4 ms·
It’s amazing how bad the competition is. The A17 pro has 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. The Google G3 has 9 cores of 3 different types, the fastest
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It’s amazing how bad the competition is. The A17 pro has 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. The Google G3 has 9 cores of 3 different types, the fastest being slower than Apple’s performance cores, the most efficient being less efficient than apple’s efficiency cores. And it’s a phone so you don’t take advantage of the extra parallelism. You just get the worst of both worlds. no wonder these android phones have 50% more battery and 50% less battery life. Is it that hard to just copy the winning formula?
- zmmmmm 3y agohere have some Qualcomm Kool-Aid to go with that sweet Apple juice :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_vh7_n_OPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_vh7_n_OPs
- hutzlibu 3y agoI don't know about your facts, but "Is it that hard to just copy the winning formula?" yes it is, thanks to IP law. And back in the day Steve Jobs already wanted thermonuclear war on Samsung, because he felt their flagship at the time was too close to the IPhone.
- KingLancelot 3y agoSteve Jobs wanted nuclear war with Google (not Samsung) because Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board of directors while the iPhone was being developed, so Jobs felt Schmidt was basically doing insider trading for google to develop Android.
- hutzlibu 3y agoAh, I did not remember that one about Eric Schmidt, but I thought there was also something with Samsung. Btw. it appears you are shadow banned. You might want to check some of your comments and then contact dang.
- rootusrootus 3y agoTo be fair, there was a moment when Samsung was in full copy mode. All the way down to having their own version of the dock connector and a retail box that closely mimicked Apple. In retrospect, a bit embarrassing for a company we know is capable of much more.
- hutzlibu 3y agoThe thing is, people do not like to learn a new UI to do the same thing on a different device. But they have to.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- creshal 3y agoA big part of Apple's "winning formula" is taking their giant piles of money and negotiating exclusive contracts for whatever is scheduled to be the most advanced semiconductor node next year. Anyone else literally cannot compete, they don't have billions in pocket change they don't know how to spend otherwise, so they'll have to wait until the exclusivity agreement expires.
- coldtea 3y agoWell, they got into that position starting from a near bankrupt company, which couldn't negotiate anything exclusive, and which was for a long time at the mercy of Motorola and the Intel. So it's something they took advantage of after they grew (well, which company at their scale wouldn't ask for the best wholesale deals?), but not what made them big in the first place.
- creshal 3y agoWhat made them big in the first place were the iPod/iTunes/iPhone and the ludicrous revenues from the App Store. The iPod's only notable hardware that wasn't just a random off the shelf part was the click wheel, the chips were all off-the-shelf (until old iPhone chips counted as that), and iPhones didn't get custom chips until the 4. So I guess the other part of the winning formula is "use market dominance in one sector to subsidize expansion into the next". I guess that's indeed one area where Google could reasonably try to be less inept, but I think all the institutional inertia makes that impossible by now. They'll go the DEC route of just drowning in their own internal problems until someone buys them up.
- coldtea 3y ago>What made them big in the first place were the iPod/iTunes/iPhone and the ludicrous revenues from the App Store. The iPod/iPhone yes, but "in the first place" the App Store was insignificant (the remenues at 2010 was < 2 billion dollars worldwide, so Apple's take was less than $600 million). For comparison the iPod had that profit already in 2004, and around 3 billion in 2010 (when the iPhone had already started replacing it). So, the App Store was hardly ludicrous revenue for its first 3-4 years, in fact less than 10% of Apple's revenue. The iTunes store even less so. It's the iPod and then iPhone that made Apple's dominance. The big store profit came later (and the iTunes/Music profit never was that big).
- baz00 3y agoIt's not that simple though though. I have never got through an entire day with an iPhone (XR, 12, 13 Pro). I'm just hitting 2 days easily with my Pixel 7a with the same crap on it. My daughter just took an iPhone 15 back because it won't get through the day.
- i5-2520M 3y agoGoogle is probably not delusional, so they know the Tensor has no chance of being "good" as it is. Why don't you compare the A17 to the 8g3 and 8g2?