Apple iPhone announcement discussion

[Daniel Nenni]

I was a bit underwhelmed to be honest with you:

[video=youtube;jt2OHQh0HoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt2OHQh0HoQ[/video]

iPhone 8 - Apple

Cupertino, California — Apple today announced a new generation of iPhone: iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus. The new iPhone features a new glass and aluminum design in three beautiful colors made out of the most durable glass ever in a smartphone, Retina HD displays and A11 Bionic chip, and is designed for the ultimate augmented reality experience. The world’s most popular camera gets even better with single and dual cameras featuring Portrait Lighting on iPhone 8 Plus, and wireless charging brings a powerful new capability to iPhone. Both devices will be available for pre-order beginning Friday, September 15 in more than 25 countries and territories, and in stores beginning Friday, September 22.

Cupertino, California — Apple today announced iPhone X, the future of the smartphone, in a gorgeous all-glass design with a beautiful 5.8-inch Super Retina display, A11 Bionic chip, wireless charging and an improved rear camera with dual optical image stabilization. iPhone X delivers an innovative and secure new way for customers to unlock, authenticate and pay using Face ID, enabled by the new TrueDepth camera. iPhone X will be available for pre-order beginning Friday, October 27 in more than 55 countries and territories, and in stores beginning Friday, November 3.

Cupertino, California — Apple today introduced Apple Watch Series 3, adding built-in cellular to the world’s number one watch. Whether users are out for a run, at the pool or just trying to be more active throughout their day, Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular allows them to stay connected, make calls, receive texts and more, even without iPhone nearby. The third-generation Apple Watch is an amazing health and fitness companion with intelligent coaching features, water resistance 50 meters1 and a new barometric altimeter that measures relative elevation. Apple Watch Series 3 comes in two models, one with GPS and cellular, and one with GPS, both featuring a 70 percent faster dual-core processor and new wireless chip.

Cupertino, California — Apple today introduced the new Apple TV 4K designed to deliver a stunning cinematic experience at home. With support for both 4K and High Dynamic Range (HDR), Apple TV 4K features unbelievably sharp, crisp images, richer, more true-to-life colors, and far greater detail in both dark and bright scenes. With Apple TV 4K, viewers can enjoy a growing selection of 4K HDR movies on iTunes. iTunes users will get automatic upgrades of HD titles in their existing iTunes library to 4K HDR versions when they become available. Apple TV 4K will also offer 4K HDR content from popular video services, including Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, coming soon.

I still plan on buying an iPhone X (10) but I'm not sure I would buy the 8 if I had a 7. It will be interesting to see the benchmarks and tear down. It was interesting to see that the base models now have 64GB versus 16GB. That's a lot of memory!

 

[Jozo035]

Benchmarks (well for now just one benchmark ) looks good. Actually we moved from "faster than most of laptops" to "faster than most of desktops", at least in performance of single thread.

iPhone10,5
- Geekbench Browser

But rest is just ...meh. Actually my opinion is that all they showed concluded to fact that Android is better today.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Apple really is pushing corporate relationships:

We wanted to remind you that employees of JPMorgan Chase enjoy Preferential Pricing and earn exclusive rewards on Apple products including the iPhone, iPad, MacBook and accessories.

Announcing: The new iPhone 8 will be available for pre-order through JPMorgan Chase Perks at Work on 9/15 and shipping begins 9/22. The new iPhone X will be available for pre-order starting 10/27 and shipping begins 11/3.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

The benchmarks are coming in:

View attachment 20415

 

[Daniel Payne]

It looks like Apple's A11 chip performs just a hair better than Intel's Core i5-7360U SoC in the Geekbench testing.

 

[mullenjl]

Daniel, re: "I was a bit underwhelmed to be honest with you"

So was the author of this article (link at bottom)
Snips>>>><o></o>
+ Without support for fast-network technology Gigabit LTE, the new iPhones suffer a performance deficit. Apple did many things right with the new iPhone 8 and X, but they are missing a critical technology that will become a sore spot for consumers: Gigabit LTE.

<o></o>
+ Without support for Gigabit LTE, a faster and more robust version of the 4G network technology, the iPhone 8 and especially the X have a performance deficit that has real-world impact in comparison to many flagship-class devices that run on devices that use Alphabet Inc.’s Android operating system.

<o></o>
+ Maybe more important for consumers today is that even ifthe network in your area hasn’t upgraded the infrastructure to support Gigabit LTE speeds, the integration of the technology on your phone gives it significant advantages on those older networks. That includes better signal reliability when you are further from a cell tower or inside a building and a better likelihood of maximizing the bandwidth of that network.

<o></o>
+ If you are a T-Mobile user or have followed the company’s announcements about its 600 MHz network upgrade, keep in mind that the iPhone 8and X lack the ability to connect to it. T-Mobile customers have a good reason to look for other devices.

+ Considering Apple calls both the iPhone 8 and X flagship products, and that the iPhone X was “the future of the smartphone,” the lack of support for Gigabit LTE is a glaring hole in the feature set.

<o></o>
+ Apple vs. Qualcomm

The reasons behind the omission are perhaps even more interesting. The only modem to support Gigabit LTE currently on the market is the Qualcomm Snapdragon X16 LTE. Qualcomm and Apple are in the middle of a legal battle centered on the licensing model that the former has in place, and Apple appears to be willing to hold back the tech of its product line to make a point.

<o></o>
Opinion: Apple’s petty squabble with Qualcomm ends up hurting iPhone customers<o></o>
marketwatch.com<o></o>

 

[name99]

Apple really is pushing corporate relationships:

We wanted to remind you that employees of JPMorgan Chase enjoy Preferential Pricing and earn exclusive rewards on Apple products including the iPhone, iPad, MacBook and accessories.

Announcing: The new iPhone 8 will be available for pre-order through JPMorgan Chase Perks at Work on 9/15 and shipping begins 9/22. The new iPhone X will be available for pre-order starting 10/27 and shipping begins 11/3.

Why do you think it's APPLE pushing that?
Just as likely (IMHO) that JPMorgan Chase begged Apple to give them an (apparently) special relationship (which isn't worth much --- they get exactly the same ordering and shipping time table as everyone else, but they can order through the JP Morgan web site --- which probably sucks compared to the Apple web site...)

But it does allow the JPMC employees to feel special, and that's worth paying Apple a small amount of money...

 

[name99]

The benchmarks are coming in:

View attachment 20415

Looking at the aggregate benchmarks is OK for the rubes, but I'd expect professionals to look more closely. There's a LOT of interesting stuff there if you disaggregate the scores.

For example
- Apple's memory controller is now SPECTACULAR. The A10 controller was at about Intel's level. the A11 blows that out of the water, with single channel performance that's better than or equal to Intel's dual-channel performance. Intel is still ahead with raw latency (90ns vs 110ns) so, yay, SPEC2006 mcf will look great on Intel, but for most purposes Apple's uncore. which was lagging their core, has raced ahead.

- Apple lags on three benchmarks, AES, SGEMM, and SFFT, because they provide less raw hardware. (AES I'm not sure what's happening there --- might be a difference in the exact instructions provided, might be sub-optimal instruction scheduling --- which is fixed in LLVM5, but GB4 has not yet been compiled with that.) For SGEMM and SFFT Apple provides 3x NEON128, Intel provides 2xAVX256.
Much more interesting are all the other benchmarks that more reflect the HARD parts of a CPU to design. (After all, Apple easily added a 3rd Neon unit with the A9 and a second AES unit with the A10; that is easy. Much harder is speeding up generic type code like LLVM or PDF.)

- The small cores seem to be the equivalent of about a quarter of a large core. This might sound small but remember that the A11 large core is about 3.5x the A7! So each small core is close to an A7, and there are four of them! My best guess is that they run at the same speed as the large cores (which I take to be 2.6GHz, based on the scaling of LZMA and SGEMM), but they are in-order (2x wide?).

The one place the small cores appear to be under-provisioned is their NEON capabilities. It's hard to be sure from just one set of numbers, but there appears to be half a NEON unit per small core. (Look at the SGEMM and SFFT numbers.)
This could be interpreted in at least three ways:
+ bulldozer style two separate front-end+integer CPUs share a NEON unit
+ NEON unit is 64-bits wide and "processes each instruction twice"
+ the small cores are 3-wide rather than 2-wide, run SMT, and have a single NEON unit.
Presumably we'll be able to choose between these three options when we see the die shots. (Interesting to see how aggressively vague the Apple "die shots" during the presentation were. Not even a pretense of being real die shots, and no hope of gathering any info from the diagrams they displayed which, again, aggressively were *not* to scale.)

All three are interesting options. It's been suggested that Apple don't have any especially strong feelings about the "right" way to do a low power companion core; rather given how fast they're running, the A10 and this design (and perhaps a 3rd design in the A12) are all being throw out into the world, each will be measured, and once the design cycle allows for it, what was learned from each will be consolidated.
Meaning, for example, that we will see if there is substantial usage of multiple low-power cores, and if so, perhaps we will see some of the ideas I've suggested above (SMT on the in-order cores, or bulldozer style shared NEON hardware) implemented on future HW even if not in this iteration.

 

[name99]

Daniel, re: "I was a bit underwhelmed to be honest with you"

So was the author of this article (link at bottom)
Snips>>>><o></o
+ Without support for fast-network technology Gigabit LTE, the new iPhones suffer a performance deficit. Apple did many things right with the new iPhone 8 and X, but they are missing a critical technology that will become a sore spot for consumers: Gigabit LTE.

<o></o
+ Without support for Gigabit LTE, a faster and more robust version of the 4G network technology, the iPhone 8 and especially the X have a performance deficit that has real-world impact in comparison to many flagship-class devices that run on devices that use Alphabet Inc.’s Android operating system.

<o></o
+ Maybe more important for consumers today is that even ifthe network in your area hasn’t upgraded the infrastructure to support Gigabit LTE speeds, the integration of the technology on your phone gives it significant advantages on those older networks. That includes better signal reliability when you are further from a cell tower or inside a building and a better likelihood of maximizing the bandwidth of that network.

<o></o
+ If you are a T-Mobile user or have followed the company’s announcements about its 600 MHz network upgrade, keep in mind that the iPhone 8and X lack the ability to connect to it. T-Mobile customers have a good reason to look for other devices.

+ Considering Apple calls both the iPhone 8 and X flagship products, and that the iPhone X was “the future of the smartphone,” the lack of support for Gigabit LTE is a glaring hole in the feature set.

<o></o
+ Apple vs. Qualcomm

The reasons behind the omission are perhaps even more interesting. The only modem to support Gigabit LTE currently on the market is the Qualcomm Snapdragon X16 LTE. Qualcomm and Apple are in the middle of a legal battle centered on the licensing model that the former has in place, and Apple appears to be willing to hold back the tech of its product line to make a point.

<o></o
Opinion: Apple’s petty squabble with Qualcomm ends up hurting iPhone customers<o></o
marketwatch.com<o></o

Remember when Apple was late to 3G?
And then when they were late to 4G?

And remember how much the iPhone suffered because of it? Me neither.

Every year we get an article of this sort. Apple pretty much NEVER has the most recent baseband processor available.
And every year we re-learn that almost zero Apple customers buy their device based on specs. (Especially when the specs become so tenuous, built on such a long chain of "well, sure there is no benefit today but one day in the future just you wait...")

Well, some of us re-learn it. And some of us, who are internet pundits, appear incapable of learning.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Daniel, re: "I was a bit underwhelmed to be honest with you"
Opinion: Apple’s petty squabble with Qualcomm ends up hurting iPhone customers<o></o
marketwatch.com<o></o

I would not call it a petty squabble nor would I call it a death match. In my career I have been with (3) companies involved with legal challenges against larger foes. The first one was lost and the company destroyed. The second one was won but the company was hobbled. The third one was also won and the company was also hobbled.

Legal matter take a huge amount of mindshare and money. I remember sleepless nights, endless meetings with executives and lawyers, and even when we "won" only the lawyers really profited.

In my opinion QCOM will lose this one and will be a MUCH different company as a result. And by lose I mean they will get the short end of the stick. As they say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" but being stronger does not mean you are bigger and more profitable.

 

[mullenjl]

Daniel, <o></o>

I agree, the squabble is not petty, nor a death match, and QCOM ... will be a MUCH different company as a result (of a loss).<o></o>

An AAPL win that significantly disrupts QCOM’s licensing business model would 1) significantly reduce its licensing revenues (from both AAPL & others), 2) require significant reductions to its 20,000 strong engineering staff, and 3) significantly disrupt their ability to innovate both in the number of vital projects supported and the lengthening in time to complete. <o></o>
Some questions /something to think about-<o></o>

1) Do you consider QCOM as more of an innovation company than AAPL, and would **not** diminishing QCOM’s ability to innovate be more of an negative impact on the wireless industry (eco system) than AAPL’s saving a few dollars in royalty on each iPhone sold? <o></o>

2) Which company is more anticompetitive, QCOM or AAPL given that-<o></o>

....+ QCOM’s many-tiered levels of chipsets and reference designs enable global companies (large and small) to produce devices for the masses and even highly sophisticated devices comparable to the iPhone at a fraction of its cost? <o></o>

...+ AAPL caters to only about 15 percent of the market (top tier), squeezes the profits from its suppliers, and garners 80 -90% of the industries’ (device makers) profits? <o></o>

3) What is your basis for predicting a QCOM loss-<o></o>

4) Re: “ I still plan on buying an iPhone X (10) but I'm not sure I would buy the 8 if I had a 7.” <o></o>

So, I’m assuming you have an iPhone 6 and trade up every 2 – 3 years. Is the fact that the new iPhones will **not** have Gigabit LTE and those that buy a 2017 model will be locked-out of those benefits for 2 – 3 years an issue? <o></o>

 

[Daniel Nenni]

I really don't think the QCOM APPL dispute is about saving a few dollars, it is much more than that. And remember it is not just APPL, the Chinese Government hit QCOM with an anti trust fine of close to $1B which included lower royalties and other Governments have followed suit.

QCOM and Apple are very different companies but one point is that systems companies, who were at the mercy of chip companies, are now in the silicon driver's seat and Apple is leading the way. Look at the Apple relationship with TSMC. It really put QCOM in the back seat, so much that they walked to South Korea as a result. Now they are back in Taiwan but again in the rumble seat while Apple is driving and TSMC's margins have never been better, right?

I actually have an iPhone 6s, I usually buy a new phone every year for myself. My family however does the two year contract deals. We bought the iPhone 6s phones last Christmas for $1 with a two year contract. I had an iPhone 6 before that, my family had 5s.

I think Apple's plan is to have much more run on the phone than in the cloud so maybe transmission speed will be less of a factor? For my use, which includes AR, transmission speed has not been a problem. Battery life is the big problem and switching between Apple and Android is not an option for my family and probably not for most of Apple's customer base.

From what I have heard about 5G is that the industry will ensure that there are no monopolies so it will be a different world for QCOM than 3G and 4G, right?

Just my opinion of course......

Daniel, <o>
</o
I agree, the squabble is not petty, nor a death match, and QCOM ... will be a MUCH different company as a result (of a loss).<o>
</o
An AAPL win that significantly disrupts QCOM’s licensing business model would 1) significantly reduce its licensing revenues (from both AAPL & others), 2) require significant reductions to its 20,000 strong engineering staff, and 3) significantly disrupt their ability to innovate both in the number of vital projects supported and the lengthening in time to complete. <o></o
Some questions /something to think about-<o>
</o
1) Do you consider QCOM as more of an innovation company than AAPL, and would **not** diminishing QCOM’s ability to innovate be more of an negative impact on the wireless industry (eco system) than AAPL’s saving a few dollars in royalty on each iPhone sold? <o>
</o
2) Which company is more anticompetitive, QCOM or AAPL given that-<o>
</o
....+ QCOM’s many-tiered levels of chipsets and reference designs enable global companies (large and small) to produce devices for the masses and even highly sophisticated devices comparable to the iPhone at a fraction of its cost? <o>
</o
...+ AAPL caters to only about 15 percent of the market (top tier), squeezes the profits from its suppliers, and garners 80 -90% of the industries’ (device makers) profits? <o>
</o
3) What is your basis for predicting a QCOM loss-<o>
</o
4) Re: “ I still plan on buying an iPhone X (10) but I'm not sure I would buy the 8 if I had a 7.” <o>
</o
So, I’m assuming you have an iPhone 6 and trade up every 2 – 3 years. Is the fact that the new iPhones will **not** have Gigabit LTE and those that buy a 2017 model will be locked-out of those benefits for 2 – 3 years an issue? <o></o

 

[mullenjl]

Daniel,

I agree that the AAPL-QCOM dispute is much more than AAPL saving a few dollars on each iPhone sale. And, you’re correct that QCOM agreed pay $1B to settle its alleged anticompetitive case with China’s NDRC in order to continue to do business in China. And, QCOM did lower its royalty rates for domestic Chinese sales..... **and** offered the same terms to AAPL....** which AAPL declined**.... in essence demanding preferential treatment, better rates than QCOM’s 300 plus licensees.... in effect a violation of FRAND’s non-discrimination provision.

Would you care to comment on my other questions-?

1) Do you consider QCOM as more of an innovation company than AAPL, and would **not** significantly diminishing QCOM’s ability to innovate have more of an negative impact on the wireless industry (ecosystem)..... than AAPL’s royalty cost savings which most likely would **not** be passed on to its customers (therefore only benefiting AAPL / it’s shareholders) ?

In other words, do you **not** think that significantly disrupting QCOM’s licensing model that’s been in effect for close to 30 years and at the forefront in “unleashing mobile” would be a significant detriment to future mobile advances in both scope and timing? (potentially resulting in a 10,000 reduction to QCOM current 20,000 engineers) ?

2) Which company is more anticompetitive, QCOM or AAPLgiven that-

....+ QCOM’s many-tiered levels of chipsets and reference designs enable global companies (large and small) to produce devices for the masses and even highly sophisticated devices comparable to the iPhone at a fraction of its cost?

...+ AAPL caters to only about 15 percent of the market (top tier), squeezes the profits from its suppliers, and garners 80 -90% of the industries’ (device makers) profits?

3) What is your basis for predicting a QCOM loss-

3a) the merits of AAPL’s case, and if so which- royalty rate, royalty base, etc.?

3b) AAPL’s $260M cash stash to buy the best law firms, and lobbying / influence efforts?.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Daniel, <o>
</o
Would you care to comment on my other questions-? <o>
</o<o
I will answer this one and pass on the others due to time constraints.

3) What is your basis for predicting a QCOM loss-<o></o
<o></o
.....3a) the merits of AAPL’s case, and if so which- royalty rate, royalty base, etc.?<o></o
<o></o
.....3b) AAPL’s $260M cash stash to buy the best law firms, and lobbying / influence efforts?. <o></o
<o></o

It all depends on how you define loss. In my opinion Qualcomm will be a weaker company as a whole and Apple will be stronger so to me that is a loss for QCOM.



</o

 

[mullenjl]

Daniel,<o></o>
Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinions on your thread. Time constraints or not, I understand that these are tough questions for AAPL enthusiasts.<o></o>

But, I believe we both.... (and others who take the time to understand the magnitude of the AAPLv QCOM issues)....recognize that the mobile wireless ecosystem and the global public as a whole would be better served with the $2B -$3B in annual revenues at stake remaining with QCOM rather than transferring to AAPL. One would think that QCOM’s retaining rather than losing 10,000 engineers will have a significant impact on the speed and scope of the evolution of mobile wireless and the benefits to mankind that follows. <o></o>

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Daniel,<o></o
Thanks for theopportunity to express my opinions on your thread. Time constraints or not, I understand that these are tough questions for AAPL enthusiasts.<o></o
But, I believe weboth.... (and others who take the time to understand the magnitude of the AAPLv QCOM issues)....recognize that themobile wireless ecosystem and the global public as a whole would be betterserved with the $2B -$3B in annual revenues at stake remaining with QCOM ratherthan transferring to AAPL. One wouldthink that QCOM’s retaining rather than losing 10,000 engineers will have asignificant impact on the speed and scope of the evolution of mobile wirelessand the benefits to mankind that follows. <o></o

You are very welcome. I'm sure the QCOM enthusiasts appreciate your valiant efforts. Please ping me again when QCOM's legal woes are finished. That should be a much easier discussion for Apple enthusiasts.

 

[jmlobert]

But rest is just ...meh. Actually my opinion is that all they showed concluded to fact that Android is better today.

Apple has been behind Android for quite some time, I don't get the obsession with iPhones. No front screen button? Whoopie! I had that with my old Nexus in 2014. Wireless charging? The old-old Palm Pre had that (and much more innovatively with a slanted, magnetic surface!). And handling is still sub-par to Android. Just about the only advantage they have is the more innovative app store. Not much innovation there at Apple these days, but the herd of cult members will follow and shell out a grand, regardless.

 

[count]

At this point I'm mostly still using iPhone because I'm used to iOS. I still find Andriod somewhat glitchy and less responsive despite generally better specs, and I don't really like the user interface. However I think I've finally reached the point where I'm strongly considering getting an Android as my next phone for the following reasons:

1. USB-C charging
2. Better integration with google assistant (which I use at home with my Google Home)
3. Price
4. Unlimited cloud storage (iCloud)
5. The Google Pixel is sexy as hell