It's amusing how much space is devoted to the location of buttons and ports. I don't recall ever thinking, "I want a phone with the power button on the right side and the charge port on the bottom. Those are my primary requirements."
Phone hardware just isn't interesting, anymore. We've reached the point that personal computers reached a couple decades ago: They're all pretty good and not much different from the model released two years ago (though they are faster and have more storage and RAM).
This is classic bikeshedding. A lot of mobile device reviews are pretty unsophisticated, so there's a lot of spilled ink about button location, how the metal/plastic feels, etc. Its a strange regression. Like we just can't judge or weigh the complexity of a modern mobile OS and all its services and apps and just take on this simplified, "Uh, it looks nice" point of view.
Strange that even a hard-nosed tech site like anandtech can't resist the typical fetishiztion of buttons and whispered sighs of "So intuitive" and "designey!" Meanwhile, valid competitors like the Nexus or Samsung line-ups either get strict apathy or get criticized in a way that Apple is immune to (for example the Note's size being unacceptable yet the 6+ size being perfect). Or the Jobsian logic that the press repeats (size of iphone is perfect because of human thumb size) and then ignores when even Apple itself doesn't buy that argument anymore.
I think the world of tech reviewing proves how well marketing works, especially against those who often see themselves as resistant to it and self-declared rational/skeptical/intellectual thinkers. If anything, these types seem more susceptible to it for some reason.
I don't even really read reviews in a serious fashion at this point, except maybe at Ars. Reviews seem to be marketing vehicles, either consciously or sub-consciously on the part of the reviewer. Ars seems to be more even-handed than most and they try not to fall too deeply into the trap of bikeshedding or pandering for ad impressions. I can't be the only one unhappy with how these things are reviewed nowadays. It seems like the narrative of the "nerds have won" in regardless to tech is pretty disingenious. If anyone has won, its the marketers. The more you spend to promote your talking points, the more often those talking points will be believed or, at least, repeated. It doesn't seem anymore complex than that.
I'm also willing to concede that there's a subjective element here that makes reviewing of commodity tech almost like reviewing the arts. At a certain point performance, durability, etc are all fine for the top competitors and reviews just address things that are more subjective than objective for the lack of things to talk about. Mobile has certainly reached that space and the only rational move for these companies is to just invest more in marketing to make your 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store' look better than the other guy's 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store.'
Now the role of the reviewer is to communicate these marketing messages effectively.
What’s wrong with caring about tight tolerances and good material choices? What’s wrong about caring about good feeling buttons? (This is besides the point, but I actually disagree with AnandTech there, the buttons on the 6 feel markedly worse then the 5s ones, they jiggle ever so slightly.)
I really don’t get why you think it’s not rational to care about these things. I really don’t get that. It is literally incomprehensible to me. Can you explain that to me?
I don't know about buttons, but "how the metal/plastic feels" is one of the most important things about a mobile device. It's pretty much always in your hand!
Just the other I realised Jobs was right saying the size of the iPhone was perfect because of human thumb size, his mistake at the time (assuming he really thought this through and wasn't just being a salesman) was to think consumers would always value the ergonomics above everything else. In time, even Apple realised consumers were probably favouring other things like the screen size itself even when ergonomics suffered a lot with it. It's a very important message right there for any one size fits all strategy.
It wasn't a mistake -- "consumers don't know what they really want, so we'll only sell the version they should want" was straightforward Jobsian thinking.
It's similar another famous case of a perfectionist founder rejecting customers' demands, Henry Ford's famous statement about the Model T that "any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black." (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7213/pg7213.html#id00226)
I don't see what you're so upset about, here. If the button was on the top, as it has been for the last seven years, the device would be hard to use. Thus, it is useful information to a prospective buyer.
Further, the buttons are designed poorly. I use a pinching motion to click the power button. My thumb and index finger grip the phone and I put pressure on my thumb to click the power button. Unfortunately, that means the volume button also gets pressed with my index finger. The phone won't lock when both those buttons are pressed at the same time.
It's frustrating. I have to grip the phone unnaturally so that I don't click both buttons at the same time.
I tried to replicate your problem but I can only seem to do it when holding the 6 with just the forefinger and thumb (right handed).
What are you other three fingers doing? I tend to grip with thumb on the right edge, index finger resting on the back and last 3 fingers holding the right edge.
> What are you other three fingers doing? I tend to grip with thumb on the right edge, index finger resting on the back and last 3 fingers holding the right edge.
Do you mean "last 3 fingers holding the left edge? That style seems to be a minority, based on a quick Google image search. If fingers are wrapped around a phone, the index is with the rest of the 3 fingers.
I completely disagree that all phones have pretty good hardware (referring to the handset itself, not the electronics). Flagship Android phones like the Nexus 5, Galaxy S5, and Moto X have, in my opinion, far worse hardware than all iPhones back to the iPhone 4. The HTC One comes close, and the Lumia phones have an interesting unique design, and of course there are a few top end phones I haven't seen in person.
This!
just search youtube for "iphone 6" and the vast majority of videos will be "unboxing"... Who cares ! I know what will be in the box. A cable, earphone, and paper manual.
Let's move on ! The only reason I'm on youtube it's to see how the plus feels since I din't have the opportunity yet.
Who cares about the box.
I'm just curious if the new size will be a good fit for me or not.
I've had the iPhone 6 since Sept 19. In the 10 days since then, I've shattered the screen, when it slipped out of my pocket as I got out of a chair, and bent the phone just yesterday, after putting it in my back pocket and sitting down on it (and then immediately getting up when I realized what I did). Let me tell you that the bending issue is very real. My phone isn't bent like those consumer reports videos, but it is definitely warped.
I realize that both incidents are my fault, but this phone is by far the most fragile iphone I've ever owned, out of 4. In the 10 days that I've owned it, I haven't changed any of my behavior and it already has been damaged twice. I'm pretty disappointed with the poor durability of the phone and am considering replacing it with my reliable iphone5, and waiting for the 6S which hopefully fixes these durability issues.
I did this all the time with my iPhone 3, 4 and 5 without any issues which is why it developed into a habit. The fact that I can't do that with the iPhone 6 is a surprise and disappointment.
You're wrong. I also do this all the time and if my phone broke I'd be outraged because every phone built before the iphone 6 can handle that kind of stress.
My ex-wife always sat with her 3 in her back jeans pocket because fashion designers refuse to put sensible front pockets on women's jeans. The 3's case began to crack at the top around the power button after a while. And this is a girl sitting on her phone - not some 200lbs guy.
And I certainly wouldn't sit on my nexus 5 or the SGS4 that it replaced.
Eh. I (until recently) weighed around 220lbs. I would not have been surprised if any phone I sat on [0] broke or was otherwise damaged. Especially with the way that anything in a back pocket gets flexed. It's not just the weight placed on it, it's the tension from conforming to the shape of your body along with the pants. I guess if I had no ass, or weighed much less, or like some coworkers wear pants so low that the back pocket is actually behind the thigh it might not be a big deal.
[0] This also depends on the seat. My couch at home is very cushy, it'd be hard to break it there. But my kitchen table chair is little more than a slat of wood cut to a comfortable shape.
I'm 185 pounds, and I'm absolutely confident that if I ever placed any of my iPhones in my back jeans pocket and sat on it, it would be destroyed in under a month.
It has a glass screen, that alone should make it obvious that you shouldn't sit on it.
Older iphones were recently rated by Consumer Report to be about twice as resistant to bending from pressure and might well have endured this with ease. Also, the gorilla glass screen may have been less scratch resistant (though more than good enough), but it is less prone to shattering too.
So once people may have fixed certain expectations about the durability of an iPhone. But those will have to be revised with the new models.
When did durability stop being a factor used to assess a phone's quality? As someone who is somewhat accident prone (and who doesn't want to spend too much time fretting about protecting my phone), it's something I care about.
Granted, I don't this should be as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be, but I think the discussion should go beyond chastising owners for putting their phones in the wrong pocket. That's not much better than saying "you're holding it wrong."
If the back pocket is "not supported", that's fine, but when support is pulled on anything that people use, (however obscure or unwise its use may be), there's going to be friction.
Durability should be an important part of assessing a phone's quality. I think the issue here, is where do we drawn the dividing line on what's "reasonable" and "unreasonable" performance in that category.
I think it's reasonable to ask for phones that are water proof and shock proof. That is, a phone should be able to handle a dunk in the swimming pool, and should certainly be able to handle being dropped on a sidewalk. Both of those are every day events that happen to everyone. Until phones get to the point at which they can routinely handle both (neither of which any iPhone has ever been able to do), they come up lacking.
In addition, a phone should certainly not deform that much if it sits in a reasonable pocket.
On the flip side - I'm not expecting my phone to handle 200 pounds of force by me sitting on it on a hard surface repeatedly, particularly if there is hard edge/corner involved (which greatly increases the PSI the device has to handle). I also absolutely do not expect a phone to not deform if someone tries to bend it. People can bend freaking rebar, and I'm not expecting a phone to be structurally stronger than rebar.
That isn't to say you shouldn't be proud of your device if it can handle that amount of stress - I think it's definitely an advantage, it just isn't what I would consider the "minimum bar of performance for a smartphone."
But not enough to buy a smaller, more durable phone? One with a thick, rubber or plastic exterior case? No? I didn't think so.
I only just recently upgraded from an old feature phone to a Moto G. One of the major reasons I selected it was its relative cost versus other phones, and thus less worrying on my part about it (also, it was the cheapest phone Republic Wireless was offering). While that's not specifically buying based on durability, it's the same idea of being concerned about how much money you've sunk versus how easily it will break.
Even still, I don't go sitting on it (or, if I discover I'm sitting on it, I immediately cease the sitting action). I'm not arguing Apple should refund these people for their bent phones or anything, and I agree that people should take personal responsibility for their actions. I'm just fine with the potential lack of durability being discussed, which is the issue stevewepay originally mentioned.
EDIT: Upon further thinking, I agree that my comparison to "you're holding it wrong" is somewhat mistaken. While the grip one uses on a phone doesn't have any common-sense effects, putting a phone in your back pocket and sitting on it should have clear potential consequences, even if phones of the past typically had the durability to withstand it.
Well - the issue isn't that it's a good idea to sit on a iPhone, the issue is that this iPhone seems to be less durable than previous iPhones, where nearly every other model was an upgrade in terms of durability.
I'd be surprised if most jeans for women have back pockets that could comfortably fit an iPhone 6. They're generally design additions rather than serious pockets.
> I'd be surprised if most jeans for women have back pockets that could comfortably fit an iPhone 6.
The rear pocket in women's jeans might be able to accept an iPhone 6, but only if the woman's rear isn't present at the same time.
It's interesting that "cargo" pockets, located on the side of the pants at mid-hip height, are popular right now, because that's a much better and safer place for a phone than the back pockets.
The thing with back pockets is that the phone can stick up out of the pocket and stay in there. So the amount of pocket you need for that to work is reduced.
Membership in the group of people who wear pants with non-functional pockets is elective. That said, I think we all know what the original poster actually meant, and this subthread isn’t illuminating anything.
I keep my phone in my front pocket 90% of the time. However, there's been a number of times where I've been distracted, and have slipped it in my back pocket just before sitting on it, such as finishing a conversation just before getting into the car or working on something that may get my front wet, like gardening. It's a nice adrenaline rush feeling it under me all of a sudden, but, thankfully, I've never inflicted damage like that.
Keys and change go in front pockets and tend to scratch phone... Phones fit in back pockets and I've never damaged one that way in many generations of iPhones (and also Android phones).
He didn't say it was normal. We stick things in our pockets and forget about them. It happens.
This is where the marketing concept of "life-proof" comes from. Shit happens. Day-to-day consumer devices are going to get bumped, dropped, damp, sat on, etc. If the iPhone can't handle those things, the answer isn't "Be more careful you idiots", the answer is people will (presumably) stop buying them.
"life-proof", as in "sitting down on a hard chair with your 6 inch smartphone in your back jeans pocket", conflicts with the clear and unmistakable consumer preference for "big and thin".
In FantasyLand, engineers could create phones with 8 inch displays that were still somehow useable with one hand, and you could run over them with your car ("life-proof" - oopsies!) and they'd be ok. In the meantime, put your money where your mouth is and buy a smaller, more durable phone like an iPhone 5.
Well, I put my money where my mouth is and bought a Moto G. It's smaller and quite durable for a smartphone. Acceptable?
"life-proof" is kind of a silly term, I agree. But as much as you might want to mock people who do not baby their smartphone like a delicate glass flower, they are most of the market.
To say you can't or shouldn't put your phone in your pocket is ridiculous. It is quite possibly the most common use case for a phone, and the design should take that into account. Full stop.
The RDS is strong here, my friend.
I've accidentally sat down with my Nexus 5 in my back pocket before and it's been fine. Sometimes you leave your phone in your back pocket and forget about it.
I used to have one of those Blackberry's that you could drop then kick down the street and it would still work. Basically, it was indestructible. I'd never put it in my back pocket though. That seems like a pretty unnatural thing to do for an electronic device. I guess "Common sense ain't so common."
At least is not a 4/4s with a glass back. I never understood making both sides subject to breakage. Its possible that glass breakage may be easier as larger sizes are more prone to breakage, plus there is that beveled edge. I read we do not have sapphire because of the size issue. Is there a glass composition difference between Apple and Samsung phones?
Regardless, I will have mine tomorrow so coming from 4s my biggest shock will be size. I am assuming the new processor will make iOS 8 feel "snappier" as it has dogged my 4.
It's extremely frustrating that when I and my friend told this to others, we get accused of lying. Granted that in the large scheme of things these are anecdotes, but it's still not a lie. The phones bend when you keep them in your front pant pocket, a handful of people have reported this.
This phenomenon has been proven already repeatedly, not sure why people would get labeled as liars about it. A german site even made a 'bend' comparison between it and the Galaxy Note:
The phone is not a one handed phone, and it is not something that can be put in a back pocket. We live in the era of iPad communication devices. Embrace.
I honestly can't figure out which is more entertaining - reading that kind of vitriol directed towards apple, or watching apple fanboys defend their idol every time they do something wrong.
You tend to get so much of the latter on HN, so reading that guy's comment is almost refreshing :)
But, at the end of the day, fussing over curvy edges, chevroned pixels, and extreme CPU and GPU performance is irrelevant to me. I bought the iPhone 6, but then I took it back and returned to my Nexus 5. I just can't justify spending over $700 (upgrade fees, contract, etc.) for a phone that does nearly everything my current $350 phone does.
I'm sharing this because I hope that some people will avoid this mistake. They're taking advantage of the denomination effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denomination_effect), and I got sucked into it too. For most of the people reading this: your current phone is just fine, save your money and use it for something more important.
This really depends on (A) How often you use your phone, (B) What you use your phone for, and (C) most importantly, how old your phone is.
Anybody who actively uses their phone, particularly the Camera, CPU and GPU capability, definitely stands to see a pretty big improvement if they upgrade every three years, and definitely every four. The jump (for me) from the 3GS to the iPhone 5 was massive, particularly around the camera. The shutter is incredibly fast on the iPhone 5. And the Games/Display also were a pretty big leap forward.
Anybody who is currently on an iPhone 4 can definitely justify moving to the iPhone 6 if they are an active user, and I would even suggest there might be value for 4S users.
I'd concur with you that iPhone 5 users can probably wait another round before seriously considering upgrades though, and obviously iPhone 5S users under contract (unless they have some really huge need for the large screens), don't have any need to update anytime soon.
All this is predicated on you owning your phone. Obviously anybody stuck in a contract with the carrier in which they are "subsidized" should just upgrade every two years and re-sell your phone.
[Edit - I just checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_5 - The Nexus 5 is less than a year old and already has a 4.9" display. Unless you are a professional phone reviewer, I'm not sure what would motivate you to pick up an iPhone 6. Returning it was almost definitely the right decision]
> Anybody who is currently on an iPhone 4 can definitely justify moving to the iPhone 6 if they are an active user, and I would even suggest there might be value for 4S users.
I went from a 4 to a 5S, and was very happy, but I'm not sure that I'd have bothered if I had a 5, or even a 4. Phones don't generally need to be upgraded every year, and most people don't do this.
If you're on corporate e-mail, which almost always demands a password, I couldn't think of living without TouchID. Even using a dead simple/dumb password or swipe pattern would drive me up the wall.
As others have mentioned, it really depends on your use case. I use my phone as my primary camera, and my iPhone 6 is miles better than my iPhone 5. Although if you're not going to be taking advantage of any of the new features, then you're definitely not going to feel like a $700 phone is worth it. Then again, there's no point in even considering an upgrade to any device if your current phone is perfectly suitable.
iPhone 5 and 6 have hardware and software features, like the 1000-gradient flash, that are unavailable on any other camera. It's one of the best point n shoot cameras on the market.
I have a decent DSLR, and I rarely use it because I rarely happen to carry it. Even when I had a Galaxy S, with a pretty poor camera, I was making much more use of the phone camera than I thought I ever would. The affordances for instant editing and posting are just a world apart on smartphones.
> At this point, it’s not really possible to revolutionize the smartphone
I see this sentiment batted around quite a bit these days. Just because nobody has revolutionized the smartphone in the past few years doesn't mean it's not possible.
There are tons of ways to innovate with smartphones, but the technology to do so is either too young, too niche or hasn't made it beyond the drawing board.
To pick three innovative features that have made it into real smartphones, you can look at the Samsung Galaxy Beam pico projector, Jolla's 'The Other Half', and the YotaPhone E-Ink backscreen. Some would argue that these are gimmicks, but isn't all innovation a little gimmicky before it reaches mass market adoption (I'd argue camera phones were in this category originally, and they certainly aren't gimmicks anymore).
Jolla's The Other Half is especially interesting, as it allows for people to personalise the functionality of their phone (along with the look). Whether it takes off or not remains to be seen.
Not really. Screens on most high end smartphones are already toughened, you'd just end up with an evolutionary improvement rather than a revolutionary one. Plus, there's no such thing as shatter-proof, so the screens should be easily replaceable as well.
That's not necessarily true it simply means there are no low hanging fruit that you can think of. It's entirely conceivable that something could come out to revolutionize mobile devices that, in hindsight, was really straight forward.
Really? We might have said that on January 8th 2007 too...
It's always tricky anticipating the point of sufficiency. Probably because it's a moving target.
Besides I'm not sure that the iPhone was such low hanging fruit. It probably cost Apple a tonne of R&D and effort to research and build and was ahead of its time by at least a good couple of years.
Interesting that the only problem the reviewer could find with sticking to 1 GB of RAM is that you can't keep several tabs live in Safari. To me, that just highlights the inefficiency of the modern web stack, rather than any problem with iOS or with the iPhone sticking to 1 GB of RAM.
One thing I think Apple should do is to license Nvidia's GPU for their SoC. Especially when Maxwell is ready for mobile.
Nvidia clearly wants to license it out and I think Apple would be the best one to take advantage of it. Apple seems to be pushing the GPU side of their SoCs quite a bit.
I've always been a HUGE fan of the PowerVR tech (the GPU inside the iPhone/iPad), even going so far as buying shares in the company when I was a kid (I was an odd kid).
From what I understand of the technology it was built with efficiency from the ground up as opposed to the nVidia tech of the time such as the TNT and Geforce which were designed for raw performance.
I think Videologic/Imagination Tech patented the heck outta a lot of the techniques they came up with so wouldn't be surprised if they're ahead of the pack on efficiency.
How's the power draw on that thing? I'm not really familiar with it, but I'm under the impression apple is interested more in balanced performance than all out perf
The quality of writing has definitely dipped since Anand's departure. Though this review does contain a lot of information, it seems like it was written in a very sophomoric way.
First thing I noticed was how many authors it took to write that article. Believe Anand used to write past iPhone reviews solo - think they're gonna find it tough to replace him.
"On August 30, 2014, Anand announced his decision to retire from the technology publishing industry to work at Apple, and named longtime AnandTech editor Ryan Smith as his successor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnandTech
"It remains to be seen if other SoC manufacturers will catch up in their CPU architecture at one point or another"
This is surprisingly ignorant from Anandtech. Surely they know better.
While Apple raced to win the spec war (I say that tongue in cheek, but the truth is that Apple tries really hard to give you bragging rights, buying the biggest PowerVR designs, jumping on incomplete ARM specs, etc), going to ARMv8 far before her peers by creating a derivative of early A57 designs (much like Qualcomm did with Krait, getting in early on the new A15 design), every other vendor has been soberly pursuing ARM A57 at their own pace: It isn't like there is some great lack of performance in competing devices, and this simply isn't a critical thing, so there seems to be no great rush.
The Tegra K1 Denver will be the first salvo from alternatives, and early indications are that it will provide pretty extraordinary performance, and presumably we'll search for ways of using that power productively.
Looks like I've stepped into the distortion field, where Apple is both uncatchably ahead of everyone, and simultaneously not even trying.
Apple tries really hard to give you bragging rights through their processor!?
are you posting this from bizarro world? apple is the one tech company that does not advertise tech specs. they mention them in the keynotes and move on. as if you ignored thousands of articles about this very fact. amazing.
I see comments like yours fairly frequently, and it really is bizarro world. It's buying into an obviously untrue narrative that hasn't been true...well..ever.
Apple makes a really big deal about their cores and GPU, as they have every right to (they're pretty great). Quite aside from their keynotes that focus extensively on this, on the product page you learn, right near the top, about the A8 64-bit processor and M8 coprocessor, as if these facts have any relevance to an end user. They're bragging points. Apple talks about their 64-bit advantage ad nauseam.
They absolutely brag about their chip. They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials).
> They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials)
They tend more than other manufacturers to boast brands and subjective description rather than the base specs -- "retina" rather than PPI, for instance -- but its true that they do sometimes boast specs.
They'll brag about their (completely meaningless) processor name (A8), but won't spend as much focus as others boasting measures like GHz or core count, etc. -- IOW, they don't spend a lot of focus on things that you can meaningfully compete with and compare across vendors.
Because they are selling magic and brands, not concrete features.
> but won't spend as much focus as others boasting measures like GHz or core count, etc. -- IOW, they don't spend a lot of focus on things that you can meaningfully compete with and compare across vendors.
Erm, comparing frequency and core count is unhelpful, as you can see from the benchmarks in the article. The A8 is generally faster than the current Qualcomms, but has a far lower frequency and half the core count. Apple probably don't want to fall into the same marketing nightmare AMD did, where low-frequency high IPC Athlons competed against high-frequency low-IPC P4s.
> Because they are selling magic and brands, not concrete features.
And because it's completely pointless to sell concrete features for certain components. If they boast the Ghz number it will be relatively easy for competitors to produce higher figures. Ghz don't mean anything unless you take into account all kind of details (architecture, throttling...) that no one except really detail-oriented reviewers will go through and that will bore 90% of the users. Hence the bragging on the name.
I've heard Apple talk about their 64-bit processor magnitudes more than I've heard Samsung or HTC talk about Ghz or core counts. I've heard Apple talk about GPUs more than every other vendor combined, but somehow we all need to roll with the ridiculous notion that Apple cares not a whit about specs, despite talking about them endlessly.
Agreed, and I'm old enough to remember their (cherry-picked) performance claims in the desktop/cpu world when they had to compete with Wintel machines.
What Apple doesn't do, is release products that compete solely based on these hardware specs. Their approach is "yeah it's fast enough, but it's also beautful etc."
Believe it or not, there is a large group of consumers that purchase technology not just based on technical merit, but aesthetics (myself included). I'm more likely to buy something that looks/feels better designed and trade off functionality just for aesthetic reasons. Much like I'd rather buy a hardcover copy of a book instead of the paperback, if the quality is sufficiently higher.
Unfortunately, their products are not consistently beautiful anymore, IMHO. Examples: iPhone 5s silicone case with circles, antenna lines on the back of the new iPhones. :-/
>>> They absolutely brag about their chip. They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials).
Completely agree.
As far back as I can remember (Apple iMac G3) they've been touting their processors and architecture as being superior to other manufacturers, and one of the key reasons you should be using their hardware. So your comments are right on point, and something that's easily lost when most people only see is their advanced design chops.
Why "her"?
Is this because you are sexist and trying to degrade Apple, because you consider Apple to be a god, or are you pushing for better women's rights by using feminine pronouns by default?
Few different companies announced 64-bit models this month. All of them includes A53 cores. Also Nexus 9 (two Denver cores) will be released soon, but it's a tablet.
> but the truth is that Apple tries really hard to give you bragging rights, buying the biggest PowerVR designs, jumping on incomplete ARM specs
Wait, you think ARMv8 was incomplete when the 5S came out? What on earth makes you think that?
Also, it's clear that they DON'T try all that hard; they could have used the six-core variant of the PowerVR used here, at the cost of battery life.
> going to ARMv8 far before her peers by creating a derivative of early A57 designs
Hrm? Cyclone isn't particularly similar to A57. Also, if they'd wanted A57, they could have just implemented it; it was available in the right timeframe.
Also, if they'd wanted A57, they could have just implemented it; it was available in the right timeframe.
No it wasn't. A57 wasn't actually done when Apple outed Cyclone. Apple clearly ran with early aspects of A57 (your disingenuous misreading about ARMv8 being ignored). At exactly the same timeframe, nvidia, Qualcomm, and others had as many details of A57 and ARMv8, and none of them ran with it. Indeed, nvidia and Qualcomm are just getting to 64-bit parts, doing a pretty good job with their existing architectures.
Apple wanted to be first, and they pounded every bit out of 64-bits in their marketing. But here, again, we have to pretend that reality isn't as it actually is.
Also, it's clear that they DON'T try all that hard; they could have used the six-core variant of the PowerVR used here, at the cost of battery life
This is absurdity theater. Apple has chosen higher bin/tier PowerVR parts than her peers for virtually every single generation. But because they didn't choose even higher we are to believe that they don't try hard? Do you actually look at the benchmarks, or just continue on with a ridiculous narrative based upon preconceived notions?
> No it wasn't. A57 wasn't actually done when Apple outed Cyclone. Apple clearly ran with early aspects of A57 (your disingenuous misreading about ARMv8 being ignored)
> At exactly the same timeframe, nvidia, Qualcomm, and others had as many details of A57 and ARMv8, and none of them ran with it.
Google is showing me lots of documents published by ARM on ARMv8 from 2011. By Oct. 2012, Samsung had licensed the A53 and A57 core designs: http://www.techhive.com/article/2013298/arm-introduces-64bit... . They didn't have 'many details'; they had the design itself.
> Apple clearly ran with early aspects of A57
Which ones? I mean, Cyclone was wider than A9, but that's hardly a shock. My impression is that A57 isn't, in any case, really suitable for phones except in a BIG.little configuration.
ARM designs are like a GIT repository, and the AXX continued having revisions and changes through 2013. Running with it early and you are bound to either go on a detour or end up with a noncompetitive variant.
Curious to see no mention of the bending controversy given the huge furore about it(regardless of whether it's actually true or not). If the reviewer thought it was a non-issue, he could have written a single sentence clarifying the same.
"Along the left side, we see the standard volume buttons and mute switch that continue to have the same solid feel and clean clicking action. As I discuss in the iPhone 6 Plus review, going by Consumer Reports' data it seems that there is a weak point near the bottom of the volume rocker, although it's far less likely to be an issue on the iPhone 6 due to its smaller size."
There is a passing mention right there on the first page:
"As I discuss in the iPhone 6 Plus review, going by Consumer Reports' data it seems that there is a weak point near the bottom of the volume rocker, although it's far less likely to be an issue on the iPhone 6 due to its smaller size."
Phone hardware just isn't interesting, anymore. We've reached the point that personal computers reached a couple decades ago: They're all pretty good and not much different from the model released two years ago (though they are faster and have more storage and RAM).