3 ms·

Apple's MO is getting beaten to the punch by everything, then they figure out how to do it better and more profitably and release.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Some reviewers still believe the S7 is a better camera, other than the optical zoom: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-7-plus-galaxy-s7-camera-comparison-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-7-plus-galaxy-s7... We'll see. My girlfriend got the iPhone 7 on launch day but hasn't done much with the camera as yet.
- msrpotus 10y ago
  But iPhones aren't catching fire.
  - MikusR 10y ago
    Neither is S7.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Yeah, that's really entirely tangential to the issue being discussed. Since I know this is a polarizing topic, I feel compelled to note that neither myself nor my girlfriend own a single Samsung product other than a 40" TV.
- anonred 10y ago
  For most of the iPhone camera comparison articles, I'm curious if the reviewers are disabling Live Photos before taking the shots. It's well documented that Live Photos increases noise in the still capture due to a faster shutter speed.
croon 10y ago
I'm not saying Apple products are bad, but I would still argue that what they do is sell things better, not necessarily execute better. So more profitable, for sure.
- dpark 10y ago
  The original iPhone was so much better executed than the competition that it was ridiculous. The iPhone was the device that convinced everyone that they needed a smartphone. It took many generations of phones before Android really caught up. And none of the original competitors even survived. So yes, Apple is better at selling. It's also at least sometimes better at executing.
  - croon 10y ago
    I'll agree that the original iPhone was an exception, but not in the way you claim. The first iPhone was (basically) first at the smartphone market. But was it good? Hell no. It was extremely buggy, slow, no app store, could barely make phone calls. While I'll agree there was no worthwhile competitor until Nexus One came along and set the standard, Android surpassed iOS fairly quickly in features, and hasn't lossed the lead there yet, while speeds have been fairly equal for years.
    - dpark 10y ago
      The iPhone was not the first in the market. Smartphones had been around for years at that point. It's just that no one really bought them. The iPhone effectively created it's own market by expanding it so much, but it wasn't first by a long shot. I'm sure the original iPhone had issues, but it was still better than the stuff it replaced. Especially a year or two later when the 3G and then 3GS landed. The 3GS was not buggy or slow. It made good phone calls and had an app store. Meanwhile Android was still trash and none of the original competitors were catching up. Android did catch up on paper quickly. It took a much longer time before it caught up in reality. Android for a long time was very slow, the UI felt amateur, and all the hardware felt cheap. I remember several generations in, finding that Angry Birds still lagged and froze on brand new Android hardware.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      I had an original iphone and I remember it a lot differently. Blackberry owned the world, if you had a business smartphone it was almost certainly a BB. iPhone was a phenomenon. There was no app store because there were no apps. An unlimited-everything plan on AT&T (iphone's only carrier) was $120/month. I remember phone calls working just fine - it was my main/only phone while I was doing a lot of remote consulting and I don't remember problems at all. "Slow" is relative - I came from a blackberry and never looked back.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Some reviewers still believe the S7 is a better camera, other than the optical zoom: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-7-plus-galaxy-s7-camera-comparison-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-7-plus-galaxy-s7... We'll see. My girlfriend got the iPhone 7 on launch day but hasn't done much with the camera as yet.

msrpotus 10y ago
But iPhones aren't catching fire.
- MikusR 10y ago
  Neither is S7.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Yeah, that's really entirely tangential to the issue being discussed. Since I know this is a polarizing topic, I feel compelled to note that neither myself nor my girlfriend own a single Samsung product other than a 40" TV.
anonred 10y ago
For most of the iPhone camera comparison articles, I'm curious if the reviewers are disabling Live Photos before taking the shots. It's well documented that Live Photos increases noise in the still capture due to a faster shutter speed.

croon 10y ago

I'm not saying Apple products are bad, but I would still argue that what they do is sell things better, not necessarily execute better. So more profitable, for sure.

dpark 10y ago
The original iPhone was so much better executed than the competition that it was ridiculous. The iPhone was the device that convinced everyone that they needed a smartphone. It took many generations of phones before Android really caught up. And none of the original competitors even survived. So yes, Apple is better at selling. It's also at least sometimes better at executing.
- croon 10y ago
  I'll agree that the original iPhone was an exception, but not in the way you claim. The first iPhone was (basically) first at the smartphone market. But was it good? Hell no. It was extremely buggy, slow, no app store, could barely make phone calls. While I'll agree there was no worthwhile competitor until Nexus One came along and set the standard, Android surpassed iOS fairly quickly in features, and hasn't lossed the lead there yet, while speeds have been fairly equal for years.
  - dpark 10y ago
    The iPhone was not the first in the market. Smartphones had been around for years at that point. It's just that no one really bought them. The iPhone effectively created it's own market by expanding it so much, but it wasn't first by a long shot. I'm sure the original iPhone had issues, but it was still better than the stuff it replaced. Especially a year or two later when the 3G and then 3GS landed. The 3GS was not buggy or slow. It made good phone calls and had an app store. Meanwhile Android was still trash and none of the original competitors were catching up. Android did catch up on paper quickly. It took a much longer time before it caught up in reality. Android for a long time was very slow, the UI felt amateur, and all the hardware felt cheap. I remember several generations in, finding that Angry Birds still lagged and froze on brand new Android hardware.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    I had an original iphone and I remember it a lot differently. Blackberry owned the world, if you had a business smartphone it was almost certainly a BB. iPhone was a phenomenon. There was no app store because there were no apps. An unlimited-everything plan on AT&T (iphone's only carrier) was $120/month. I remember phone calls working just fine - it was my main/only phone while I was doing a lot of remote consulting and I don't remember problems at all. "Slow" is relative - I came from a blackberry and never looked back.