XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
nospam wrote:
Those benchmark scores are bound to change when the processor is eventually >> released.
not really. they're from pre-release devices. it might vary a little,
but certainly nothing significant to where it would suddenly overtake
what apple already has (and has had for more than 3 years).
But regardless of whether the Qualcomm chip doesnąt perform as
well as the Apple chip, what matters is the total performance of the phone. >> I am not qualified to say which is better altogether.
a more capable processor means the device can do various things that
were otherwise not possible in addition to being faster at the same old stuff.
The reality, as you noted, is the proof is in the taste of the pudding.
Take Volkswagen claims, for example, which are similar to that of Apple.
Just as with the highly advertised "performance" of Volkswagen engines,
almost all of Apple's benchmark results almost never stand a test of time.
Apple spends less in R&D than anyone in the industry (far, far far less).
Yet Apple's spending in MARKETING likely dwarfs their R&D by many fold.
The result is...
1. *No smartphone OS is _less secure_ than is Apple's iPhone*
2. *No smartphone OS is _less functional_ than is Apple's iPhone*
3. *No smartphone OS is _supported shorter_ than is Apple's iPhone*
Bearing in mind Apple doesn't design a smartphone so much as _market_ it to
the hoi polloi, albeit brilliantly so, Apple hype has never met reality.
a. Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs have had unfixable/unpatchable holes
b. Almost all Apple chips (e.g., secure enclave) have similar holes
c. Never forget Apple's desperation of _secret_ throttling of Apple CPUs
etc.
*How many unpatchable/unfixable hardware holes are in this latest CPU?*
Almost every other Apple smartphone CPU has had them - what's to say this latest Apple smartphone CPU isn't similarly flawed with unfixable holes?
If it wasn't for ARM & Qualcomm technology Apple survives upon, MARKETING couldn't even tout their (mostly inept) design teams could design at all.
Take the mere fact Apple is utterly incapable of designing a simple modem,
and that Apple has, so far, been completely unable to integrate that modem.
While I congratulate Apple on a fast internal clock speed on a bench test,
what matters, as you well noted, is the lack of unfixable holes and the
lack of a need to (secretly) throttle the CPU to half speed in a year, and
the ability of the battery to not degrade below thresholds in a short time.
In closing, wasn't it nospam himself who said CPU benchmark scores don't
matter (when those scores are results that nospam himself loves to hate).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to point out the facts of Apple's sordid history.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)