Hi-tech big 5 comparison

[smoledman]

You failed to answer my question. Why are you so interested in the profits Apple and other companies make? How do they affect your life?

I didn't say Apple hasn't spent their money wisely, but there is always room for improvement if we look at this from a consumer's standpoint. Apple could invest on hardware (CPU, GPU, SoC, NAND etc.) development and provide us with hardware that is superior to competitors'. Right now Apple uses the same technology as every other company. This would be an example of a scenario where we, consumers, would clearly be benefiting from Apple's massive pile of cash. To be clear, I'm not saying that they should, just providing an example.

Apple to buy Israeli NAND firm for $500 million

At least when Apple makes an acquisition it makes perfect sense and for a reasonable sum. Microsoft buys Skype for $8.5 billion just so they can get a BRAND. They don't even NEED the tech as Lync is better!

 

[Hellhammer]

Apple to buy Israeli NAND firm for $500 million

Anobit is fab-less, though, they still need to rely on 3rd parties for actual manufacturing. It was definitely an interesting purchase from Apple. Now we just need to wait and see if it's any good.

At least when Apple makes an acquisition it makes perfect sense and for a reasonable sum. Microsoft buys Skype for $8.5 billion just so they can get a BRAND. They don't even NEED the tech as Lync is better!

Acquisitions aren't that simple. The brand is just one part of the equation. Things like patents and workers are often far more valuable.

 

[BaldiMac]

I didn't say Apple hasn't spent their money wisely, but there is always room for improvement if we look at this from a consumer's standpoint. Apple could invest on hardware (CPU, GPU, SoC, NAND etc.) development and provide us with hardware that is superior to competitors'. Right now Apple uses the same technology as every other company. This would be an example of a scenario where we, consumers, would clearly be benefiting from Apple's massive pile of cash. To be clear, I'm not saying that they should, just providing an example.

Apple does invest in hardware development to provide us hardware that is (arguably) superior to competitors'.

This is just a short-sighted argument.

 

[Hellhammer]

Apple does invest in hardware development to provide us hardware that is (arguably) superior to competitors'.

Hardware is more than just the shiny exterior. In terms of actual components, Apple is no better than the competition. ARM CPU cores, PowerVR GPUs, Samsung NAND... That's where Apple lacks specialty.

 

[BaldiMac]

Hardware is more than just the shiny exterior. In terms of actual components, Apple is no better than the competition. ARM CPU cores, PowerVR GPUs, Samsung NAND... That's where Apple lacks specialty.

Do you read this site?

Custom CPUs (A4, A5). You were just shown a link to a purchase related to Flash memory. Huge investments in screen technology. Huge investments in battery technology. Huge investments in antenna technology.

And that ignores the consumer benefits of the industrial design that they are known for (that you dismiss as a shiny exterior while ignoring the pragmatic benefits).

 

[boss.king]

Well, you are neither. Why do you care how much companies make profit? Unless you are a shareholder, you shouldn't care about that at all. It doesn't affect your life.

Sure, Apple makes some sweet profits, nobody can deny that. However, if they just sit on the pile of cash, we, consumers, won't really benefit from it.

I only care about the actual product I buy, the brand is meaningless. I don't care if they make $10 billion profit or $10 billion loss, that's not my interest. In some cases, I find that Apple's products are the best for my needs, but definitely not in all cases.

This is exactly what I've been trying to point out. Apple is doing well, good for them, but they aren't putting much back in R&D, which is where I'd like to see the money go as a consumer. That's how the consumer benefits, and that's what interests me really.

 

[AppleScruff1]

This is exactly what I've been trying to point out. Apple is doing well, good for them, but they aren't putting much back in R&D, which is where I'd like to see the money go as a consumer. That's how the consumer benefits, and that's what interests me really.

Sadly most here are more concerned with Apple's bottom line and not themselves as consumers.

 

[Hellhammer]

Custom CPUs (A4, A5)

ARM Cortex-A9/A8 and PowerVR graphics are quite far from being special. That's what you find inside almost any tablet or smartphone. Of course, having your own SoC will more customization but at least right now, Apple is limited to the same main components as other companies.

You were just shown a link to a purchase related to Flash memory.

Anobit concentrates on NAND reliability and longevity. Their patents will allow Apple to use cheaper NAND in their products without sacrificing the endurance. Definitely an interesting concept but the other option would be to use better quality NAND. Most likely, this will have zero effect on us, consumers.

Huge investments in screen technology.

This seems to be the only investment that has seriously paid off from consumer's viewpoint, but the Retina display thingy seems to be the only thing. Apple isn't exactly the best if we look at the other specs (link), though I admit that most consumers won't notice the difference (but they all notice the resolution).

Huge investments in battery technology.

Apple does well in terms of battery life but not well enough to really different them from the competitors (link).

Huge investments in antenna technology.

Well, after the iPhone 4 "antennagate", a lot investment was needed. They still aren't any better than the competition, though (link). I would also mention the lack of 4G but I do understand the difficulty of it (we have 4G network here but so far, zero compatible phones. I guess there would have to be regional iPhones, which is always problematic).

And that ignores the consumer benefits of the industrial design that they are known for (that you dismiss as a shiny exterior while ignoring the pragmatic benefits).

Design is a preference, remember that. Many like Apple's design, and so do I. However, the shiny glass design does have its flaws (link).

And for the sake of saying it, I'm not trying to prove that Apple sucks and every other OEM is the best. No, not at all. Apple is very special and successful in terms of profits. Hopefully they will spend that money well and make their products more special.

 

[BaldiMac]

ARM Cortex-A9/A8 and PowerVR graphics are quite far from being special. That's what you find inside almost any tablet or smartphone. Of course, having your own SoC will more customization but at least right now, Apple is limited to the same main components as other companies.

Why would you dismiss the customizations that Apple makes?

Anobit concentrates on NAND reliability and longevity. Their patents will allow Apple to use cheaper NAND in their products without sacrificing the endurance. Definitely an interesting concept but the other option would be to use better quality NAND. Most likely, this will have zero effect on us, consumers.

This seems to be the only investment that has seriously paid off from consumer's viewpoint, but the Retina display thingy seems to be the only thing. Apple isn't exactly the best if we look at the other specs (link), though I admit that most consumers won't notice the difference (but they all notice the resolution).

Apple does well in terms of battery life but not well enough to really different them from the competitors (link).

Well, after the iPhone 4 "antennagate", a lot investment was needed. They still aren't any better than the competition, though (link). I would also mention the lack of 4G but I do understand the difficulty of it (we have 4G network here but so far, zero compatible phones. I guess there would have to be regional iPhones, which is always problematic).

And for the sake of saying it, I'm not trying to prove that Apple sucks and every other OEM is the best. No, not at all. Apple is very special and successful in terms of profits. Hopefully they will spend that money well and make their products more special.

Way to shift those goalposts. I was just refuting your claim that Apple doesn't invest in hardware development to provide us hardware that is (arguably) superior to competitors'. They do. I provided examples. That is all.

Design is a preference, remember that. Many like Apple's design, and so do I. However, the shiny glass design does have its flaws (link).

Industrial design isn't just about how pretty something looks. There are objective advantages to good industrial design.

 

[Hellhammer]

Why would you dismiss the customizations that Apple makes?

What are those, then? What makes Apple A4 and A5 SoCs different from the dozens of other ARM+PowerVR SoCs?

Way to shift those goalposts. I was just refuting your claim that Apple doesn't invest in hardware development to provide us hardware that is (arguably) superior to competitors'. They do. I provided examples. That is all.

The problem is, I never claimed that Apple doesn't invest in hardware development. It's obvious that they do because they sell hardware. However, they could concentrate more on e.g. SoC development. Jump away from the ARM bandwagon and develop something of your own, like Qualcomm does.

Your examples were poor because Apple doesn't do any better than the competitors' in the examples you provided.

Industrial design isn't just about how pretty something looks. There are objective advantages to good industrial design.

What are those, then? Do you have any sources? Durability is one crucial area of design and like the video I linked shows, iPhone doesn't do that well.

 

[BaldiMac]

What are those, then? What makes Apple A4 and A5 SoCs different from the dozens of other ARM+PowerVR SoCs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5

The problem is, I never claimed that Apple doesn't invest in hardware development. It's obvious that they do because they sell hardware.

Semantics. You suggested that Apple "could invest on hardware (CPU, GPU, SoC, NAND etc.) development and provide us with hardware that is superior to competitors'." They do.

However, they could concentrate more on e.g. SoC development. Jump away from the ARM bandwagon and develop something of your own, like Qualcomm does.

They do concentrate on SoC development. What makes you think throwing more money at it would lead to a reasonable return on the investment? What makes you think they aren't doing enough? Obviously, Apple believes that the economics of processor development are not conducive to an exclusive design. For much of the same reasons that Macs moved to Intel.

Your examples were poor because Apple doesn't do any better than the competitors' in the examples you provided.

That's just silly. You even acknowledged that they were doing better than their competitors in screen tech.

What makes you think Apple isn't doing better than their competitors? Any competitors packing more battery life into the same space constraints as Apple did? Any competitors with the same GPU performance?

What are those, then? Do you have any sources? Durability is one crucial area of design and like the video I linked shows, iPhone doesn't do that well.

Seriously? Size. Weight. Reliability. Manufacturing efficiency. Quality Assurance. Usability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design

(I like how you choose to focus on the negatives of the design. Design is about tradeoffs. There are actually advantages to using glass. It wasn't chosen simply because it's pretty.)

 

[Hellhammer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5

Mentions only one customization which isn't anything big either. Look at what NVidia does with Tegra and you will know what's real customization.

Semantics. You suggested that Apple "could invest on hardware (CPU, GPU, SoC, NAND etc.) development and provide us with hardware that is superior to competitors'." They do.

I should have said "Apple could invest more on hardware development". I take that back.

They do concentrate on SoC development. What makes you think throwing more money at it would lead to a reasonable return on the investment? What makes you think they aren't doing enough? Obviously, Apple believes that the economics of processor development are not conducive to an exclusive design. For much of the same reasons that Macs moved to Intel.

This never was about what Apple should do. This all started when smoledman asked me what Apple could do benefit us, consumers, from their profits. I mentioned hardware development because that is where Apple is heavily dependent on other companies (Apple owns no fabs and A4/A5 is the only chip designed by Apple, everything else is 3rd party).

Whether Apple should do it is a totally different question. I don't think they should because their current business model is producing great profits already. The only thing I can think of would be Apple's own NAND fab. They use a lot NAND so that would maximize the profits in the long run. Producing your own is cheaper than buying 3rd party. Then again, Apple does well without their own fab so it's not like they need one.

That's just silly. You even acknowledged that they were doing better than their competitors in screen tech.

Screen tech is more than just the resolution. If you look at the link I posted earlier, you will see that Apple is behind in brightness and contrast. They win in some and lose in the others.

What makes you think Apple isn't doing better than their competitors?

Because there are areas where Apple's products are not the best. It's useless to say that Apple is the best, because they are not. It's a preference. Lets take e.g. the battery life example. iPhone 4S provides superior battery life in web browsing. However, it loses in 3G talk time. If you do a lot web browsing, then an iPhone 4S is a great choice for you. If you want a long talk time, then there are better options than the iPhone.

Any competitors packing more battery life into the same space constraints as Apple did?

This is moot because there aren't any exactly similar phones. Bigger phones have more space for battery but a bigger display draws more power too. Plus the software is different. Apple definitely does extremely well in terms of battery life, nobody can deny that.

Any competitors with the same GPU performance?

It's about tradeoffs. Apple chose to concentrate on GPU performance. What about 4G and +4" display then? That's where the competition is ahead. Again, it boils down to what you want from your phone. Useless to say that one is better than the other for everyone.

Seriously? Size. Weight. Reliability. Manufacturing efficiency. Quality Assurance. Usability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design

(I like how you choose to focus on the negatives of the design. Design is about tradeoffs. There are actually advantages to using glass. It wasn't chosen simply because it's pretty.)

Where exactly is Apple better than the competition here?

 

[BaldiMac]

Mentions only one customization which isn't anything big either. Look at what NVidia does with Tegra and you will know what's real customization.

Again, your (uniformed) opinion of Apple's customizations isn't the point. I'm just pointing out that Apple is investing in hardware improvements.

I should have said "Apple could invest more on hardware development". I take that back.

There you go. That was my point.

The only thing I can think of would be Apple's own NAND fab. They use a lot NAND so that would maximize the profits in the long run. Producing your own is cheaper than buying 3rd party.

That's just not true in a lot of cases. And we were talking about better. Not increasing profits.

Because there are areas where Apple's products are not the best. It's useless to say that Apple is the best, because they are not. It's a preference. Lets take e.g. the battery life example. iPhone 4S provides superior battery life in web browsing. However, it loses in 3G talk time. If you do a lot web browsing, then an iPhone 4S is a great choice for you. If you want a long talk time, then there are better options than the iPhone.

You seem to be comparing the iPhone 4S to the iPhone 4 instead of it's competitors.

This is moot because there aren't any exactly similar phones. Bigger phones have more space for battery but a bigger display draws more power too. Plus the software is different. Apple definitely does extremely well in terms of battery life, nobody can deny that.

Exactly. And yet you are claiming that Apple isn't better. You are dismissing the results of Apple's hardware investments without actually knowing what they are.

 

[Hellhammer]

Again, your (uniformed) opinion of Apple's customizations isn't the point. I'm just pointing out that Apple is investing in hardware improvements.

But not at the level they could be, which was my original point.

That's just not true in a lot of cases. And we were talking about better. Not increasing profits.

That was just a side notation.

You seem to be comparing the iPhone 4S to the iPhone 4 instead of it's competitors.

And yet you are claiming that Apple isn't better.

Because it isn't. Claiming that Apple is better than the competition would be a huge generalization. For that to be true, they would have to be better in every single aspect. That's impossible. What's better for you doesn't automatically mean it's better for everyone, it's very subjective. We all have different usages and wants.

 

[smoledman]

Nobody buys an iPhone to make calls, they but it for the apps and as a status symbol. If all you care about is making phone calls, you can buy a cheap Nokia feature phone.

 

[BaldiMac]

But not at the level they could be, which was my original point.

Could be? Based on the idea that more money always equals better results? What do you think they are doing with the $80 billion?

Image

Image

Because it isn't. Claiming that Apple is better than the competition would be a huge generalization. For that to be true, they would have to be better in every single aspect. That's impossible. What's better for you doesn't automatically mean it's better for everyone, it's very subjective. We all have different usages and wants.

Except we were talking about hardware. Batteries to be specific. The efficiency of the web browsing software and the 3G radio was not what I was commenting on. You don't know results of Apple's investment in battery technology. You have no direct comparison to competitors with respect to maximizing battery capacity with respect to available space. You have no idea how much Apple has contributed by investing in battery developers to benefit the industry as a whole.

And yet you dismiss the investment as not benefitting consumers.

I didn't generalize. I didn't claim Apple is better in every single aspect. I simply refuted your claim that you have already corrected. Not sure why you feel the need to continue to mischaracterize my claims.




As an aside, with respect to your second chart, is it a surprise that larger, thicker phones that have room for a bigger battery get better battery life when the screen is off? The surprise is that there are bigger, thicker phones with worse battery life when the screen is off.

 

[boss.king]

Nobody buys an iPhone to make calls, they but it for the apps and as a status symbol. If all you care about is making phone calls, you can buy a cheap Nokia feature phone.

Then wouldn't they just buy an iPod? I know what you mean, but your wrong.

 

[smoledman]

Then wouldn't they just buy an iPod? I know what you mean, but your wrong.

Are you telling me the primary motivation for most iPhone 4S buyers isn't the app ecosystem + Siri?

 

[BaldiMac]

Are you telling me the primary motivation for most iPhone 4S buyers isn't the app ecosystem + Siri?

Maybe for buying an iPhone over another mobile phone. But that's not what you said.

 

[boss.king]

Are you telling me the primary motivation for most iPhone 4S buyers isn't the app ecosystem + Siri?

That may be but that's different from what you said before. I know a bunch of people that have an iPhone 4 but have no apps, they only use it as a phone. In fact yesterday a man borrowed my phone and commented on what an easy calling experience he had with it. He has no concept of the app store.

 

[Hellhammer]

You have no idea how much Apple has contributed by investing in battery developers to benefit the industry as a whole.

I don't care. My point was that Apple isn't better than the competition in terms of battery life. Even if Apple had spent $100 billion in battery technology, they are still not better.

And yet you dismiss the investment as not benefitting consumers.

I never said that, you are constantly putting words in my mouth. I said we won't benefit from the profits if Apple just sits on the pile of profit cash. I wondered why do people care about how much profit Apple makes. Their R&D costs are so low that they could develop this same stuff with much smaller profits.

Maybe you should just reread the thread because every time I reply, I have to tell you what I said earlier.

As an aside, with respect to your second chart, is it a surprise that larger, thicker phones that have room for a bigger battery get better battery life when the screen is off?

Samsung Galaxy S2 is thinner than iPhone 4S. It's not an excuse that iPhone is smaller, Apple could easily make it larger. It gets worse battery life in some tests. Period.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't care. My point was that Apple isn't better than the competition in terms of battery life. Even if Apple had spent $100 billion in battery technology, they are still not better.

And yet you have shown no objective measure that your statement is true. And you have posted evidence that your statement is not true. And, again, battery life is a function of hardware and software. I was specifically referring to investments in the battery itself (capacity, charging, shaping). Investments that Apple themselves have pointed out during some presentation. Investments that have obviously paid off to consumers.

I said we won't benefit from the profits if Apple just sits on the pile of profit cash. I wondered why do people care about how much profit Apple makes. Their R&D costs are so low that they could develop this same stuff with much smaller profits.

Like I said, what do you think they are doing with the $80 billion? Hint: it isn't just sitting in a pile.

And again, spending money because it's there does not necessarily benefit consumers.

Samsung Galaxy S2 is thinner than iPhone 4S.

Great. It's still bigger volume-wise, which would be the significant measurement to this discussion.

It's not an excuse that iPhone is smaller, Apple could easily make it larger. It gets worse battery life in some tests. Period.

Sure. But, again, we were talking about investments in battery technology. It isn't a technological breakthrough to get more battery capacity by making a bigger battery.



I'm not sure why you keep trying to shift the goalposts in this discussion. You have already corrected the statement that I disagreed with initially.

The rest is some hypothetical argument that Apple could possibly maybe significantly improve specific hardware components by throwing more money at them. I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt that if they thought they could invest in a significant hardware advantage, they would do it. Apple doesn't seem to think so. You think they are wrong.