[shaklee3]

I don't hate them, but I find their hardware is typically not as good as the competition, and for a higher price. I also think most people that buy Apple devices don't know this, or just refuse to believe it.

For example, I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I tried a Moto g and it's horrible! My old iPhone was better", or "this $300 Dell laptop is way worse than my MacBook". Of course a $1000 phone is better than a $200 phone, and likewise for the laptops.

But when you start looking at high-end laptops like the surface series, or phones like oppo/Huawei, it's usually in favor of the non-apple.

[jakear]

People don’t buy specs, they buy experiences. If the Android has 12GB ram and some super fast processor, but runs in a GC’d runtime that stutters when collecting and unloads background apps with high frequency, it’s not actually better than whatever’s in the iPhone.

Plenty of videos out there comparing opening a bunch of apps in a cycle on iPhone vs Android. Android wins the first open, iPhone destroys on the second. (iPhone is able to keep all apps in suspense, whereas android unloads them)

[kube-system]

Don't make the mistake of assuming 'experience' is synonymous with 'performance' either.

Side-by-side comparisons aren't really of any real-world significance. Very few people do that when forming their opinions. For the average person, performance either detracts from the experience, or it doesn't.

There are many other factors that are more important to experience than performance. Does the interface conflict with their expectations? Does the user find the features to be self-explanatory? Does the device enable the user to conform to social expectation?

> People don’t buy specs, they buy experiences.

More specifically, people don't buy actual experiences, they buy expectations of experience. 99%+ of people who buy a phone haven't had more than a couple of moments of experience with it. They buy it because they expect it to be good based on their first impressions and/or preconceived notions.

[shaklee3]

I think you will need to be more specific. I have never seen a difference in high-end phones with Apple versus Samsung or any of the other Android phones with the latest Snapdragon.

[jakear]

Is one plus 7 pro on latest snaP dragon? https://youtu.be/Ic8q1kPseVE

[shaklee3]

One plus isn't the same as Oppo. One plus is the cheaper brand from the same manufacturer.

[jakear]

It is an "Android phones with the latest Snapdragon", is it not? And it was outperformed by iPhone 11. These goalpoasts are sliding...

[shaklee3]

I suggest you: A) Take a look at the price difference between the phones you just said, and re-read my original point. B) Don't cherry-pick a phone. Try this one from your same reviewer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ot6ufCy3jg

[lern_too_spel]

> iPhone is able to keep all apps in suspense, whereas android unloads them

Android also saves activity state for fast resume and keeps activities running until there is memory pressure. I've heard people complain about iOS devices in this regard because they do the same thing but don't have enough memory to do it effectively.

[_ph_]

There is a lot of great hardware out there, no doubt. But the question isn't that simple. Another big component is the software. For the desktop, I find MacOS difficult to beat. I like and use Linux a lot, but there are commercial applications, I can't run on Linux. And I want to avoid Windows if possible.

And once you stepped in the Apple universe, you will find a large number of devices working together. The Mac, the phone, the tablet.

So there are many reasons to choose an Apple product, beyond its specs per dollar. Also, while I think that Apple prices are high, and upgrade prices even outrageously high, if I spec a high quality competitor coparatively, I often am not that far away from the Apple prices.

[shaklee3]

I don't agree with that. With the advent of WSL on Windows you can happily run Linux whenever you want and have all the normal ubuntu pieces available to you without starting a VM. You also get the windows application catalog, which is essentially every piece of major software ever written. With WSL now in the picture, I don't see how a BSD-based OS could beat it given that many applications that an apt install can give you aren't available as easily or at all there.

[_ph_]

As I wrote, I don't like Windows much and are happier not having to use it. I still don't like the overly flat UI style and well, it is still Windows with all its oddities over the ages. I also get the impression, that Windows handles HiDPI way worse than MacOS, which is an important criterium.

WSL certainly has the potential to be a game changer and this has made Windows potentially interesting to me. What would really be a huge step, if Microsoft would built a Wayland server into the Windows UI. Having Linux GUI apps running on the native Windows UI with all acceleration, could make it a premier desktop for running Linux applications.

[voqv]

Well the BSD-based OS OP's talking about doesn't run loads of questionable telemetry (just judging by CPU usage) and does not turn on at night to install an update that will reset whatever telemetry settings the user hacked to disable.

[Hnrobert42]

Well, with Oppo and Huawei in particular, its pretty easy to beat the competition with state sponsored industrial espionage subsidizing their R&D costs.

[shaklee3]

Samsung, too.