[personZ]

I see comments like yours fairly frequently, and it really is bizarro world. It's buying into an obviously untrue narrative that hasn't been true...well..ever.

Apple makes a really big deal about their cores and GPU, as they have every right to (they're pretty great). Quite aside from their keynotes that focus extensively on this, on the product page you learn, right near the top, about the A8 64-bit processor and M8 coprocessor, as if these facts have any relevance to an end user. They're bragging points. Apple talks about their 64-bit advantage ad nauseam.

They absolutely brag about their chip. They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials).

[dragonwriter]

> They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials)

They tend more than other manufacturers to boast brands and subjective description rather than the base specs -- "retina" rather than PPI, for instance -- but its true that they do sometimes boast specs.

They'll brag about their (completely meaningless) processor name (A8), but won't spend as much focus as others boasting measures like GHz or core count, etc. -- IOW, they don't spend a lot of focus on things that you can meaningfully compete with and compare across vendors.

Because they are selling magic and brands, not concrete features.

[personZ]

I've heard Apple talk about their 64-bit processor magnitudes more than I've heard Samsung or HTC talk about Ghz or core counts. I've heard Apple talk about GPUs more than every other vendor combined, but somehow we all need to roll with the ridiculous notion that Apple cares not a whit about specs, despite talking about them endlessly.

[rsynnott]

> but won't spend as much focus as others boasting measures like GHz or core count, etc. -- IOW, they don't spend a lot of focus on things that you can meaningfully compete with and compare across vendors.

Erm, comparing frequency and core count is unhelpful, as you can see from the benchmarks in the article. The A8 is generally faster than the current Qualcomms, but has a far lower frequency and half the core count. Apple probably don't want to fall into the same marketing nightmare AMD did, where low-frequency high IPC Athlons competed against high-frequency low-IPC P4s.

[wklauss]

> Because they are selling magic and brands, not concrete features.

And because it's completely pointless to sell concrete features for certain components. If they boast the Ghz number it will be relatively easy for competitors to produce higher figures. Ghz don't mean anything unless you take into account all kind of details (architecture, throttling...) that no one except really detail-oriented reviewers will go through and that will bore 90% of the users. Hence the bragging on the name.

[josefresco]

Agreed, and I'm old enough to remember their (cherry-picked) performance claims in the desktop/cpu world when they had to compete with Wintel machines.

What Apple doesn't do, is release products that compete solely based on these hardware specs. Their approach is "yeah it's fast enough, but it's also beautful etc."

[laichzeit0]

Believe it or not, there is a large group of consumers that purchase technology not just based on technical merit, but aesthetics (myself included). I'm more likely to buy something that looks/feels better designed and trade off functionality just for aesthetic reasons. Much like I'd rather buy a hardcover copy of a book instead of the paperback, if the quality is sufficiently higher.

Life's too short to use ugly crap.

[seunosewa]

Unfortunately, their products are not consistently beautiful anymore, IMHO. Examples: iPhone 5s silicone case with circles, antenna lines on the back of the new iPhones. :-/

[at-fates-hands]

>>> They absolutely brag about their chip. They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials).

Completely agree.

As far back as I can remember (Apple iMac G3) they've been touting their processors and architecture as being superior to other manufacturers, and one of the key reasons you should be using their hardware. So your comments are right on point, and something that's easily lost when most people only see is their advanced design chops.

[mmaldacker]

Apple doesn't even tell you how much RAM their phone have. Or what the CPU/GPU frequencies are.

[personZ]

Apple cherry picks specs that they want to talk about, just like all of her competitors.

[chrisBob]

Why "her"? Is this because you are sexist and trying to degrade Apple, because you consider Apple to be a god, or are you pushing for better women's rights by using feminine pronouns by default?

I really am curious.

[hahainternet]

Isn't that a false trichotomy?

[chrisBob]

Those were my first three guesses. Perhaps I should have just left it open ended.

[bonestamp2]

Do any other mobiles use a 64-bit processor?

[szatkus]

Few different companies announced 64-bit models this month. All of them includes A53 cores. Also Nexus 9 (two Denver cores) will be released soon, but it's a tablet.

[Bud]

No. Android doesn't even support 64-bit yet.