If there's any life left in this thread to salvage, I'm curious what people think about this whole "Apple is super focused" and that's why features, etc. come slowly. Because they meticulously think about everything before they do it so that it's not half-baked.
To some degree, I agree this is true. When they do things, they usually do it either a) better, or b) are able to do it in a way that it makes it mainstream and accepted; and sometimes a combination of both a & b.
However, I argue that this is sort of blown up and exaggerated and only seemingly the case because they actually don't compete to the same degree and speed when we're looking at new features. In other words, they're less susceptible to "half baked" features when comparing to other OEMs who try harder and faster to introduce new things which don't always land on the first attempt(s).
Also, it's simply untrue that Apple doesn't have half-baked features. I mention a few here:
Explain to me apple maps please in its first two years and especially in its first year. How is that not a half baked feature that was rushed out so they could oust google maps? Tim cook apologized for it and there were executive firings.
Explain to me how come their version of "ok google" with siri can only be used when plugged into the car? Why isn't it OS wide like it can be on some android devices? The moto x can be activated nearly entirely hands free.
How about ios 8 update that bricked or otherwise caused havoc on people's phones.
Do you guys agree?
TL;DR version: So sure apple may not do half baked as often as others do but that, I think, is simply because they don't offer that many new features in the first place.
I would also consider the question, how long does it really take to consider some of the new hardware/software features others are doing? How much more focused do you need to concentrate on say more email attachments, or quick charge, or other simple and clear advantages that could easily be implemented and add to the iPhone experience? At what point do we simply say, Apple just doesn't want to (and may never)? And what point do we simply concede that Apple doesn't want to compete this way be it for profits or the idea of forward thinking and removing legacy features (something Apple never shies away from)?
And is this okay given how much the competition is offering in relatively the same package and price?
I think Apple just competes differently. You're right, Apple isn't without its faults. But overall I feel they implement most features well from the beginning. Control center imo is nice, Touch ID is imo great, Apple pay has been great for me. But again it's not perfect. Like u said maps wasn't great, I really don't use hey Siri. Apple wants you to buy their products. Wants you in the ecosystem. iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, etc. it makes for a somewhat seamless experience. Consistent, fluid, overall reliable. Apps are imo the best overall because of the developers and the control Apple has over it. It's why I believe Samsung is working on tizen. They also want that own identity, inner ecosystem. They want the money too. They're probably also finding out its not easy building a complete unique ecosystem where desktop, tablets, phones etc, it's own App Store all run with fluidity. I hope for their sake they're able to do it. Or another company. I still feel like Samsung is being hurt just as much by other android oems in addition to Apple.
Again there's always competition. Apple is smart. They don't license iOS. To get the experience you must buy their hardware. the s6 is by your account a great device. I'm not downing either. I would argue that Samsung and other android oems must be different than an Apple because they all use the same base os. They must differentiate more from each other and from Apple, whether it be touchwiz, sense, etc. All the features? Features aren't a bad thing. Again Apple usually releases features on every version of ios. The pace at which they do whether it's satisfactory or not, is subjective. So I look at the numbers. Increasing sales, increasing growth of a product yearly tells me imo it's competing successfully at a rate that is overall satisfactory to the market.
I believe the market usually dictates whether a product is competing successfully. It may take time like most things but I don't believe consumers for the most part buy and keep buying something they don't enjoy year after year. I don't think the s5 turned out to be successful for Samsung hence the revamped s6. People may not like losing the sd card, removable battery, waterproofness but if it sells a ton then I'm sure Samsung would say it's a success product, that it competed successfully. I'm sure Apple would say the same.
Imo Apple competes at a successful pace due to its growth. By all means if the iPhone has a flop year and Samsung starts having history making quarters, then there's objective merit to apples brand power chipping away or Apple isn't competing fast enough imo. But everything I've read says this isn't happening.
Again I don't get why I have to be negative towards anything. The s6 will by all accounts I've read help Samsung. But it doesn't mean it changes Apple. If I read apples brand is in jeopardy or Apple needs to do something sooner than later, yet I look at the objective numbers showing they sell more and more iPhones every year, I'll tend to disagree with it unless events show otherwise.
----------
Sorry for the double post. Think I lost connection for a minute
