they believe it to be true.   As others have mentioned, Apple has hurt their business model by stopping much of their ad tracking.  Clearly they want more users to be on Android... hence the vague and inaccurate claims about Android being better. 

gatorguy said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Android users switching to iOS annually: 14%. iOS users switching to Android annually: 4%. I guess the "better" part must be pretty well hidden within the operating system.

Since nearly the dawn of the duopoly, Apple and others have claimed that some annually significant percentage of Android users have switched to iOS. Oddly though Android continues to exist a decade and a half later, and in good numbers. How can that be if 10-14% of the ecosystem switch to Apple devices every year and smartphone adoption numbers aren't rising? 

A conundrum. 

"Apple's iOS, however, reigns supreme in the United States. Android takes the top spot at 70.89% market share globally, beating iOS by a 42.53% difference with a 28.36% market share. Meanwhile, in the US, Apple continues to dominate at 57.39% market share, beating Android by a 15.12% difference."

https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/android-vs-apple-market-share/#:~:text=Apple%27s%20iOS%2C%20however%2C%20reigns%20supreme,Android%20by%20a%2015.12%25%20difference.

Apple's market share is growing and in the US, Apple has now passed Android by a considerable margin.  So, where people can afford to buy nice things, Apple wins.  In third world countries where the average selling price for a phone is $200, sure Android wins because Apple doesn't even compete in that low end part of the market.  There is no conundrum. 

michelb76 said:

Xed said:

bsd228 said:

The Intel NUC hasn't died.   Like the IBM PC, it has been coopted by legions of OEMs offering original NUC sized compute units for $200-500.   
$270 got me a hex core AMD with 2.5gb ethernet, 16gbs, and a win 11 license to toss as I please.  Smaller than the Mac Mini of today, and in the same ballpark on power.  Takes an M2 and a 2.5" drive.  

They won't have the GPU, but that's not what they're used for.   

If they are in the ballpark on power usage of the Mac mini then their performance has to be awful in comparison if they are x86.

Well, it's not. The Intel vPro ones handily beat out the M1 for example, and the new ones are about the same as the M2, except hey use more power on max perf. These NUC's are great for installations, video displays, home control systems, etc. They run a ton of apps that have no equivalent on MacOSX, so depending on use-case these are still very good computers.

Nope.  Your comment is not even remotely true.  The latest NUC 12 pro gets crushed by the M2 Mac Mini.
https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/intel-nuc-12#

No matter how you spin it, the M2 Mac Pro is a real disappointment.  Full stop. 

The only excuse I’d give Apple for this disappointment is if they felt it were more important to formally complete the Apple Silicon transition than it was to provide a proper pro machine.  So, if this is a stop gap measure to hold us until this time next year, then fine.

The Mac Pro is meant to be the flagship device… the pinnacle of Mac performance.  Instead, it’s a Mac Studio with PCI slots.  At the very least, an M2 Extreme (2 M2 Ultra chips) is what users are expecting.  Apple seems content on comparing to a 4 year old Intel Mac Pro while ignoring the current Intel / nVidia 4090 based solutions.   That would address the CPU / GPU scalability concerns or at least help mute them.
The other concern is memory.  192 GB is fine for most solutions, but there are very high end needs which go well beyond that.