Intel going after 2018 iPhone foundry deal

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
I dont know, as a company I get the impression that Apple is eyeing the long game ie. a futuristic anticompetitive environment is something that Apple might navigate to avoid today.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
Screen quality: The iPhone 6s is about to be replaced, yet it still has one of the best displays on the market. I'll also take it any day over Samsung's AMOLED displays.

The point about the 6S being replaced soon doesn't matter as its a 2% chance the iPhone 7 has an OLED screen like it should. And your comment about preferring a LCD display is going to look funny next year when Apple does have an OLED (probably Samsung made) for the iPhone 8 and everyone freaks about about how awesome it is compared to previous iPhones. Most people would prefer a great OLED, as the human eye loves real blacks.

Furthermore, I find the pursuit of putting 2560x1440 screens into 5" devices to be a good definition of stupidity.

I don't, because some companies are actually innovative and offer awesome features like VR that need that level of PPI to work well.

Even if you think the high resolution (and therefore VR) is "stupid," the fact that the 6S has nearly the same resolution as three year old Android budget phones is incredible. I have the unwieldy 6S Plus because the regular 6S screen shows fridging on fonts all over the place and I want OIS.

RAM: iOS is aggressive in its RAM compression, so the A9's 2GB allocation is fine. I think the better question would be: why does Android (especially with TouchWiz) continue to lag and stutter when it has twice the RAM as iOS?

Because Android has real multitasking, while iOS doesn't which has positives and negatives (battery life being the biggest negative). I do overall agree the 2GB of ram on my 6S Plus is fine, but Apple has a history of being slow to RAM upgrades. For example the iPhone 6 non-S Plus having less effective RAM than the iPhone 5 when it released will always be one of the worst screw jobs to mobile customers in the short history of this segment.

Form factor: Subjective.

If you mean some people can like bad design then yeah sure. Even then I don't know ANYONE- not professional tech journalists or real people- who "like" the fact that the iPhone has fat 2012-ish bezels. EVERY iPhone owner I talk to would take 2013 LG G2 level bezels in a heartbeat. Any defense of the stagnant iPhone form factor with fat bezels is going to read like high comedy next year when Apple finally addresses that issue on the iPhone 8.

Oh and pretty much any technology journalist who isn't Apple specific (and needs to be nice to them to keep getting the good access) will admit Apple's phablet design is a disaster. There is no hardware benefit to the Plus iPhones but size (so no pen like the Note 1 had) if you exclude features the small iPhone should have anyway (higher PPI and OIS). Also the current Plus iPhones are very top heavy which is harder to use than say a Note. I have it because iOS is a nicer OS, the actual hardware is behind Android in most ways.

Camera quality: Again, the 6s is about to be replaced. Upon its release, it had perhaps the best camera in its class -- only rivalled, and slightly bested, by the Galaxy S7. The iPhone 6s Plus with OIS is still remains as one of the best equipped smartphones when it comes to shooting photos and video.

In low light a Galaxy S6 (so same year as a 6S) blows away the equivalent iPhone. I mean it isn't even close, you can't do anything about a smaller sensor and not having OIS on the small model. The fact that only the big iPhone has OIS when Android has had it on regular sized phones since 2013 is yet ANOTHER example of how behind the times the iPhone is.

The proof will be how everyone reacts to the barely changed iPhone we expect them to release this year, and the massively changed iPhone that is coming next year. I expect this one to be defined by how it lacks a headphone jack, and the next one to be defined as "the iPhone with the nice screen that looks pretty." Apple will be "back" then, when all they did to get there was hold punches for years to make that much extra margin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RussianSensation

HiroThreading

Member
Apr 25, 2016
173
29
91
The point about the 6S being replaced soon doesn't matter as its a 2% chance the iPhone 7 has an OLED screen like it should. And your comment about preferring a LCD display is going to look funny next year when Apple does have an OLED (probably Samsung made) for the iPhone 8 and everyone freaks about about how awesome it is compared to previous iPhones. Most people would prefer a great OLED, as the human eye loves real blacks.

Launch dates are relevant in technology because... it's technology. It's how we can judge things like CPUs and GPUs relative to their predecessors and successors.

Not sure why you're bringing up OLED here -- I thought we were discussing display tech in smartphones today -- particularly why many dislike AMOLED because of its oversaturated colour gamut. Further, I'm not sure why you're making out iPhone owners as being anti-OLED. Many are looking forward to OLED.

I don't, because some companies are actually innovative and offer awesome features like VR that need that level of PPI to work well.

You think putting a 1440p resolution screen in a 5" device is innovative? How many people can even tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p in a device that small? It's called spec sheet stuffing, not innovation -- like putting 4-8GB of RAM on an entry level GPU. Heck, don't even get me started on the tax you're putting on the GPU at that resolution.

Oh boy, VR and smartphones...
Firstly, VR content consumption is never going to be optimal (let alone decent) when it's driven by the smartphone's inbuilt display, because optimal VR rendering is best delivered by two separate inbuilt displays (one for each eye).

Secondly, let's think about the practicalities and requirements of VR rendering when done on the smartphone. Why would you even want VR rendering done on your smartphone? Battery and GPU capabilities are already constrained, and that's not even considering the fact that no sane person is going to be using a VR headset out in public or at work. That leaves the home as the prime location for VR headset usage -- but if you really cared about VR, you would buy an Oculus or a Vive which would be driven by a proper VR capable PC, rendering (pun not intended) the smartphone VR solution useless.

Samsung smartphone VR is typical Samsung -- they're just throwing random ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They never seem to learn the old adage: "just because something can be done, it doesn't mean it should be done."

Even if you think the high resolution (and therefore VR) is "stupid," the fact that the 6S has nearly the same resolution as three year old Android budget phones is incredible. I have the unwieldy 6S Plus because the regular 6S screen shows fridging on fonts all over the place and I want OIS.

More is not always better. Otherwise we would have more than four wheels on cars.

Again, I have no issue with VR. I have an issue with smartphone delivered VR (for the reason outlined above). And yes, I find putting anything higher than a 1080p screen on a 5" display to be stupid, because the human eye (even if you have 20/20 vision) can't discern the PPI difference between a 5" 1080p display and a 5" 4K display. But, you will notice the significantly drained battery life and hotter operating temperatures which come with running an excessively higher resolution than required.

Because Android has real multitasking, while iOS doesn't which has positives and negatives (battery life being the biggest negative). I do overall agree the 2GB of ram on my 6S Plus is fine, but Apple has a history of being slow to RAM upgrades. For example the iPhone 6 non-S Plus having less effective RAM than the iPhone 5 when it released will always be one of the worst screw jobs to mobile customers in the short history of this segment.

Rendering the home screen or settings page is not multitasking, and really shouldn't be stuttering. It's because Android is poorly optimised, and TouchWiz is 10 times worse.

http://www.xda-developers.com/with-...delivers-embarrassing-real-world-performance/

So again, specs aren't everything. Otherwise a 6.2L Chevvy should be outperforming a 4.0L BMW in every metric. You can't just throw blazing fast hardware at a problem, expecting it to lead to a better user experience. The software has got to be optimised to the hardware available, and that requires engineers across both the hardware and software to work closely with each other. This is something that Samsung (or most other Android OEMs for that matter) has never quite managed to figure out or do compared to Apple.

If you mean some people can like bad design then yeah sure. Even then I don't know ANYONE- not professional tech journalists or real people- who "like" the fact that the iPhone has fat 2012-ish bezels. EVERY iPhone owner I talk to would take 2013 LG G2 level bezels in a heartbeat. Any defense of the stagnant iPhone form factor with fat bezels is going to read like high comedy next year when Apple finally addresses that issue on the iPhone 8.

This is all subjective, and you're just throwing anecdotes.

Design is a function of the time it exists in. As I said at the start of my post, you can only judge things relative to the period in which they were released. The iPhone 6s is nearing the end of its flagship life, and it reflects what Apple determined was optimal in terms of engineering and design compromises prior to its launch.

Oh and pretty much any technology journalist who isn't Apple specific (and needs to be nice to them to keep getting the good access) will admit Apple's phablet design is a disaster. There is no hardware benefit to the Plus iPhones but size (so no pen like the Note 1 had) if you exclude features the small iPhone should have anyway (higher PPI and OIS). Also the current Plus iPhones are very top heavy which is harder to use than say a Note. I have it because iOS is a nicer OS, the actual hardware is behind Android in most ways.

...maybe the only people calling the 6 Plus a disaster just vehemently hate Apple? I don't know, most impartial review sites (like Anandtech, Ars and TechReport) seemed really happy with iPhones.

Again, you're judging the success and failure of a device simply by its spec sheet. The fact that the 6 Plus and 6s Plus exhibited strong sales (and the iPhone SE) shows that Apple's engineering choices were justified. Like, I find it interesting that you condition your statement by saying "there is no benefit to the Plus iPhones but size if you exclude features the small iPhone should have anyway" -- that's a bit of a straw man argument. It's akin to saying "there is no benefit to the GTX 1080 relative to the GTX 980 Ti... if you exclude the performance and newly supported features which the older card should have anyway!"

In low light a Galaxy S6 (so same year as a 6S) blows away the equivalent iPhone. I mean it isn't even close, you can't do anything about a smaller sensor and not having OIS on the small model. The fact that only the big iPhone has OIS when Android has had it on regular sized phones since 2013 is yet ANOTHER example of how behind the times the iPhone is.

Blows away is an exaggeration...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9686/the-apple-iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-review/10

The Note 5 does hold an advantage here by virtue of larger sensor size and just more pixels to work with. However when compared to some of the other phones on the market like the One M9 Apple actually manages to produce a better image despite their sensor size deficit and pixel count deficit.

The same scene with HDR enabled shows that Apple is relatively conservative when it comes to how strong they make their HDR effects. Once again something like the Note 5 is clearly better here when it comes to detail and overall dynamic range, but Samsung does push a bit too far when you look at some shadows as the trees in the left half of the image have noticeable color artefacts. [...]

Moving on to the same scene shot in low light [...] Relative to the Galaxy Note 5, the iPhone 6s Plus is pretty close here but the Note 5 does have an edge in detail. However, the post-processing has noticeably more artifacts such as the odd streak on the left side of the image which is due to stray light. The iPhone 6s Plus also does a better job of freezing motion of the people walking on the stairs, which is likely due to their image combination techniques to reduce motion blur that would otherwise be evident due to the long exposures used.

In the interest of gathering more data points for low light camera performance, I decided to try and find a relatively uniform low light scene that stresses detail more strongly. [...] The iPhone 6s Plus is actually arguably better than the Note 5 here by virtue of more accurate color and better details. For whatever reason in some very low contrast areas Samsung is just blurring away details in their post-processing that Apple is retaining. The ground is clearly more detailed as well. This seems counter-intuitive but this is really just Apple’s processing here as they’re getting away with an absurdly long exposure time without the associated motion blur that you might expect from a quarter second exposure.

In the interest of breaking things down even more, I decided to do one last low light test scene which is really more designed to see what motion blur occurs in low light than anything else. This is far from scientific but the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus are once again effectively equivalent at freezing motion, while the Note 5, G4, and almost every other phone I attempted to test this scene with is visibly worse at this. Weirdly enough, even though the Moto X 2014 and iPhone 6s are using the same shutter speed the iPhone appears to do a better job of maintaining detail. This is likely due to changes in image processing on the software side to try and reduce the effects but this is a rough estimate as I can’t control precisely how fast pedestrians and traffic move in this scene.

Overall, the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus are pretty consistently good cameras. In some ways Apple is losing out in raw detail for photos because they went with a smaller sensor size than most, but in general color reproduction, post-processing, and low light photo quality and overall camera UX Apple is leading quite strongly. To some extent, I would say that the Galaxy Note 5 and LG G4 are better in daytime just by virtue of their larger sensors, but in low light I would argue the iPhone 6s Plus is better by virtue of its ability to freeze motion while remaining competitive with the Note 5 and G4 for detail. The iPhone 6s by comparison is at least a few steps behind due to its lack of OIS, but this really only starts to matter when you hit the limits of the 2000 ISO and 1/15s exposure for a scene as the iPhone 6s Plus can push up to 2000 ISO and a 1/4s exposure.


The proof will be how everyone reacts to the barely changed iPhone we expect them to release this year, and the massively changed iPhone that is coming next year. I expect this one to be defined by how it lacks a headphone jack, and the next one to be defined as "the iPhone with the nice screen that looks pretty." Apple will be "back" then, when all they did to get there was hold punches for years to make that much extra margin.

Like I said, you judge products in the times they are launched. You can't complain about how slow and ugly a NES is now -- its prime was back in 1985!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIVR

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
You think putting a 1440p resolution screen in a 5" device is innovative? How many people can even tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p in a device that small? It's called spec sheet stuffing, not innovation -- like putting 4-8GB of RAM on an entry level GPU. Heck, don't even get me started on the tax you're putting on the GPU at that resolution.

Oh boy, VR and smartphones...
Firstly, VR content consumption is never going to be optimal (let alone decent) when it's driven by the smartphone's inbuilt display, because optimal VR rendering is best delivered by two separate inbuilt displays (one for each eye).

Secondly, let's think about the practicalities and requirements of VR rendering when done on the smartphone. Why would you even want VR rendering done on your smartphone? Battery and GPU capabilities are already constrained, and that's not even considering the fact that no sane person is going to be using a VR headset out in public or at work. That leaves the home as the prime location for VR headset usage -- but if you really cared about VR, you would buy an Oculus or a Vive which would be driven by a proper VR capable PC, rendering (pun not intended) the smartphone VR solution useless.

Samsung smartphone VR is typical Samsung -- they're just throwing random ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They never seem to learn the old adage: "just because something can be done, it doesn't mean it should be done."
The problem with your post is that you separated the resolution part from the VR part. poofyhairguy was talking about higher resolution and VR together, you can't address them in different paragraphs. Not sure why you think resolution is not important for a realistic VR experience, but then go on to say that having two separate displays is important. Sounds like cherry-picking to me because you are bent on not letting smartphones do VR for some reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poofyhairguy

imported_ats

Senior member
Mar 21, 2008
422
63
86
The problem with your post is that you separated the resolution part from the VR part. poofyhairguy was talking about higher resolution and VR together, you can't address them in different paragraphs. Not sure why you think resolution is not important for a realistic VR experience, but then go on to say that having two separate displays is important. Sounds like cherry-picking to me because you are bent on not letting smartphones do VR for some reason.

anyone talking about phones and VR is has long since jumped the shark. Phones simply don't have anywhere close to the GPU performance even at peak and power limits them to a fraction of peak performance. When you consider that desktop GPUs with 10x+ the performance of the best in class phone GPUs have performance problems in VR, it just becomes hilarious.

As far as resolution, when you move beyond perfect vision resolution, you are just wasting power and throwing away money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIVR and scannall

Anon_lawyer

Member
Sep 8, 2014
56
1
71
I dont know, as a company I get the impression that Apple is eyeing the long game ie. a futuristic anticompetitive environment is something that Apple might navigate to avoid today.

I'm sure Apple doesn't want to be dependent on a single foundry - but what is their volume? It must be large enough that they could split it between Intel, TSMC and Samsung and still have all three vying for the business. Pick two out of three for each order, and have the third pushing very hard for next year's business... that sounds very favorable for Apple.
 
Last edited:

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
Launch dates are relevant in technology because... it's technology. It's how we can judge things like CPUs and GPUs relative to their predecessors and successors.

My point is thanks to leaks we already know that the iPhone 7 is more of the same probably, so saying that most of this is just a 6S problem is fallacy. If anything the upcoming iPhone 7 will be an even better datapoint of how Apple mails in its designs when it comes to hardware and form factor if the iPhone SE (basically 6S guts shoved in a 5S, lazy as it gets) didn't already prove that.

Not sure why you're bringing up OLED here

Because ALL iPhone should have OLEDs TODAY if iPhones really were the best hardware on the market. The best screens are OLEDs period, there is a reason that OLEDs are used for VR. iPhones could have OLEDs right now if Apple was willing to take the margin hit, which they are not. That makes the iPhone the best hardware "that Apple can throw together and still keep massive margins," which is different from outright having the best hardware overall.

You think putting a 1440p resolution screen in a 5" device is innovative? How many people can even tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p in a device that small?

No, I think putting a 720p screen on a flagship phone in 2015 is a rip off. I maybe can't see the difference between a 5 inch 1080p screen and a 5 inch 1440p one, but I sure as hell can see all the fringing on fonts on the current regular sized iPhone. It really bugs me, enough to get the Plus model for that alone. Plus as I said the real benefit of higher resolution displays is VR.

Firstly, VR content consumption is never going to be optimal (let alone decent) when it's driven by the smartphone's inbuilt display, because optimal VR rendering is best delivered by two separate inbuilt displays (one for each eye).

Who cares about optimal, smartphone VR is all about affordable. See I actually have a Galaxy VR (had it for years) and I really enjoy it plus everyone I show it to is amazed by it. Turns out good enough is good enough sometimes, especially for just looking around remote places or simple games.

Why would you even want VR rendering done on your smartphone?

Because smartphone VR > no VR. Unless you are volunteering to buy me a Vive and a monster computer to go with it you are being kinda snobbish on this point. Galaxy VR is neat enough for what it is, and will be the first VR experience for MILLIONS of people. I have it, have used it, and you obviously have not so I can tell you it gives you enough to have a VR experience that shows you the future power of VR.

And BTW that is all you get with ANY VR platform right now. The gen 1 models of Oculus and Vive have so many limitations it's obvious gen 2 models will blow them out of the water. So really premium VR doesn't exist on the planet yet outside of labs, which means that anything we get is just an indicator of what we will get in the future. If all you can buy is a halfbaked product no matter what, most people would prefer to spend $100 (price of Galaxy VR helmet) and use their phone over $800 (price of Vive) plus a monster PC. As I said, it's good enough to wow people when I show them.

Plus I have to make the point that neither Oculus nor Vive have anything to do with Apple, so the broader point is how Samsung is more innovative on hardware is based on the fact that they are at least IN the VR game unlike Apple that has no native VR solution for its handsets. Hell Apple doesn't even sell a computer that could run the Vive or Oculus, meaning anyone that cares about VR has to go outside their ecosystem. This is a clear win for Android, and Daydream is about to make that gap massive.

Rendering the home screen or settings page is not multitasking, and really shouldn't be stuttering. It's because Android is poorly optimised, and TouchWiz is 10 times worse.

I am talking hardware, not software. I already admitted iOS is a nicer OS. The issue is the hardware it runs on is behind the times (except storage and CPU) so Apple can keep massive margins, and that people try to justify that behind the times hardware because they have to buy it to get iOS. I don't do that, I admit the hardware is a dinosaur (besides a few exceptions) and I have it to get iOS. Therefore I have no problems with someone wanting iOS. I have a problem with someone telling me that a iPhone is more advanced hardware-wise than a Galaxy when the Galaxy blows it away on almost every hardware metric besides SoC and storage.

Design is a function of the time it exists in. As I said at the start of my post, you can only judge things relative to the period in which they were released.

Which is why I keep going on and on about the 2013 LG G2. Android has had small bezels on its flagship phones since 2013, so the "function of the time" is Apple could have that too if they didn't coast on designs for two plus years to maximize margins. Apple is the richest company in the world, you can't tell me they couldn't shrink a bezel when much poorer companies like LG, Samsung and even OnePlus can do it. The answer is they don't want to because they don't have to, not some BS argument that they did the best they could given what they have.

The iPhone 6s is nearing the end of its flagship life, and it reflects what Apple determined was optimal in terms of engineering and design compromises prior to its launch.

First of all the iPhone 7 looks to be the same design basically so it's not like Apple is even TRYING to innovate on this metric. Secondly what Apple considered to be "optimal" (especially on the phablet design) simply isn't when compared to the competition. That is the whole issue- the iPhone doesn't exist in a bubble. Yeah maybe only it runs iOS, but we have other smartphones and many of them BLOW AWAY the iPhone design.

I mean Apple keeps the same hardware design two years in a row- no one else does that and thrives! How can you argue they do they best they can when they mail it in every other year? The only thing that can be arguing is that Apple has a right to have stagnant hardware due to how they built their brand perception and their OS vendor lock in, which I can't disagree with.

...maybe the only people calling the 6 Plus a disaster just vehemently hate Apple?

I can point out a few unbiased reviews that point out the fat bezels or top heavy design if you want.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/16/6155009/apple-iphone-6-plus-review

Sure, I can double-tap the Home button to bring the top of the screen down, but this is an awkward gesture given how top-heavy the iPhone 6 Plus feels. I know it's tricky to get user interfaces right, but after only using the iPhone 6 Plus for an hour or so I'd already come up with possible improvements, which I'll go through later. I would have expected Apple to have put more thought into this.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-iphone-6-plus-ownership/

The extra height increases the surfboard-like nature of the 6 Plus — it’s a well-balanced package, but it’s so long it can feel top-heavy if you don’t grab it in the middle. It’s less stable to hold in one hand than Samsung’s Note 3, which is a bit more squat and squared-off. It’s a tiny difference in spec-sheet dimensions, but in day-to-day use the Note 3 definitely feels smaller.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/01/29/forget-thinness-get-rid-of-these-bezels/

Being an iPhone 6s Plus user myself, I have no qualms with the battery life I’m experiencing and would like Apple to continue focusing on slimming down devices, but by cutting out the atrociously large bezels surrounding my screen rather than slicing off a couple more millimeters from the back.

That last one is a iPhone only site to prove my point of how wrong you are. Killing the messenger doesn't change the message.

Again, you're judging the success and failure of a device simply by its spec sheet.

Aka its hardware. That is exactly what I am doing. I am saying the hardware is behind the competition. I don't debate that the OS is better or that the iPhone is the most successful product in human history in sales terms. I just think that success is due to early mover advantage, brand value, and OS lock-in rather than market-leading hardware. The hardware is behind in almost every way and will be until 2018 probably.

The fact that the 6 Plus and 6s Plus exhibited strong sales (and the iPhone SE) shows that Apple's engineering choices were justified.

No, it just shows how millions of people are locked into iOS or the Apple brand name. Just like millions of people will buy the iPhone 7 despite being pissed it got rid of a headphone jack they use- if you are heavily invested in iOS then Apple could crap in a box and you would have to buy it (aka the iPad 3) because there is no competition for iOS devices. That doesn't mean you can't compare the hardware to other smartphones though, they all do the same general stuff even if the OS is a little more janky sometimes on the Android side.

Like, I find it interesting that you condition your statement by saying "there is no benefit to the Plus iPhones but size if you exclude features the small iPhone should have anyway" -- that's a bit of a straw man argument. It's akin to saying "there is no benefit to the GTX 1080 relative to the GTX 980 Ti... if you exclude the performance and newly supported features which the older card should have anyway!"

Well I do think the 980 ti should have had real async support like Nvidia promised but that is a whole other debate. Let's leave GPUs out of it.

Blows away is an exaggeration...

Maybe, depends on how much you need OIS or low light performance. In the CPU forum even 10% can be "blows away." The aperture difference between the models is bigger than that (2.2 vs 1.9).

Like I said, you judge products in the times they are launched. You can't complain about how slow and ugly a NES is now -- its prime was back in 1985!

I can complain that a 2015 iPhone has larger bezels than a 2013 LG G2 because they are from the same time (well actually the G2 is older). I can complain the 2014 iPhone 6 Plus had less effective RAM than the 2012 iPhone 5. I can complain that the 2015 iPhone 6S has fringing on fonts that the 2013 LG G2 doesn't have. I can complain that Apple obviously holds its punches on hardware for margin. Free country plus it's a good argument with real merit.

The only thing I can't do is expect them to do anything about it, not when millions will buy whatever they sell because they need iOS and then justify that purchase to themselves on some BS point of "that was the best the richest company in the world can do."

Hopefully a partnership with Intel means they are willing to be more aggressive on the hardware-side going forward, as Intel has the best process probably.
 

HiroThreading

Member
Apr 25, 2016
173
29
91
This is going to go in circles, as a lot of what I said in my previous post still stands. So I'll only address the points which I haven't already covered. No personal offence intended, but I think some of your points or issues with the iPhone are fairly contrived.

You seem to want faster and faster hardware, despite the fact that the A9 is still the performance king in real world benchmarks; you had issues with the camera, despite the fact that comparisons and benchmarks show that the 6s/6s Plus' camera is a market leader in photo capture image quality; you want 4K OLED, even though no other manufacturer is shipping an OLED display due to the technical and economic limitations of current OLED tech (OLED will happen -- just not today); you belittle the iPhone 6s's display resolution, even though it has a screen density of 326 PPI -- equivalent to a 4K display on a 13" laptop (seriously, you think more is better?); and finally, most bizarrely, you want Apple to equip the iPhone with VR, despite being unable to justify the existence of VR on a smartphone.

See I actually have a Galaxy VR (had it for years) and I really enjoy it plus everyone I show it to is amazed by it.

More anecdotes...

How often do you actually use it outside of your home? How many of your friends will actually go out and buy one, and use it in public?

Galaxy VR is neat enough for what it is, and will be the first VR experience for MILLIONS of people.

No, that honour is reserved for the PlayStation Morpheus and Xbox Scorpio.

I have it, have used it, and you obviously have not so I can tell you it gives you enough to have a VR experience that shows you the future power of VR.

I have used the Galaxy VR headsets, actually. I've also used the Rift and Vive.

The Galaxy VR, in my personal opinion, left a lot to be desired. It felt a lot like a tech demo rather than a finished product. It reminded me of the Nintendo Virtual Boy -- a proof of concept rather than a good consumer product.

You seem to assume that I am some kind of hater of VR, so can I just clarify that I actually like VR? I just thin that VR has a snowball's chance in hell of being successful on the smartphone platform.

And BTW that is all you get with ANY VR platform right now. The gen 1 models of Oculus and Vive have so many limitations it's obvious gen 2 models will blow them out of the water. So really premium VR doesn't exist on the planet yet outside of labs, which means that anything we get is just an indicator of what we will get in the future. If all you can buy is a halfbaked product no matter what, most people would prefer to spend $100 (price of Galaxy VR helmet) and use their phone over $800 (price of Vive) plus a monster PC.

Except that the Rift and Vive don't feel half baked. They felt a lot like the original iPhone or Intel's Ultrabook concept. Sure, they feel a bit rough around the edges, but you can see that a couple hardware (and software) revisions will deliver a fantastic product.

Also, it's funny you mention cost, because in order to drive the Galaxy VR headset you need to purchase a compatible phone such as the $850 Note 7. If you can afford that, then you can afford a GTX 970/1060 or Radeon 290/390/480 and the Rift/Vive.

As I said, it's good enough to wow people when I show them.

People were wowed by "smart appliances" like fridges. Heck, people were wowed by Siri too... it doesn't take much to capture people's attention for five minutes.

Hell Apple doesn't even sell a computer that could run the Vive or Oculus, meaning anyone that cares about VR has to go outside their ecosystem. This is a clear win for Android, and Daydream is about to make that gap massive.

This is a separate argument, and has a lot to do with the "why are there no games for OS X?" conundrum.

Not sure how it's a clear win for Android...? Especially since Galaxy VR is locked to Samsung phones only. Even ff you look at the Galaxy VR shipment figures (just over a million) and assume that they're end-user sales, then it's still minuscule compared to the roughly 1.4-1.5 billion Android install base.


bezels bezels bezels

Yeah, not quite sure why you have so much hatred for the bezels, but to each his own.

Look, if the only significant negative point that a reviewer can come up with is the size of the bezels on an iPhone, then I think the engineers did a really good job. Quoting one of the review sites you linked:

The Verge said:
The best smartphone camera I've ever used.

I’m going to buy an iPhone 6 Plus. I’m taken with it; it feels like an entirely new kind of device for Apple, and it has such a killer camera I can’t say no. It’s every bit as good a phone as the iPhone 6; I’m docking it a little because Apple has a few software glitches to clear up. But I’m confident that will happen.

There’s nothing here that competitors aren’t doing with their big phones — Samsung in particular is pushing the envelope with its S Pen stylus and multiple-app features — but the overall package is so good it’s hard to ignore.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/16/6155009/apple-iphone-6-plus-review

That last one is a iPhone only site to prove my point of how wrong you are. Killing the messenger doesn't change the message.

No need to take things personally.

I do apologise if I have come across as insulting -- that's certainly that's not my intention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poofyhairguy

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,899
193
106
This will settle who truly has the best process. Apple have always shown themselves willing to pays for the best, and won't forget to charge for it when the final product arrives later. If intel's "process advantage" exists, it will be in the 2018 iPhone. For the first time ever.
It seems Intel is not in pole position for the 2018 iPhone.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/AC/Intel-aims-to-challenge-TSMC-over-Apple-chip-orders-by-2018

Sounds like Intel is the main challenger to TSMC on the 2018 Ax contract. Be pretty sweet if that happened, Ax on Intel's 10 nm would be quite awesome really. Maybe too awesome...

Article says Apple contributed $4B revenue to TSMC in 2015 so it's not like it's a small deal.

Seems like an unlikely rumor. Intel's volume 10nm production seems too late in the year to deliver the kind of Volume Apple needs for it's phones.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,510
5,159
136
Seems like an unlikely rumor. Intel's volume 10nm production seems too late in the year to deliver the kind of Volume Apple needs for it's phones.

Well yeah... that was a year and a half ago. When it stil seemed like Intel would be in full production of 10 nm by now.
 
D

DeletedMember377562

This will settle who truly has the best process. Apple have always shown themselves willing to pays for the best, and won't forget to charge for it when the final product arrives later. If intel's "process advantage" exists, it will be in the 2018 iPhone. For the first time ever.

Yes, like those 2-3 generations where they still used LCD displays, whereas Samsung was using far superior AMOLED displays and even supplying other OEMs with it? Or maybe it was all those years they have SoCs inferior to the competition, before they really took off with the A7?