How come Mac sales keep increasing quarter after quarter if software is running just "fine" on older hardware? People want to be delighted and Microsoft has awoken to that with Surface Pro 4 & Surface Book.
But please tell my why anyone would want a Surface Book that only runs Windows 10 (and maybe Linux if you're really resourceful/persistent), when they can get a MacBook Pro for a thousand dollars less, and be able to run OS X, Windows and Linux on it, plus have that famous Apple build quality?
That's why you see so many Macs in some professions: accountants, lawyers, designers, photographs,...
And new, startup businesses of all shapes and sizes are predominantly Mac-based for their business PCs.
Watch "Shark Tank" sometime. When they do one of their "Let's see how they're doing" segments, the businesses are almost always Mac-based. It's actually amazing the ratio of OS X to Windows in these new businesses, that don't have legacy "Exchange" baggage.
There should be no bug reports to file, and if there are, the company is to blame not the user.
That's so ignorant of the real world, it's laughable.
Do you want me to link to the thousands of bug reports filed by Users for Linux, or Windows, or fucking BeOS, or any other published software package or OS more complicated than "10 GOTO 10", FFS?
To publish such ignorant drivel on a site that is frequented by many software Developers is either completely funny or completely foolhardy...
Take your pick, Anonymous (but stupid beyond belief) COWARD.
Yes, because people pushing out crap apps to bring in ad revenue would never post fake reviews.
Sure they can. But I personally use the same guidelines I do when doing any online shopping with "User Reviews":
Items with less than 10 User Reviews are very suspect. I pretty much assume those are fake Reviews (especially if there are good and bad ones, or all good ones) and skip those Items completely.
Items with 10-50 User Reviews are less suspect, but I generally read all the reviews.
Items with greater than 50 User Reviews are generally pretty valid.
Sure, someone can get a few of his friends to post a fake Review; but almost NO ONE can come up with 50 (or even 10) individual User IDs that will be willing to shill for someone.
Of course there are exceptions; but I haven't personally gotten burned yet with those guidelines on any product I've purchased online. Oh, and I do (generally lots of) additional research, too, above and beyond User Reviews. I also look at the "Distribution" of the Reviews, and make sure I read ALL the "Bad" ones, just because.
Android fanboy here... just wondering - when Apple pulls an app from the store, does it force it to uninstall from your device(s) as well?
Nope.
So far, if Apple even has the ability to uninstall an app, they've never used it. They've never used their ability to disable apps, either (though limited to ones which use CoreLocation, since the disabling code is in there, so if you never touch GPS...).
All Apple has done is basically prevent users from redownloading apps. But even that's not as big a limitation - you can still back up an app using iTunes. Or download the app using iTunes and install it via iTunes (recommended method for large apps). Even if the app is removed, as long as you have the IPA (the app file, similar to apk for Android) file somewhere, and iTunes is available, you can install it via iTunes. iTunes doesn't check - as long as the app is in your name and account, iTunes will install it on your device long after the developer has disappeared.
This was how users of a particular (medical) assistance app kept using it - after the developer has been sued by some larger company or patent violations that forced Apple to remove the app, the users backed up the app via iTunes and use that to install it on every new device.
The only thing is, it's unmaintained, so if it doesn't work with a new OS version...
And if you wanted, using iTunes you can back up old versions of apps too, so if they try to screw you or add stuff like ads or IAPs (in app purchase) you don't like, you can always revert by installing that particular version of the app.
This is my problem with Apple/Google and now Microsoft... Each company makes it known they are collecting 'usage data', location, and monitoring content on device. Then virtually all have ways to remotely install anything they wish... ie: a backdoor into every device....
The summary is horrific because it paints the pulling of these apps as negative when in fact it's one of the better demonstrations as to why non-technical people need a curated app store.
It cannot inspect ssl/tls traffic unless you add certificate authorities, which may be impossible without root. Yes, the local VPN can inspect plain text traffic, intercept DNS resolution, and block outgoing connections- that's the point. Open source solutions are ideal for this case.
Yeah, cuz everyone has the time/skill to pore through thousands of lines of code to find the one nicely-obscured call.
because now a single-source component is no longer single-source!
This is great, only if in fact the specifications are identical. If one of your sources has a defective, slower, or less-efficient component that impairs the product, then it sucks for the customer who gets the bad luck of the draw.
I'm sure the Specifications TO both suppliers were identical; however, supplier "S" MAY have not MET those specs, or it MAY have MET those specs, but then supplier "T" may have EXCEEDED them.
Now what? Does Apple go back to supplier "S", having MET the terms of Apple's CONTRACT, and say "Do Better"? Does Apple VIOLATE the Terms of It's own Agreement with supplier "S" to purchase a minimum of "x" Quantity over "y" Months, when that supplier WAS meeting ist end of the deal, JUST BECAUSE supplier "T" was producing "better" parts?
So you see, a LOT of this hinges on whether Samsung is, or is not, MEETING Apple's specs. If they are, then Apple is actually in a bit of a bind; they cannot arbitrarily just change their Requirements, so that only supplier "T" meets them. Supplier "S" would sue for breach of contract, and they would WIN. And meanwhile, consumers would be waiting for MONTHS to get their phones and tablets, while supplier "T" catches up with demand. Same thing if supplier "S" says "We have a process issue, but it is going to take us 6 months minimum to fix it." Even if Apple would agree to that, it would be the death of this particular product-cycle. In fact, even a ONE month delay would be pretty serious, because App,e would have to the RE-QUALIFY the new parts, which, even if expedited, would take precious weeks or even months, itself.
The real answer is that Apple needs to buy or build its own fab line, and it has to be a huge one!
See, again. You can't refute the rationale so you attack the person. If you genuinely feel you are being trolled by all these posts then why do you constantly get so upset? If they are trolls then you get reeled in hook, line and sinker every single time. Either you don't actually believe they are trolls and you use that as an excuse to try and get leverage in the argument or you really are that much of an Apple desperado that you lack the self control to resist responding to even non-genuine comments.
What kind of idiotic logic is this? Apple is the one making the phones, not Samsung. If Samsung CPUs aren't up to spec, then Apple shouldn't be shipping phones with them and claiming them to be equivalent to the TSMC ones. It's that simple. If Samsung isn't a good enough supplier, that's Apple's fault for continuing to buy from them.
This is like VW trying to claim "it's not our fault! It was some rogue software engineers!" If you ship the product, it's your problem.
Wait a minute! Who said Apple was claiming that the Samsung and TSMC variants of the A9 were "equivalent"?
Do you REALLY think that Apple does full testing on each and every iPhone? Do you think that Samsung does full testing on each and every A9? The answer is "No".
It is Samsung that apparently has a "Process Problem" (assuming that my Conspiracy Theory is incorrect). THEY ARE THE CONTRACTED SUPPLIER. If they are not meeting spec, it is primarily on THEIR head.
Now, if Apple is shipping phones that do not meet THEIR published specs, AND they don't "make good" (replace) those Phones, THEN, and only then, I will wholeheartedly agree that it is Apple's fault.
But until then, it MAY be Samsung's problem; OR it may be that the Samsung chips DO meet Apple's spec, and the TSMC chips are just a little better. That isn't Apple's "fault", either; but then, neither would that be Samsung's; but rather, "Just one of those things." Happens with ALL mass-produced items. Every. Single. One. It's just that Apple is continuously under a spotlight, and sells things so quickly at the outset, that early-on Production Kinks are magnified beyond all reason.
There’s no way to tell by looking at the packaging if the phone you’re buying has a Samsung or a TSMC processor
Different model #'s detectable in software, but not listed on the package.
I thought I saw a post to this Article that alluded to a model number difference on the box or at least the outside of the phone itself.
But I can't find that post, and my own research online suggests that the only way to tell which SoC manufacturer is to use one of several software methods, some of which are pretty damned sketchy, too!
So, I apologize for my original statement; because it appears I spoke without thoroughly researching. Something that of COURSE no one else on Slashdot is EVER guilty of... [/sarcasm]
If the percentage of Apple-Hater posts (most of which are simply over-the-top) that were ACs was anything less than 97% on Slashdot, your argument would be more credible.
If it's anything like the iPhone I bought 2 years ago, it's 6-8 hours of being in Airplane mode while in standby in your pocket.
1. I notice you don't mention a model. I call Shenanigans.
2. If that's what you were getting out of a 4s, 5, 5s or 6, then something was wrong with that particular unit. Or you are a fucking liar.
I own a 4s. If I leave it mostly in standby, even with WiFi on, I get about 2 days of "idle" time. In moderate use, it would last about a day and a half before I wanted to recharge it (usually with around 25% left).
I never owned a 5 or 5s; but a cow-orker claimed almost 3 days on his 5 (or 5s, can't remember).
My current 6 Plus, which is about a year old now, consistently gives me 3 to 4 DAYS of moderate use (and it usually has around 17-20% left when I decide to charge it). It probably sits in standby about 5-7 hours overall per day; but the rest of the time I'm reading mail, making calls, running some App (not much of a gamer), etc.
So, either you are a bald-faced liar; and/or you have a defective unit. Or a defective phone. Take your pick.
6h vs. 8h in a power-consumption test is a huge, huge difference
Initially I was in full agreement, then I realized we were talking about 6h vs 8h, not 16h vs 18h, or 6 days vs 8 days, but far too short a battery life vs far too short a battery life.
EIGHT HOURS? Seriously? That's ridiculous. That's not even enough time to go to the office and return after eight hours of productive work without plugging it into a charger.
They were trying to use the iPhone as a Toaster-Oven, FFS!
I guarantee this was with everything in the kitchen sink at full power, continuous WiFi, BlueTooth, Screen at fulll Brightness with NO sleeping WHATSOEVER.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that the average non-terminally-addicted-gamer would barely even notice the difference between the TSMC and Samsung variants in average use, because batteries "recover" quite a bit when the phone is sleeping.
This is not to say that Samsung doesn't need to address why they can't do as good a fabbing-job as dinky-little (by comparison) TSMC; but as the owner of an iPhone 6 Plus, who gets an average of 3 to 4 DAYS of moderate use, I can tell you that those numbers most certainly DON'T represent what most Users of the 6s will experience in real-world use.
I guess it true that Apple users have small penises (ii?), if you can mouth all that while sucking up so hard.
Intel calls an i5@2600Mhz different than the i5@3400Mhz. If you buy the slow one you get it cheaper. End user overclocking is unrelated so don't even try to bring that up.
For a car analogy, this is DIRECTLY comparable to the difference between ordering a v8 and getting a v6 - but the v6 is the one that burns more gas!
To use your car analogy, I guarantee that if you tested 100 different copies of exactly the same year and model car on a dynanometer, equipped the same, with the same engine and transmission options, you would get exactly 100 different horsepower/kW output numbers. And the "spread" might really surprise you.
Sometimes, these differences from different suppliers become part of the fan-folklore surrounding a particular component or product. The best example I can come up with offhand is the venerable Ford 351 V8 Engine of yore. There were 351's that were made in Cleveland, OH, and there were 351's that were made in Windsor, Ontario.
They were NOT the same. Not even close. In fact, IIRC, they were even designed slightly differently.
But if you went to the Ford Dealer back in the day and bought yourself an F-150 pickup truck, LTD or Galaxy 500 with that engine (the Pickup might have had a 360 in it, though, I'm not an expert), I'm pretty sure it was the luck of the draw which version of "351" you got, and I am sure that you, as an average consumer, could not specify, nor tell which one was which, without examining the Engine Identification Number on the Block (or maybe the Engine itself if you were an expert), or the VIN.
But if you cruise the old-timey Ford forums, you will find no end to the posts regarding which "351" (C or W) is the one to have...
If sourcing substantially different parts from different vendors is necessary to meet production volume, then they need to have different part names and model names for these products. This isn't a case of having resistors or capacitors from different manufacturers, something that won't affect performance in any measurable way, this is a case of having two completely different CPUs, with very different performance from the two. 6h vs. 8h in a power-consumption test is a huge, huge difference. Intel sells CPUs all the time which are very similar, but have performance that differs to that extent: they use completely different part numbers to describe these parts.
You have ABSOLUTELY no idea how manufacturing works, period.
And if someone is only getting 6 or 8 hours on a modern iPhone, they are running it full-tilt CONTINUOUSLY for that time; which is exacerbating the (for example) 3.663 W vs. 3.664 W of power consumption between the two chips. In most use-cases, I would bet that most Users, with the exception of highly-addicted Gamers, hardly experience a difference in real world use.
That is NOT to say that Samsung doesn't have some esplainin' to do; but I would bet that this is mostly a difference between the dielectric thickness in Samsung's 14 nm Process, vs. TSMC's 16 nm Process.
Hopefully, Samsung will figure it out.
Oh, and as another Poster pointed out, Apple did give the two "variants" different Model Numbers. You just have to be a bit vigilant if you want a particular one.
For another prime example: How many "variants" does the average consumer WiFi Router have, under the exact same Model Number on the box, case-graphics, owner's manual, etc? Those people seem to routinely spawn different hardware variants every few months with absolutely no visible change, other than maybe a "Rev Number" on the bottom of the unit. And oh, BTW, those "variants" often have VERY different performance characteristics. Don't believe me? Try cruising the Reviews on smallnetbuilder.com.
So, give us all a break, willya?
This isn’t a mid-model-year thing. They’re actively shipping both versions right now. Luck of the draw if you get the better or worse CPU, same price either way. That’s not the same as bought later, got a little better for no extra money.
Or, here's a thought:
Instead of buying online, GO TO THE APPLE STORE, like, in MeatSpace, and buy your phone. When they bring it out, ask to see the Product Number, and REJECT IT if it isn't the one with A TSMC SoC in it.
Simple. At least Apple has denoted the two different "models" in a way that a human can tell which is which without having to load an App.
They have a history of doing this too, because like like to have two suppliers competing.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea about "sourcing" or "logistics".
As someone who has been involved in many of my own product launches, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the one thing a "buyer" (parts-procurement-person) wants is to be handed a Bill of Materials from R&D that has "Single-Source" components on it. In fact, many (most) companies that are OEMs for hardware products insist that either the R&D department or the "Product Engineering" department (which is sort of a liason between R&D, Manufacturing and Procurement, and is usually responsible for getting new products into production) "source" components from at least two sources whenever possible.
In the embedded design world that I am experienced in, that usually doesn't include the MCU/CPU, Display, sometimes certain Connectors, and some Mechanical parts. But in the case of an OEM the size of Apple, those "rules of thumb" don't apply nearly so much.
So, in a simplified scenario (leaving out things like "qualification" testing, price considerations, etc.), when fab "T" says "Thank you very much for the consideration, but there is no way we can meet this release schedule in these quantities, but we can guarantee this amount.", a company the size of Apple doesn't just automatically say "Ok, well, you're out", and go to fab "S". No, they go over to fab "S", and say "Can you meet (additional requirement) release schedule?" And when they say "Yes", then they split the difference between the two suppliers, which not only gives them the overall production releases they need, but also makes the Buyers at the OEM happy; because now a single-source component is no longer single-source!
Nothing nefarious here. It happens in every single manufacturer of pretty much every single thing, everywhere; from Apple to Xerox, Audi to Volvo, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
How come Mac sales keep increasing quarter after quarter if software is running just "fine" on older hardware? People want to be delighted and Microsoft has awoken to that with Surface Pro 4 & Surface Book.
But please tell my why anyone would want a Surface Book that only runs Windows 10 (and maybe Linux if you're really resourceful/persistent), when they can get a MacBook Pro for a thousand dollars less, and be able to run OS X, Windows and Linux on it, plus have that famous Apple build quality?
That's why you see so many Macs in some professions: accountants, lawyers, designers, photographs, ...
And new, startup businesses of all shapes and sizes are predominantly Mac-based for their business PCs.
Watch "Shark Tank" sometime. When they do one of their "Let's see how they're doing" segments, the businesses are almost always Mac-based. It's actually amazing the ratio of OS X to Windows in these new businesses, that don't have legacy "Exchange" baggage.
Passing QA to the customer is unacceptable.
There should be no bug reports to file, and if there are, the company is to blame not the user.
That's so ignorant of the real world, it's laughable.
Do you want me to link to the thousands of bug reports filed by Users for Linux, or Windows, or fucking BeOS, or any other published software package or OS more complicated than "10 GOTO 10", FFS?
To publish such ignorant drivel on a site that is frequented by many software Developers is either completely funny or completely foolhardy...
Take your pick, Anonymous (but stupid beyond belief) COWARD.
Yes, because people pushing out crap apps to bring in ad revenue would never post fake reviews.
Sure they can. But I personally use the same guidelines I do when doing any online shopping with "User Reviews":
Items with less than 10 User Reviews are very suspect. I pretty much assume those are fake Reviews (especially if there are good and bad ones, or all good ones) and skip those Items completely.
Items with 10-50 User Reviews are less suspect, but I generally read all the reviews.
Items with greater than 50 User Reviews are generally pretty valid.
Sure, someone can get a few of his friends to post a fake Review; but almost NO ONE can come up with 50 (or even 10) individual User IDs that will be willing to shill for someone.
Of course there are exceptions; but I haven't personally gotten burned yet with those guidelines on any product I've purchased online. Oh, and I do (generally lots of) additional research, too, above and beyond User Reviews. I also look at the "Distribution" of the Reviews, and make sure I read ALL the "Bad" ones, just because.
They did get around to (mostly) repairing that after a bit
Yeah, about 3 or 4 weeks. How long do you think you would have waited on Android?
Blame the carriers for that one. One would almost think they would want more secure devices on their network, but, whatever.
Who CARES about the finger-pointing? The end-result is the same to the User: No Updates.
Nope.
So far, if Apple even has the ability to uninstall an app, they've never used it. They've never used their ability to disable apps, either (though limited to ones which use CoreLocation, since the disabling code is in there, so if you never touch GPS...).
All Apple has done is basically prevent users from redownloading apps. But even that's not as big a limitation - you can still back up an app using iTunes. Or download the app using iTunes and install it via iTunes (recommended method for large apps). Even if the app is removed, as long as you have the IPA (the app file, similar to apk for Android) file somewhere, and iTunes is available, you can install it via iTunes. iTunes doesn't check - as long as the app is in your name and account, iTunes will install it on your device long after the developer has disappeared.
This was how users of a particular (medical) assistance app kept using it - after the developer has been sued by some larger company or patent violations that forced Apple to remove the app, the users backed up the app via iTunes and use that to install it on every new device.
The only thing is, it's unmaintained, so if it doesn't work with a new OS version...
And if you wanted, using iTunes you can back up old versions of apps too, so if they try to screw you or add stuff like ads or IAPs (in app purchase) you don't like, you can always revert by installing that particular version of the app.
Extremely Informative, thanks!
This is my problem with Apple/Google and now Microsoft... Each company makes it known they are collecting 'usage data', location, and monitoring content on device. Then virtually all have ways to remotely install anything they wish... ie: a backdoor into every device....
Not Apple, on either point.
Prove it.
The summary is horrific because it paints the pulling of these apps as negative when in fact it's one of the better demonstrations as to why non-technical people need a curated app store.
Mods: Mod Parent UP. This is EXACTLY correct!
It cannot inspect ssl/tls traffic unless you add certificate authorities, which may be impossible without root. Yes, the local VPN can inspect plain text traffic, intercept DNS resolution, and block outgoing connections- that's the point. Open source solutions are ideal for this case.
Yeah, cuz everyone has the time/skill to pore through thousands of lines of code to find the one nicely-obscured call.
Just wait for macos to have the same level of lock down and app store only.
How long have we seen this Hater Meme?
Nobody believes a word you say "macs4all". All you do is suck up to Apple constantly so all your "facts" are pulled out of your ass.
Then why is my Karma always pegged at "Excellent", with Mod points being awarded on a weekly basis?
And what facts are those? The un-provable assertion by ONE ANONYMOUS COWARD that they get ridiculously-short IDLE times?
Yeahrightsure. The interwebs would be on FIRE if that AC's assertion was even CLOSE to true.
So now who is pulling facts out of their ass?
Oh? Tell me: what OS exposes storage (e.g. discharge when stored) to the user/applications? Can you see the actual charge current in your OS?
Just because a parameter isn't readily available to the USER, doesn't mean that the OS isn't able to access it.
because now a single-source component is no longer single-source!
This is great, only if in fact the specifications are identical. If one of your sources has a defective, slower, or less-efficient component that impairs the product, then it sucks for the customer who gets the bad luck of the draw.
I'm sure the Specifications TO both suppliers were identical; however, supplier "S" MAY have not MET those specs, or it MAY have MET those specs, but then supplier "T" may have EXCEEDED them.
Now what? Does Apple go back to supplier "S", having MET the terms of Apple's CONTRACT, and say "Do Better"? Does Apple VIOLATE the Terms of It's own Agreement with supplier "S" to purchase a minimum of "x" Quantity over "y" Months, when that supplier WAS meeting ist end of the deal, JUST BECAUSE supplier "T" was producing "better" parts?
So you see, a LOT of this hinges on whether Samsung is, or is not, MEETING Apple's specs. If they are, then Apple is actually in a bit of a bind; they cannot arbitrarily just change their Requirements, so that only supplier "T" meets them. Supplier "S" would sue for breach of contract, and they would WIN. And meanwhile, consumers would be waiting for MONTHS to get their phones and tablets, while supplier "T" catches up with demand. Same thing if supplier "S" says "We have a process issue, but it is going to take us 6 months minimum to fix it." Even if Apple would agree to that, it would be the death of this particular product-cycle. In fact, even a ONE month delay would be pretty serious, because App,e would have to the RE-QUALIFY the new parts, which, even if expedited, would take precious weeks or even months, itself.
The real answer is that Apple needs to buy or build its own fab line, and it has to be a huge one!
See, again. You can't refute the rationale so you attack the person. If you genuinely feel you are being trolled by all these posts then why do you constantly get so upset? If they are trolls then you get reeled in hook, line and sinker every single time. Either you don't actually believe they are trolls and you use that as an excuse to try and get leverage in the argument or you really are that much of an Apple desperado that you lack the self control to resist responding to even non-genuine comments.
So sez the Anonymous Coward.
Again.
What kind of idiotic logic is this? Apple is the one making the phones, not Samsung. If Samsung CPUs aren't up to spec, then Apple shouldn't be shipping phones with them and claiming them to be equivalent to the TSMC ones. It's that simple. If Samsung isn't a good enough supplier, that's Apple's fault for continuing to buy from them.
This is like VW trying to claim "it's not our fault! It was some rogue software engineers!" If you ship the product, it's your problem.
Wait a minute! Who said Apple was claiming that the Samsung and TSMC variants of the A9 were "equivalent"?
Do you REALLY think that Apple does full testing on each and every iPhone? Do you think that Samsung does full testing on each and every A9? The answer is "No".
It is Samsung that apparently has a "Process Problem" (assuming that my Conspiracy Theory is incorrect). THEY ARE THE CONTRACTED SUPPLIER. If they are not meeting spec, it is primarily on THEIR head.
Now, if Apple is shipping phones that do not meet THEIR published specs, AND they don't "make good" (replace) those Phones, THEN, and only then, I will wholeheartedly agree that it is Apple's fault.
But until then, it MAY be Samsung's problem; OR it may be that the Samsung chips DO meet Apple's spec, and the TSMC chips are just a little better. That isn't Apple's "fault", either; but then, neither would that be Samsung's; but rather, "Just one of those things." Happens with ALL mass-produced items. Every. Single. One. It's just that Apple is continuously under a spotlight, and sells things so quickly at the outset, that early-on Production Kinks are magnified beyond all reason.
From TFA:
Different model #'s detectable in software, but not listed on the package.
I thought I saw a post to this Article that alluded to a model number difference on the box or at least the outside of the phone itself.
But I can't find that post, and my own research online suggests that the only way to tell which SoC manufacturer is to use one of several software methods, some of which are pretty damned sketchy, too!
So, I apologize for my original statement; because it appears I spoke without thoroughly researching. Something that of COURSE no one else on Slashdot is EVER guilty of... [/sarcasm]
That doesn't make their points any less valid,
So sez the Anonymous COWARD.
And yes; yes it does.
If the percentage of Apple-Hater posts (most of which are simply over-the-top) that were ACs was anything less than 97% on Slashdot, your argument would be more credible.
But it's not, and so, you're not.
If it's anything like the iPhone I bought 2 years ago, it's 6-8 hours of being in Airplane mode while in standby in your pocket.
1. I notice you don't mention a model. I call Shenanigans.
2. If that's what you were getting out of a 4s, 5, 5s or 6, then something was wrong with that particular unit. Or you are a fucking liar.
I own a 4s. If I leave it mostly in standby, even with WiFi on, I get about 2 days of "idle" time. In moderate use, it would last about a day and a half before I wanted to recharge it (usually with around 25% left).
I never owned a 5 or 5s; but a cow-orker claimed almost 3 days on his 5 (or 5s, can't remember).
My current 6 Plus, which is about a year old now, consistently gives me 3 to 4 DAYS of moderate use (and it usually has around 17-20% left when I decide to charge it). It probably sits in standby about 5-7 hours overall per day; but the rest of the time I'm reading mail, making calls, running some App (not much of a gamer), etc.
So, either you are a bald-faced liar; and/or you have a defective unit. Or a defective phone. Take your pick.
Initially I was in full agreement, then I realized we were talking about 6h vs 8h, not 16h vs 18h, or 6 days vs 8 days, but far too short a battery life vs far too short a battery life.
EIGHT HOURS? Seriously? That's ridiculous. That's not even enough time to go to the office and return after eight hours of productive work without plugging it into a charger.
They were trying to use the iPhone as a Toaster-Oven, FFS!
I guarantee this was with everything in the kitchen sink at full power, continuous WiFi, BlueTooth, Screen at fulll Brightness with NO sleeping WHATSOEVER.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that the average non-terminally-addicted-gamer would barely even notice the difference between the TSMC and Samsung variants in average use, because batteries "recover" quite a bit when the phone is sleeping.
This is not to say that Samsung doesn't need to address why they can't do as good a fabbing-job as dinky-little (by comparison) TSMC; but as the owner of an iPhone 6 Plus, who gets an average of 3 to 4 DAYS of moderate use, I can tell you that those numbers most certainly DON'T represent what most Users of the 6s will experience in real-world use.
Changing an Xbox chip to a lower sized process doesn't negatively impact things like battery life,
Maybe because the XBox would run about 5 minutes on a fucking CAR BATTERY...
I guess it true that Apple users have small penises (ii?), if you can mouth all that while sucking up so hard.
Intel calls an i5@2600Mhz different than the i5@3400Mhz. If you buy the slow one you get it cheaper. End user overclocking is unrelated so don't even try to bring that up.
For a car analogy, this is DIRECTLY comparable to the difference between ordering a v8 and getting a v6 - but the v6 is the one that burns more gas!
To use your car analogy, I guarantee that if you tested 100 different copies of exactly the same year and model car on a dynanometer, equipped the same, with the same engine and transmission options, you would get exactly 100 different horsepower/kW output numbers. And the "spread" might really surprise you.
Sometimes, these differences from different suppliers become part of the fan-folklore surrounding a particular component or product. The best example I can come up with offhand is the venerable Ford 351 V8 Engine of yore. There were 351's that were made in Cleveland, OH, and there were 351's that were made in Windsor, Ontario.
They were NOT the same. Not even close. In fact, IIRC, they were even designed slightly differently.
But if you went to the Ford Dealer back in the day and bought yourself an F-150 pickup truck, LTD or Galaxy 500 with that engine (the Pickup might have had a 360 in it, though, I'm not an expert), I'm pretty sure it was the luck of the draw which version of "351" you got, and I am sure that you, as an average consumer, could not specify, nor tell which one was which, without examining the Engine Identification Number on the Block (or maybe the Engine itself if you were an expert), or the VIN.
But if you cruise the old-timey Ford forums, you will find no end to the posts regarding which "351" (C or W) is the one to have...
If sourcing substantially different parts from different vendors is necessary to meet production volume, then they need to have different part names and model names for these products. This isn't a case of having resistors or capacitors from different manufacturers, something that won't affect performance in any measurable way, this is a case of having two completely different CPUs, with very different performance from the two. 6h vs. 8h in a power-consumption test is a huge, huge difference. Intel sells CPUs all the time which are very similar, but have performance that differs to that extent: they use completely different part numbers to describe these parts.
You have ABSOLUTELY no idea how manufacturing works, period.
And if someone is only getting 6 or 8 hours on a modern iPhone, they are running it full-tilt CONTINUOUSLY for that time; which is exacerbating the (for example) 3.663 W vs. 3.664 W of power consumption between the two chips. In most use-cases, I would bet that most Users, with the exception of highly-addicted Gamers, hardly experience a difference in real world use.
That is NOT to say that Samsung doesn't have some esplainin' to do; but I would bet that this is mostly a difference between the dielectric thickness in Samsung's 14 nm Process, vs. TSMC's 16 nm Process.
Hopefully, Samsung will figure it out.
Oh, and as another Poster pointed out, Apple did give the two "variants" different Model Numbers. You just have to be a bit vigilant if you want a particular one.
For another prime example: How many "variants" does the average consumer WiFi Router have, under the exact same Model Number on the box, case-graphics, owner's manual, etc? Those people seem to routinely spawn different hardware variants every few months with absolutely no visible change, other than maybe a "Rev Number" on the bottom of the unit. And oh, BTW, those "variants" often have VERY different performance characteristics. Don't believe me? Try cruising the Reviews on smallnetbuilder.com. So, give us all a break, willya?
I'm sorry, but who is pushing a new iPhone "through the throats of customers"??
You are completely free to not fucking buy one.
You obviously have no clue how society works - if you're using a previous-gen iPhone, you're not cool enough, and you should go jump of a bridge.
You first.
This isn’t a mid-model-year thing. They’re actively shipping both versions right now. Luck of the draw if you get the better or worse CPU, same price either way. That’s not the same as bought later, got a little better for no extra money.
Or, here's a thought:
Instead of buying online, GO TO THE APPLE STORE, like, in MeatSpace, and buy your phone. When they bring it out, ask to see the Product Number, and REJECT IT if it isn't the one with A TSMC SoC in it.
Simple. At least Apple has denoted the two different "models" in a way that a human can tell which is which without having to load an App.
They have a history of doing this too, because like like to have two suppliers competing.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea about "sourcing" or "logistics".
As someone who has been involved in many of my own product launches, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the one thing a "buyer" (parts-procurement-person) wants is to be handed a Bill of Materials from R&D that has "Single-Source" components on it. In fact, many (most) companies that are OEMs for hardware products insist that either the R&D department or the "Product Engineering" department (which is sort of a liason between R&D, Manufacturing and Procurement, and is usually responsible for getting new products into production) "source" components from at least two sources whenever possible.
In the embedded design world that I am experienced in, that usually doesn't include the MCU/CPU, Display, sometimes certain Connectors, and some Mechanical parts. But in the case of an OEM the size of Apple, those "rules of thumb" don't apply nearly so much.
So, in a simplified scenario (leaving out things like "qualification" testing, price considerations, etc.), when fab "T" says "Thank you very much for the consideration, but there is no way we can meet this release schedule in these quantities, but we can guarantee this amount.", a company the size of Apple doesn't just automatically say "Ok, well, you're out", and go to fab "S". No, they go over to fab "S", and say "Can you meet (additional requirement) release schedule?" And when they say "Yes", then they split the difference between the two suppliers, which not only gives them the overall production releases they need, but also makes the Buyers at the OEM happy; because now a single-source component is no longer single-source!
Nothing nefarious here. It happens in every single manufacturer of pretty much every single thing, everywhere; from Apple to Xerox, Audi to Volvo, etc, etc.