4 ms·

Because when the iPhone came out it was very expensive but significantly ahead of competition. People paid for it, even people who couldn’t afford it found a w

Because when the iPhone came out it was very expensive but significantly ahead of competition. People paid for it, even people who couldn’t afford it found a way to pay for an iPhone The huge cash burst into Apple meant everyone was scrambling to deal with them. Then economies of scale, negotiating leverage with third parties and sheer momentum propelled them

AceJohnny2 8y ago
> Because when the iPhone came out it was very expensive but significantly ahead of competition. From a CPU perspective, they still are: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-re... (for the rest of the features, that's indeed debatable) Fun fact: Samsung made the chip for the first iPhone. Steve Jobs was so dissatisfied with the experience that Apple bought PA Semi to design the chips in-house.
- oblio 8y ago
  The thing is, that CPU bit is not really relevant for the average consumer, anymore. Flagship phone CPUs have been good enough for web browsing and casual app use for about 2 years. Not that I'm against extra horse power, we'll find a use for it. But we're in "desktop land", almost, for smartphone CPUs. They're good enough. The real smartphone battles now are in camera quality, gaming oomph and battery usage.
  - praveenweb 8y ago
    CPU bit might be relevant for those who care about Privacy. Apple markets the fact that all processing (some ML/AI stuff) is done on device and not on the cloud, hence requiring good processing power. But as you mentioned the battle is skewed towards Camera and Battery usage.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > Flagship phone CPUs have been good enough for web browsing and casual app use for about 2 years. I think it's been longer. I'm on a non-flagship from last year, watching YouTube in PiP mode while writing this comment. Way more than necessary power for causing use.
    - Beldin 8y ago
      Depends of course on your use case. I've been using my flagship phone for 7 years now. It has fulfilled all my needs without any problems, with one hand tied behind its back even. Probably also a case of modest needs, but still.
  - Retric 8y ago
    CPU is far more relevant if you want to keep your phone for 4+ years. The 2 year upgrade cycle on a smartphone is a major expense for many people.
    - oblio 8y ago
      Smartphone tech has matured. A smartphone CPU from 2011 would have been a drag in 2015, a CPU from 2018 will probably still be adequate in 2022.
      - lancesells 8y ago
        I've got an iPhone from 2014 and it holds up for me in 2019. I replaced the battery last year and it was like a new phone.
      - Retric 8y ago
        That's less true for low end phones. People design software and websites for the average to slightly below average phone. When you buy the highend they become average in a few years which is completely useable. However, low end phones quickly fall behind the curve and only keep dropping. Now, that’s not to say the phone will physically last longer. Just that having headroom becomes more noticeable over time.
        flashmozzg 8y ago
        Still pretty much true. Sub 150$ Xiaomi phones from 2016 are still going strong (Redmi 3). And there are plenty of sub 150$ offerings with something like Snapdragon 636/710 and 4GB of RAM which will be more than enough for years to come unless you are into some hardcore smartphone gaming (oxymoron).
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      In many countries people keep their phones until they die, loose them or get stolen. There isn't a 2 year upgrade cycle.
    - cronix 8y ago
  - jquery 8y ago
    It’s directly tied to battery power, and battery life is still a big concern. But largely I agree.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  >Fun fact: Samsung made the chip for the first iPhone. Steve Jobs was so dissatisfied with the experience that Apple bought PA Semi to design the chips in-house. I thought PA Semi's specialty was in power management and many didn't consider the acquisition a success as most key figures left the company not too long after the acquisition. Are you sure that Apple actually designed the SOC in-house? Wasn't it Intrinsity, Samsung's collaborator, that co-developed Samsung's Hummingbird core (also used in Apple's A4) to compete with Qualcomm's APs and go beyond the 1Ghz barrier, changed the game? I always thought the Hummingbird was the breakthrough that made the A chips competitive -- Apple bought Intrinsity afterward.

AceJohnny2 8y ago

> Because when the iPhone came out it was very expensive but significantly ahead of competition. From a CPU perspective, they still are: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-re... (for the rest of the features, that's indeed debatable) Fun fact: Samsung made the chip for the first iPhone. Steve Jobs was so dissatisfied with the experience that Apple bought PA Semi to design the chips in-house.

oblio 8y ago
The thing is, that CPU bit is not really relevant for the average consumer, anymore. Flagship phone CPUs have been good enough for web browsing and casual app use for about 2 years. Not that I'm against extra horse power, we'll find a use for it. But we're in "desktop land", almost, for smartphone CPUs. They're good enough. The real smartphone battles now are in camera quality, gaming oomph and battery usage.
- praveenweb 8y ago
  CPU bit might be relevant for those who care about Privacy. Apple markets the fact that all processing (some ML/AI stuff) is done on device and not on the cloud, hence requiring good processing power. But as you mentioned the battle is skewed towards Camera and Battery usage.
- viraptor 8y ago
  > Flagship phone CPUs have been good enough for web browsing and casual app use for about 2 years. I think it's been longer. I'm on a non-flagship from last year, watching YouTube in PiP mode while writing this comment. Way more than necessary power for causing use.
  - Beldin 8y ago
    Depends of course on your use case. I've been using my flagship phone for 7 years now. It has fulfilled all my needs without any problems, with one hand tied behind its back even. Probably also a case of modest needs, but still.
- Retric 8y ago
  CPU is far more relevant if you want to keep your phone for 4+ years. The 2 year upgrade cycle on a smartphone is a major expense for many people.
  - oblio 8y ago
    Smartphone tech has matured. A smartphone CPU from 2011 would have been a drag in 2015, a CPU from 2018 will probably still be adequate in 2022.
    - lancesells 8y ago
      I've got an iPhone from 2014 and it holds up for me in 2019. I replaced the battery last year and it was like a new phone.
    - Retric 8y ago
      That's less true for low end phones. People design software and websites for the average to slightly below average phone. When you buy the highend they become average in a few years which is completely useable. However, low end phones quickly fall behind the curve and only keep dropping. Now, that’s not to say the phone will physically last longer. Just that having headroom becomes more noticeable over time.
      - flashmozzg 8y ago
        Still pretty much true. Sub 150$ Xiaomi phones from 2016 are still going strong (Redmi 3). And there are plenty of sub 150$ offerings with something like Snapdragon 636/710 and 4GB of RAM which will be more than enough for years to come unless you are into some hardcore smartphone gaming (oxymoron).
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    In many countries people keep their phones until they die, loose them or get stolen. There isn't a 2 year upgrade cycle.
  - cronix 8y ago
- jquery 8y ago
  It’s directly tied to battery power, and battery life is still a big concern. But largely I agree.
tooltalk 8y ago
>Fun fact: Samsung made the chip for the first iPhone. Steve Jobs was so dissatisfied with the experience that Apple bought PA Semi to design the chips in-house. I thought PA Semi's specialty was in power management and many didn't consider the acquisition a success as most key figures left the company not too long after the acquisition. Are you sure that Apple actually designed the SOC in-house? Wasn't it Intrinsity, Samsung's collaborator, that co-developed Samsung's Hummingbird core (also used in Apple's A4) to compete with Qualcomm's APs and go beyond the 1Ghz barrier, changed the game? I always thought the Hummingbird was the breakthrough that made the A chips competitive -- Apple bought Intrinsity afterward.