The cheapest iPhone is also as expensive as some mid-range Android devices and completely inaccessible to a large chunk of the world's population.<p>When a device that most will spend $449 on is "cheap" you have to admire Apple's price anchoring[0], they release a $1249 flagship and suddenly what the largest iPhone 5S flagshp cost ($442.09 inflation adjusted to 2020) at launch is considered "cheap."<p>It is undeniably a nice phone, but we've all lost sight of how much any of us should be spending on smartphones when $449 is celebrated for being a bargain. We've lost perspective.<p>PS - This isn't exclusively an Apple thing. Google's "bargain" Pixel 3a is essentially the same price.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2013/09/16iPhone-5s-iPhone-5c-Arrive-on-Friday-September-20/" rel="nofollow">https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2013/09/16iPhone-5s-iPhone-5c...</a>
> Apple is laying out a roadmap for exactly what Google needs to do with its own chips.<p>To ask the question: why would Google make better processors than Qualcomm?<p>Apple has immense economies of scale at the high-end because that's the only thing they sell. Google's processor would be more niche than Qualcomm's (since manufacturers would need a Qualcomm modem to go with it rather than just grabbing an integrated Snapdragon modem/CPU) and it would be smaller than Apple's in sales since high-end Android phones aren't the main part of that market. This seems like one of those instances where people believe that Google can do better in any market. Google is a great, smart company, but we've seen them fail a lot too. Android Wear didn't take off with Tizen becoming Samsung's wearable OS and Google eventually buying Fitbit. We saw Google buy Motorola just to sell them off as a failed experiment. We've seen Google Fiber stall out as Google couldn't make it work. The Nexus/Pixel line has been ok, but it hasn't changed the industry. Chromebooks seem to be fading.<p>Why should Google be able to enter the mobile CPU game and do better?<p>Not only that, but would manufacturers even want something better? Manufacturers want customers to keep buying new phones as often as possible. If Google comes out with a CPU that's 70% better and could last a customer for 4-5 years, would they want to buy it? Apple is really unique in that they're the only company really giving you a good experience for an extended period of time. But part of that is that Apple knows that a good device from them creates loyalty because there's no iOS alternative. If you're an Android manufacturer, you know that a customer's choice for their next device could be any number of different brands offering nearly identical Android experiences.<p>Does this even matter for Google? What part of Google's bottom line would this help? More people using Android devices certainly helps, but would a better processor convince iPhone users to move to Android?<p>I guess I'm failing to see how a better processor helps Google enough to justify spending all the R&D on it and why Google would be better at building this processor than the companies already creating mobile processors. For Apple, it gives them a differentiator and the ability to control their platform and their destiny - and likely control their laptop platform in the near future. They can specifically target the CPU and build what makes sense. For Android, this CPU might be 10% of Android devices, but it wouldn't become an assumption. It wouldn't create loyalty for a manufacturer since the same CPU/OS combo could be had via other options. We're just talking about increasing the price and complexity of a device they don't want to continue supporting anyway.<p>And I still haven't seen why Google would be able to beat Qualcomm, Samsung, HiSilicon, etc.
i don't care.<p>what i care about is that the cheapest iPhone has a longer support period than the most expensive Android. it's actually insane and infuriating because I don't even like Apple but there literally is no other choice if you don't want to switch your phone every two years.
And yet, my cheap android phone has two things that are infinitely more important to me: an aux port and an SD card slot. My phone would be fundamentally less usable (for me) without them, while quicker switching between apps etc would be a minor benefit at most.<p>Chasing statistics (Fastest processor! Most megapixels! Longest battery life!) becomes useless after a certain point. Processors and megapixels are long past being a deciding criteria, while battery life (and picture quality, for that matter) still are important.
“Cheapest Porsche has a more powerful engine than the most expensive Hyundai”<p>You’d never read that anywhere, but it’s true.<p>Why people on HN care about phones so much is beyond me. Between fanboys and envy, it’s a weird world. I mean, tech is great, but this “mine is bigger than yours” is kinda old. (Or maybe I’m old....ok, I’m definitely old.)<p>Buy the phone that works for you and be happy with it.
The SD865 still draws less total power for the same workload.<p>The A13 is a huge core with better-than-Skylake IPC, that trades blows with Skylake++ 9900K or Zen 2 3950X in many real-world benchmarks, despite the much lower TDP and clock speed:<p><a href="https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15609/SPEC-S865.png" rel="nofollow">https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15609/SPEC-S865.png</a>
Huh, they’re still claiming Android phone screens are better because of bigger numbers. How quaint.<p><a href="https://youtu.be/dcFXEXJicgc" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/dcFXEXJicgc</a>
Apple A processors are continuously performs excellent since Apple A7. Significantly, A7 is almost first ARMv8 SoC that released before 2 years from first ARMv8 Snapdragon(that's worst SD810).
Sure, but its the same processor as in all current iPhones. I guess "most expensive iPhone faster than most expensive Android phone" isn't quite as click-grabbing. Apple's SoCs have been faster than Qualcomm's for a number of years, so this is hardly news worthy either.
A lot of people who don't know much what iPhone gets you won't care about CPU.<p>I wanna upgrade my in-laws from cheap, spyware ridden Androids that can't even withstand a video chat. It will be quite hard with the screen that looks like it's half a decade old.
Serious question, has anyone installed Android on their iPhone?<p>I love the idea of budget iPhone, but I hated iOS.<p>Does it work as smooth as Pixel?
Clickbait headline.<p>Author conveniently forgets to mention that the 865 has hands down better AI performance which is considered a key benchmark for high end devices. Multi-core perf is neck and neck.<p><a href="https://techyorker.com/qualcomm-snapdragon-865-vs-apple-a13-bionic-comparison/#AI_Machine_Learning" rel="nofollow">https://techyorker.com/qualcomm-snapdragon-865-vs-apple-a13-...</a>