Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 509 posts

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#291

Post by axlee »

gary_0 wrote: post #256
t8sr wrote: post #162

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…

Once upon a time, there were around a dozen fabs competing to make high-end semiconductors. Now it's just TSMC (who sell cutting-edge capacity exclusively to Apple) with Samsung's fabs playing catch-up. And Intel... are you okay back there, Intel? There's isn't much hope on the horizon for more competition when it costs hundreds of billions to build a new next-gen fab, there's a significant chance of process shrinks…

That's when governments should step in and invest in alternatives. The TSMC quasi-monopoly is any country national security risk, and that it is irresponsible for most western nations to let the industry be run by a single foreign player. If I'm not wrong, TSMC captures by itself 60% of the world's semiconductor market?

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#292

Post by bogwog »

luxuryballs wrote: post #236
t8sr wrote: post #162

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…

I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine? I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads, or likewise worrying about some company dominating augmented reality chips. I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology…

> I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads

The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads, they're just the most profitable because their monopoly makes it impossible for better competitors to beat them. That means the world is stuck with Google's mediocre/shitty service even though consumers/the market doesn't want it. Innovation stops happening, quality of life drops, the economy suffers, etc.

Apple's big lead in chips right now seems like a great thing, but if the government weren't so shit at regulating competition, we could've had breakthroughs like this a decade ago. Instead innovation is (predictably) moving at a glacial pace.

The free market only works when there is competition, so since our economy is based on the free market, it makes sense to write laws that protect it. Monopolies directly contradict with the basic operation of the free market, which is why they're bad.

It doesn't matter if it's a life or death situation. Things don't have to be dangerous to your health to be illegal.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#293

Post by 6nf »

miloignis wrote: post #128
favaq wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You would want a USB-C connector so you can drive every device you own with one cable I have a shitton of hardware and cables that I'm not going to throw away just for some connector that will be phased out in ten years. >You would want Gecko if you like arbitrary extensions On my desktop, sure. On my phone? Why bother? >And you'd want to run arbitrary code on a machine you own because phones are computers Disagree.

> I have a shitton of hardware and cables that I'm not going to throw away just for some connector that will be phased out in ten years. Most people already have USB-C cables. Apple people often have them b/c of a MacBook or w/e. > On my desktop, sure. On my phone? Why bother? Dark Mode, Ad Blocking, etc. > Disagree Freedom is important, even if you don't need it now. Someone else, maybe you in the future, may need i…

Apple is moving to wireless instead of cables so who cares when it's only used for charging? I can use my iPhone as a webcam, my iPods Max for audio, and two Macbooks can be placed next to each other to share one keyboard and move browser sessions between them. All wireless. I can even use the phone for internet connectivity while using the phone as a webcam for the macbooks. Zero cables!

I mean sure it would be slightly nicer to have my iPhone and iPods use the same USB-C charging port but I wouldn't choose Android and give up all of convenience of 'just works' wireless interop with all my devices.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#294

Post by robert_dipaolo »

byee wrote: post #211
itake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use an iPhone X (released 2017) and I wish it kept up with modern app performance requirements. The iPhone X doesn't support built-in OCR in images and apps take 1-2s longer to launch than my iPhone 13. Faster performance today means longer lasting tomorrow.

I still use an iPhone X (with new battery from last year). The Pixel 2 was released around the same time and is e-waste. Almost all apps run well with the exception of Google's, which have consistently gotten worse. The camera still starts up quickly, and the fact that most apps are still performant compared to an iPhone 13 is impressive. Google Docs is unusable - even small documents can't be opened, and the app han…

The Pixel 2 had a launch price of $649 vs the iPhoneX at $999, so ~35% more. That's not really a fair comparison, I imagine if you compare to a similarly priced android phone released at the same time, it'd be a closer result.

Where apple does do well is supporting devices for much longer with software and security updates. So running older android phones is prob not a good ideas from a security perspective.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#295

Post by pb7 »

goosedragons wrote: post #198
sidlls wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people with the means to afford it, iOS devices are superior in most ways: from performance to utility to lifetime. They lack features a rounding-error fraction of users care about, like side-loading for example.

Performance? Maybe. Lifetime? Maybe. Utility? No. The extra restrictions Apple packs on cuts utility. No emulators, no NFC pairing, no auto-sorting your app pages alphabetically, worse notifications, no grabbing that file off a USB C drive, etc. Certainly never got some of the weird but useful things Android phones have had like being a universal remote. Android phones can do everything iPhones can plus more. You can…

>Android phones can do everything iPhones can plus more. You can debate whether or not it's more rough around the edges but they just simply do more.

More but worse. I don't want it to be a really bad space heater or a really bad flood light, I want it doing a few things really well.

>No emulators, no NFC pairing, no auto-sorting your app pages alphabetically, worse notifications, no grabbing that file off a USB C drive, etc.

The number of people that care about this stuff is a rounding error. I can't even remember the last time I saw a USB drive let alone needed to get something off of it on my phone.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#296

Post by Spooky23 »

pkulak wrote: post #218
t8sr wrote: post #162

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…

Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.

They have unlimited cash and buy capacity in advance.

Also, in the old days when they weren’t the juggernaut they are today, they always were good and minimizing SKUs and economy of scale. In 2005, the #1 part on state contracts were iMacs, even though Apple market share was like 3%.

That level of control and planning means they know what they need and can adjust. Overages in Apple Watch CPUs are subsidizing the HomePod, etc. In the case of the iPhone, they put an overpowered chip in there because why not.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#297

Post by itake »

byee wrote: post #211
itake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use an iPhone X (released 2017) and I wish it kept up with modern app performance requirements. The iPhone X doesn't support built-in OCR in images and apps take 1-2s longer to launch than my iPhone 13. Faster performance today means longer lasting tomorrow.

I still use an iPhone X (with new battery from last year). The Pixel 2 was released around the same time and is e-waste. Almost all apps run well with the exception of Google's, which have consistently gotten worse. The camera still starts up quickly, and the fact that most apps are still performant compared to an iPhone 13 is impressive. Google Docs is unusable - even small documents can't be opened, and the app han…

My iPhone 13p can't run Google Docs without crashing on 50 page low-density docs. It is so frustrating.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#298

Post by CharlesW »

qball wrote: post #269
CharlesW wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Is it? Qualcomm is currently focused on performance in a way that they wouldn't be if Apple hadn't lit a fire under their ass. https://hothardware.com/news/snapdragon-8-gen-3-decimates-ap...

>Qualcomm is currently focused on performance in a way that they wouldn't be if Apple hadn't lit a fire under their ass. No, Qualcomm has been consistently behind for years . The reason their chips are doing significantly better now is because it takes a little while for the talent they bought- the people responsible for Apple's current massive lead in the first place- to bear fruit (longer than usual since they were…

Your response with "no", but I'm not seeing a persuasive argument against "competition is good and benefits Android users, too".

I also think it'll be good for everyone when Apple starts competing with Qualcomm on 5G modems.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#299

Post by nomel »

yamtaddle wrote: post #130
cma wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drastically still looks way lower than Samsung flagships (12GB).

iOS has historically done a lot better with less RAM (as far as how snappy and responsive it feels) than Android. Dunno if that's still the case, but it very much was for years and years.

Related, I'm using an M1 MacBook with only 8Gb, and I don't understand how it's doing what it's doing.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#300

Post by yamtaddle »

etempleton wrote: post #283
yamtaddle wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS has historically done a lot better with less RAM (as far as how snappy and responsive it feels) than Android. Dunno if that's still the case, but it very much was for years and years.

MacOS manages better than Windows as well. Apple seems to have really good memory management. I don’t know enough to know what they are doing, but in day to day tasks it always feels like a Mac/ iPhone needs half as much memory to feel responsive. Memory intensive work, such as video editing still require what they require though.

Apple's dev culture just seems to have more give-a-shit about performance (and, relatedly, battery life) than anyone else's. See also: Safari, their office suite programs, Preview which is the first program I've seen that handles PDFs very well and doesn't also feel super-heavy (on the contrary, it's very light), Terminal which is more-or-less competitive input-latency-wise with the best available anywhere else and is way better than average, and so on.
Post reply on HN