Cheapest iPhone has a more powerful processor than the most expensive Android

I just picked up the new iphone se for her and explained twice “there is no headphone jack”.

She replied: “Cool, so I can keep my headphones plugged in to the laptop and use the other headphones for the phone. In worse case, I have bt headphones”.

With the SD card... I mean, it seems not possible to configure any app to store data on it. She has signal, whatsapp, broswer, spotify and a few photos and the phone is constantly complaining that it is low on storage.

Androind is working well for my mother though. She is 70+. She doesn’t use any apps, simple text messages, phone calls and that’s it. She just has to buy a new battery like every 6 months...

I'm generally a fan of Apple hardware, but the 3a was the best phone I've owned in a long time. It doesn't have anti-features like slippery glass back or notch and has a headphone jack. And the best thing about it is the battery life - 3-4 days with 6 hours of total screen time.

To ask the question: why would Google make better processors than Qualcomm?

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.

Why should Google be able to enter the mobile CPU game and do better?

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.

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?

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.

And I still haven't seen why Google would be able to beat Qualcomm, Samsung, HiSilicon, etc.