esummers

Sounds like the right thing to do.  They will likely be forced to do this eventually.  Might as well do it on your own terms.  Particularly for Mail and Maps, I'm sure this is a point of frustration for some users that could lead to Android looking more attractive to them.

Specs in the "Processor" category are significantly different with Apple having a huge lead, but spec-to-spec comparisons are often misleading since they don't show the whole picture or are hard to quantify with a single number or spec.  There are legitimate reasons to choose Android, but technology-wise it is hard to compete with Apple's control of the whole stack.  For example iPhones are much more efficient with their RAM use due to no garbage collection overhead, more efficient resource utilization in background processes, and more efficient at offloading inactive memory to SSD.   You can basically double the iPhone RAM specs for the sake of comparison with Android.  Apple's processor is significantly more advanced than anything offered by Qualcomm putting it in a league of its own.   Apple's battery chemistry is very good, but there is no specification to show that.  Apple could easily match RAM or battery size specs, but it chooses not to because it doesn't matter.  Android generally gets earlier access to commodity tech like the latest cellular chips due to release cycle differences.  You are also comparing last years iPhone with this years Samsung phone.  I don't know enough to compare the large camera MP difference when not using binning (although Apple seems better in the typical case 12MP vs 10MP), but I assume that is due to the huge camera array on the Samsung.  I'm not sure if that tradeoff makes sense for an iPhone, but I'm sure it will attract someone to the S20 Ultra.

gatorguy said:

AppleInsider said:

A report claims that Apple is working with game distributor Valve

Valve wouldn't be providing the VR experiences itself, but could use the Steam distribution system to distribute them. .

Rather than AR as the focus Apple will be targeting VR uses like gaming, just the opposite of what has been reported in the past couple of years??
I remember Mr Cook not all that long ago arguing that augmented reality is preferable to virtual reality. Partnering with a gaming company on the development seems at odds with that. 

VR is a stepping stone towards AR.  It allows content to start being generated.  VR/AR is ideal for rhythm/music games and games/experiences with social features.  I think this is an appealing area for Apple that has never been interested in console style gaming.  This is also the reason Facebook is getting in to operating systems with the Oculus Quest.  The technologies are similar, but VR is easier to implement.  I think it is likely that if the initial device doesn't use waveguide displays it will at least have a camera to allow some AR uses.  They need the cameras for tracking anyway.  Part of the reason for the partnership might be to brand the hardware differently if they want to wait for waveguides to build a device with Apple branding.  I don't think it is likely to happen, but imagine if Apple acquired steam and really got in to gaming?

EDIT: I don't think Tim Cook was against gaming.  I think he was interested in the capacity for VR/AR to create new social experiences.  That is certainly possible in games and on an AR device built around VR tech.

Kopfschmerzen said:

Still not sure why others can’t achieve what Apple can in chip design. And, while every editorial praises Apple’s approach (concentrating on premium devices only), there must be companies making cheap devices. There’s nothing wrong with being a cheap device producer. You obviously can’t make more money from cheap devices as they priced less than Apple’s margin on iPhones.

Other chip designers need their chips to work across a variety of products.  That means guessing on a lot of attributes that take up space on the chip.  They often add parts to the chip for single customers, but manufacture for everyone taking up more space.  Apple is the only company optimizing microprocessors for a single product.  It takes a lot of guaranteed scale to do this.  Imagine if a company thought they could pull it off and failed.  They would go out of business.  Apple is the only company that doesn’t need to manage risk because they have a product that is almost fail-proof.  Apple’s chip designers are also very good.  I suspect it is difficult for other companies to recruit good engineers. Qualcomm’s monopoly power is probably also hindering efforts to compete.

Having a 4th company is tricky due to not enough spectrum to have a good competitor without reallocating everyone’s spectrum.  Ensuring three strong wireless competitors and one weak instead of two strong and two weak is probably an improvement though.