Intel is a monster, or at least it has been. For nearly three decades Intel has owned the desktop-class and server semiconductor markets. Ever since the DOS PC emerged Intel gained rapid traction into desktop computing. While others, such as AMD, constantly struggled to meet demand, Intel understood capacity and high yields were key to market dominance and never left PC manufacturers wanting. No one had a better silicon fabrication process in the industry. Intel's marketing was equally brilliant. Before the tag line "Intel Inside" no one really knew or cared much about microchips used within a computer. After all, the only interaction a user had was with a keyboard, mouse and display. Suddenly, everyone was asking for a computer with Intel inside.
Intel was so confident of their own ability to shape the future based on their self-serving direction, they no longer needed to own a large portion of ARM, so they sold it off as it was useless for the long term. Intel also decided there was no need to quickly move to 64-bit processors. Intel failed to understand they had built, and were living in, their own arrogant reality distortion field. But AMD knew it, and 2003 stunned the industry by offering their 64-bit backwards compatible 32-bit, Athlon processor. It saved AMD as a company and Intel suffered it's first major stumble. Mobile computing arrived soon after, with Apple commissioning Intel to design a processor for their secret handheld needs. Intel balked, finding it a financially useless pursuit. Thus, Apple launched iPhone with an ARM processor. Due to Intel's blunder, the mobile world runs almost entirely on ARM designs, with Intel nowhere to be found other than under piles of failed ATOM processors. Today Intel finds their bread and butter personal computer market about to be shaken like never before by Microsoft, and quite likely, Apple.
If one visit to Apple Park and Steve Jobs theater wasn't enough fun for journalists this year, they may be getting a second opportunity to visit in November. For those who were not invited the first time (Leo Laporte), this may be their opportunity to gain their first-ever access.
Apple's first Steve Jobs Theater event left some wanting more. The Apple Visitor Center wasn't quite ready for, well, visitors, and the ground are still not completed. On the product side, Apple still has more to reveal before the year is over.
With Google putting so much marketing effort into their latest Pixel 2 phones, coupled with dozens of positive reviews, I assumed this may finally be moment where Samsung would be unseated as Android's King. Google, via their latest smartphone hardware and owning Android software design, would be the new Android task master taking on Apple's dominate iPhone lineup. Would this mark the moment iPhone is dethroned? The moment so many in the paid-off tech media have been waiting for?
No. Not even close. In fact, Google's newest Pixel 2 phones may be the laziest products Google has developed in quite some time... I question even using the word "developed."
There are several nice things you can say about the MacBook Pro. For someone like myself who has been using a MacBook Air, circa mid-2013, the beautiful retina display is the first thing that grabbed my attention. I never realized how much strain my old eyes had been under until I got my 2017 MacBook Pro. Wow, and to think they still sell MacBook Airs as “new” computers. It is almost a crime. Should someone go to jail?
Reviews are now out for the Apple TV 4K, yet most tech journalists are providing a moderate to slanted review against the new device. What really stands out is how journalists are hypocritically treating the new Apple TV 4K.
Since Roku and others have provided 4K capabilities as early as 2015, Apple has been bashed, lashed and flogged for not providing 4K capabilities in the 4th generation Apple TV. Never mind that there was virtually no 4K content available in 2015. Never mind that 4K TV sales only comprised 10.1% of then entire TV sales mix in 2014. Never mind that the total combination of those that had:
This past Friday Apple released the new iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus, representing a solid upgrade to the iPhone 7 lineup. Then there is November 3rd, when Apple will release their leapfrog smartphone, iPhone X.
I recently wrote about many iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 consumers leaning towards a larger display with their next upgrade. For many it will come down to purchasing an iPhone 8 Plus or iPhone X. But what really are the differences between the two models? Not as much as you might think.
There's no question, I'm waiting for the arrival of iPhone X, and apparently tens of millions of people across the globe are as well. iPhone 8 pre-sales are brisk but not earth shattering, and that is likely to mean only one thing: iPhone X is going to be a big, big, deal.
I've upgraded every two years since my first-ever iPhone, the iPhone 3G. I'm currently sporting an iPhone 7, which means I should be another year away for my next upgrade. However, iPhone X may have changed my two-year cycle, along with millions of others. I have never considered the larger iPhone Plus models until this past year. With ever-expanding unlimited data plans and my increased use of streaming video, I've found myself wanting a slightly larger display to watch tennis, football or basketball while working out on the gym bike or waiting for my next flight. So why not the iPhone 8 Plus?
If you are on the fence as to whether you should consider moving from an Android smartphone to a new iPhone, but still feel comfortable in giving away virtually every ounce of your 4th amendment right to privacy, prefer a slow and out-of-date processor (coupled with inferior camera technology), are comfy cozy wth an ecosystem that has you searching for fragmented cloud solutions between computer, phone, tablet and watch, and love selling your phone for virtually nothing every 2 or 3 years, then another Android phone may be the right fit for your future.
But before you tell me that the latest iPhones really look appealing, please keep in mind that an Android smartphone provides just about everything you shouldn't be looking for in a smartphone, and you may even get an unexpected bonus or two, such as a phone that explodes in your four-year-old's hands or a nice bit of malware that steals your banking information. These are all clever and surprising things an Android phone can deliver – at any time. Thus, if this is what you have come to expect and live with, then an iPhone may be a complete shock to your digital way of life.
It is all rage is to be talking about iPhone X and its state-of-the-art features, along with its highest price point for any iPhone ever. Buried amidst the hype, almost unseen, Apple has quite cleverly and silently, raised the pricing of their typical annual upgrade cycle.
Apple's flagship iPhones, such as the previous iPhone 6S, started at $649. A year later with the arrival of the iPhone 7, its price also stayed at $649, while the iPhone 6S starting price dropped by $100 to $549. The same Apple pricing methodology has applied for years – until Tuesday.
Rumor and random speculation is running rampant regarding Apple's 10th anniversary iPhone, often referred to as iPhone 8. Perhaps the most shocking feature claimed of them all is that the smartphone will sell upwards of $1,400, with a starting price around $1,000. New technologies, such as a larger OLED display, glass integrated Touch ID, 3D sensors, a larger battery and waterproofing are among the reasons for iPhone 8 prices shooting the moon – at least these are the claims.
While many new technologies initially raise Apple's iPhone build cost, this happens with every new iPhone having all-new features. This raises an obvious question: Has Apple ever raised iPhone prices to this extent in the past when introducing a slew of new features? Answer: No.