cloudguy

avon b7 said:

A potentially intelligent move by Samsung.

The S series phones are typically released around MWC in Barcelona. 

We still don't know if that will even go ahead and its biggest rival has an estimated 10 million new 5nm chips ready to go. That stock could be gone by January leaving Samsung to reap the rewards (potentially) but it would also need something to better the 2020 Huawei P series flagships from around the cancelled MWC this year. 

It would pose a direct challenge to both Apple and Huawei. Apple probably wont have another flagship unti the end of next year and We don't know what Huawei's short term plans are. 

It would make very good sense to release a product in January. There is also a more conservative case against a January release but that is just another option that would have to be weighed up. 

Eh. Consider this. Samsung was once Apple's main CPU manufacturer AND their Exynos line was considered a legit cheaper alternative to Exynos. Now neither is true: Apple has shifted their business to TSMC and Exynos has fallen so far behind Qualcomm that Samsung is pretty much the only one who uses them. Samsung's plan to get back in the game: beat Apple and Qualcomm to 5nm with the Exynos 995, which was supposed to be produced in 2Q 2020 to be used in the foreign Galaxy Note/Fold/Flip/FE phones for 3Q. However, the first run had flawed yields. Samsung corrected the problem, but not in time for their 3Q phones, forcing them to scrap the 5nm Exynos 995 use the 8nm Exynos 992 instead. But they did fix in time for the Exynos 1080 - a midrange CPU to be used in Chinese phones - and lure the 5nm Qualcomm 875 business from TSMC. As stated above, TSMC was swamped with orders for Apple iPhone, iPad and Mac 5nm CPUs for 2020 plus AMD 5 nm CPUs and Intel 7nm CPUs for 2021. They gave Qualcomm a "pay more or experience delays" ultimatum, which allowed Samsung to swoop in and offer "we can make them at the usual rate right now." 

So the S21 will have the Qualcomm 875 made by Samsung for North America and the 5 nm Exynos 2100 for everyone else. Both the 875 and the 2100 are going to do the 1-3-4 thing: 1 Cortex X1 super core, 3 Cortex-A78 cores, and 4 Cortex-A55 cores. Also, both are going to integrate the X60 5G modem. Further, the 875 is rumored to have minimal Qualcomm customization due to the need to adopt the Cortex X1, and Samsung paid ARM to help them design the Exynos 2100. Because of this, rumor states that the Snapdragon and Exynos chips are going to perform similarly again.

So when you add that to the Google-Samsung CPU that will be released in 2021 and Qualcomm entering the smartphone market with their own branded device (made with assistance by Asus) and next year may be pretty interesting. If Samsung is able to retain Qualcomm's business, the shift to releasing the S21 in January may be permanent.

Xed said:

Samsung, of course, has a long history of trolling Apple for moves that it eventually copies. 

Every… fricken… time.

"All truthpasses through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

1. Not every time AT ALL. As I stated above, Samsung never adopted the notch, never adopted Force Touch and the vast majority of their phones still offer headphone jacks.
2. Not as many times as Apple has done the same with (say) the stylus, the phablet, LCD to OLED, wireless charging ... you name it. 
3. Do not expect Samsung to copy the "portless iPhone" when it comes out either. USB-C is too important to give up on all models, and SD cards are too important to give up on midrange and cheap models. 

equality72521 said:

Children. Embarrassing. 

You are 100% right. Only Apple has the right to criticize other companies in advertising campaigns. But no one has the right to do so in return. Is that how it goes? 

elijahg said:

StrangeDays said:

Detnator said:

elijahg said:

The intercom feature is great, hopefully it'll come to the existing Homepod (maxi?). The price is far better than the HomePod maxi too, so I think sales will be better than the HP. I do think Apple should have a cheap HomeKit speaker to put in each room for £30 or so, to compete with Amazon. Not really for music, but just for queries. Though this would need Siri to be less crap. For comparison, the Amazon Dot is on offer now in the UK for £19.

Pretty sure they're never going to do that.  Apple has never participated in the "race to the bottom" with pricing - just like they'll never release a $300 laptop or a $100 iPhone.  They're just not interested in competing in those markets - never have and I can't see that they ever will.  Steve was adamant about that in his time and Tim's kept it that way.

They sell billions of all their products, DESPITE the prices, because they only compete in the mid to high end markets, but they do it better than the others (at least if all those buyers - and the "I want one" people - are any indication) even at the "higher" prices.  

Yeah exactly. This dude doesn't get Apple. They aren't going to make a $30 echo dot.

You said exactly the same about HomePod when people said it was too expensive. And now look where we are. You obviously don't get Apple.

"Yeah exactly. This dude doesn't get Apple. They aren't going to make a $30 echo dot."

The $35 iPod Shuffle says hi.

But seriously:
The reason for the $30 Nest Minis and Echo Dots is to grow the Google Assistant and Alexa ecosystems respectively. They are minimal hardware products whose true purpose is to promote cloud/software/AI platforms.
Apple is a hardware company. Siri is not a coud/software/AI platform for them as they really do not compete in this area. For Apple, Siri is and remains a digital assistant. Therefore, Apple has to put out a legit hardware product. While it is possible that a viable speaker product could have been $75, Apple's matching the price of similar $99 Alexa and Nest devices is appropriate.
The actual biggest limiter on the HomePod line is not price anyway. It is that a HomePod can only be used with another Apple device. It has no optical, HDMI or even AUX input and even Bluetooth/UWB only works from other Apple devices. That is far too limiting for most people, who have a variety of potential audio products in the house. Example: want to connect it to your TV? Tough luck unless you are willing to buy a $180 Apple TV. And even that doesn't help you if you have your - say - PlayStation connected to the TV's other HDMI port. By contrast, Amazon encourages you to use the Echo Studio as a sound bar - it comes up in the "sound bar" search results - and it supports AUX and bluetooth connectivity to any device. 

The premium smart speaker market is small. The market for people willing to pay $299 for a speaker that is only compatible with Apple products is basically nonexistent. This device has a better shot because it is closer to the "small bluetooth speaker" price range.

22july2013 said:

When I put on my long term prognostication hat, I consider Disney to be Apple's potentially largest direct competitor in 2030. Disney's brand and IP could put them in a strong consumer facing position. They have a venture capital division that invests in high tech companies. The first segment they could easily dominate if they wanted to is an internet media streaming box. Note that Disney owns 60% of Hulu.

So ... Disney is going to start making smartphones, tablets and computers? And people would - for some reason - buy them if they did? Fascinating.
Yes, Disney owns Disney+, Hulu as well as the Disney Channel/ABC/ESPN cable and broadcast networks. That's only a fraction of the streaming landscape. Disney+ and particularly Hulu are dwarfed by Netflix and Amazon Prime. It would be difficult to identify someone who has Disney+ but not Netflix, for example. There are also streaming networks offered by their direct competitors i.e. Paramount+, HBO Max and whatever NBCUniversal purports to be doing. Are they going to put their channels on the DisneyBox? (Not likely.) And this goes back to my initial question: Disney is going to become a tech company with the capability to design and build a streaming box? Consumer-facing: Dell, HP and Lenovo don't have "consumer facing positions" yet they sell tons of computers primarily to enterprises each year. So these large (or medium sized or small) businesses are going to start buying Disney workstations and notebooks? Disney is going to have the software, support and cloud infrastructure to back them?

Good grief, Disney+ doesn't even support single sign on - something that some niche streaming channels are capable of - and you want to make Disney the #2 tech company on the planet. Also, you might want to read the several columns floating around about how much debt Disney is servicing right now. Disney is focusing on streaming because the theatrical release game is getting to be unsustainable.
Budget: $150 million (or no one will see it)
Marketing: $125 million (or no one will see it)
Theatres and distribution costs: at least 50% (or no one will show it)
A Disney movie now needs to make $500-$600 million at the box office just to break even. Do they have very many potential projects in the can capable of it? Star Wars is a mess. No one wants to admit it but their superhero movies have an uncertain future without their two most popular characters (initially Iron Man and later Captain America). As for their other movies ... their big thing going right now is either sequels of remakes - Maleficient 2 was last year, The Lion King 2, The Jungle Book 2 and Aladdin 2 are all in the works - or more movies based on rides (Jungle Cruise starring The Rock was supposed to be their big summer movie this year). 

The combination of their massive debt and not getting any real return on theatrical releases - to the point where their goal was merely to break even in order to make money on merchandising for a lot of their films - means they have no choice but to focus on streaming. And even streaming is going to cannibalize their cable channel revenues.