iPhone 14/Plus Disappointment for previous generation A15 in iPhone 14?

[ThomasJL]

Many of the people who see nothing wrong with Tim Cook charging premium prices for the iPhone 14 while including the previous generation A15 CPU in it are probably the same people who see nothing wrong with Cook including the 15 year old first-generation iPhone’s USB 2.0 transfer speeds in the iPhone 14.

 

[RRC]

Many of the people who see nothing wrong with Tim Cook charging premium prices for the iPhone 14 while including the previous generation A15 CPU in it are probably the same people who see nothing wrong with Cook including the 15 year old first-generation iPhone’s USB 2.0 transfer speeds in the iPhone 14.

I'd wager 90%+ of consumers never use data transfer on their iPhones so speed is irrelevant to the masses.
Set up - done by iCloud or phone to phone.
Music - most people have it on the cloud with Apple Music or Spotify.
Photos and Videos - most people only post to social media, and do so from their device so have no reason to export it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get faster transfer speeds, but as sales figures have shown, it's not an issue for most.

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

Thank you for proving my point.

As that link you posted shows, Tim Cook cares about shareholders more than users. That's precisely what makes him mediocre for users. For shareholders, however, he is, by far, the best CEO Apple ever had. Unlike Steve Jobs who cared about users more than shareholders and thus wanted to include the latest hardware for the benefit of customers even if it cost Apple more to do so, Cook is willing to cut costs by shamelessly including older hardware in the latest devices. I don't want to go off topic on this thread, so if you want, you can click the link below to read what I wrote about Cook including the same USB 2.0 transfer speeds on this year's most expensive iPhone 14 Pro as was included in the very first iPhone released in 2007:

Will iPhone 14 be USB 2.0? Probably, since Cook is mediocre.

Apple computers have had USB 3.0 since mid-2012. That is 10 years ago. Despite that, Tim Cook, being the mediocre beancounter MBA suit that he is, has still not done anything to upgrade the connectivity on the latest iPhones. The latest iPhones use the same USB 2.0 connectivity that shipped with...

forums.macrumors.com

Is the goal of an MBA to maximize user experience or shareholder experience?

 

[Rokstarsmama]

It is rather odd, but by not complaining about it, they're supporting it?

 

[Splitrail]

? 😐

 

[davedvdy]

I'm not saying we shouldn't get faster transfer speeds, but as sales figures have shown, it's not an issue for most.

It would be a good move for those shooting in ProRaw or ProRes and exporting for edit.
Supposedly coming next year. Not sure how many use this, but I still hear about how slow large 4k files are to transfer.


The USB 2.0 speeds aren't limited to the 14 standard series only though, so the OP cannot use that as a talking point of contention -- well...not this round lol.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

I'd wager 90%+ of consumers never use data transfer on their iPhones so speed is irrelevant to the masses.
Set up - done by iCloud or phone to phone.
Music - most people have it on the cloud with Apple Music or Spotify.
Photos and Videos - most people only post to social media, and do so from their device so have no reason to export it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get faster transfer speeds, but as sales figures have shown, it's not an issue for most.

You are right.

But just as you adapt and settle for whatever infrastructure surrounds your home, consumers adapt their tech habits and needs to whatever products offer them or not.

Not being able to plug in any USB-A or USB-C cable and expect high speed data transfer certainly will push you away from going that route.

Apple has never sold an iPhone with better wired data transfer speeds than USB 2.0.

The whole discussion of what consumers want or not when considering most Apple products doesn’t make much sense because having bought into the Apple ecosystem weighs just as much as actual specs.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Why aren’t more people voicing disappointment for Tim Cook blatantly trying to rip off customers by putting the previous year’s iPhone 13 CPU into this year’s flagship iPhone 14?

I’m too busy being mad that after they did it once, the iPad mini hasn’t maintained parity with the iPad Pro and has been kicked around into the budget category instead, because apparently no one at Apple actually uses one & understands the unique attributes of the form factor. Phones are of no use as long as they still can’t use an Apple Pencil.

 

[Berti10]

The iPhone 14 should have a A14, because the Naming is so convenient. Maybe it will fit with the iPhone 16, having an A16, running iOS 1…. Nevermind

 

[Anaxarxes]

Why aren’t more people voicing disappointment for Tim Cook blatantly trying to rip off customers by putting the previous year’s iPhone 13 CPU into this year’s flagship iPhone 14?

Apple has never done that before. In fact, all three iPhone SE generations received the latest generation CPU that was in the current flagship iPhone.

Cook puts older hardware into the latest iPhones in order to save production costs to maximize profits. It would be bad enough if he did that to pass the cost savings on to customers by lowering prices, but he doesn’t even lower prices.

Cook is a greedy suit with an MBA (a degree that is typically a sign of mediocrity). Why do so many people support his unprecedented decision to put last year’s CPU (A15) into this year’s flagship iPhone?

1. iPhone 14 is not a flagship device.
2. Majority of consumers do not care if their CPU is latest generation or not - let's admit that most activities done on non pro iPhones (and the pro ones are not far from it if you're not a filmmaker) are using maybe 10% of the phone's capabilities
3. A15 is still the best performing chip compared to the entire mobile CPU market.
4. Expect SE and non Pro Lineup from no on use this feat - it's greedy of course, but there is zero incentive that provides to do it like in the past. I would say it's a greedy (But fair and smart) move thinking about usage of these devices.

 

[ThomasJL]

Majority of consumers do not care if their CPU is latest generation or not - let's admit that most activities done on non pro iPhones (and the pro ones are not far from it if you're not a filmmaker) are using maybe 10% of the phone's capabilities

By not providing the latest generation CPU, the phone will become obsolete faster than if it had the latest CPU. That’s yet another win for Tim Crook: using an older processor means more profits, and having iPhones go obsolete faster also means more profits (since people will need to replace them sooner).

 

[StumpyBloke]

By not providing the latest generation CPU, the phone will become obsolete faster than if it had the latest CPU. That’s yet another win for Tim Crook: using an older processor means more profits, and having iPhones go obsolete faster also means more profits (since people will need to replace them sooner).

Genuine question, how are you getting on with your Android phone and which one do you have? There is no way you have any Apple devices with this amount of vitriol towards them I'm assuming?

 

[Andeddu]

By not providing the latest generation CPU, the phone will become obsolete faster than if it had the latest CPU. That’s yet another win for Tim Crook: using an older processor means more profits, and having iPhones go obsolete faster also means more profits (since people will need to replace them sooner).

All iPhones can be used for around 8 years after release. This is longer than the phone is likely to last in someone’s possession so some people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

By not providing the latest generation CPU, the phone will become obsolete faster than if it had the latest CPU. That’s yet another win for Tim Crook: using an older processor means more profits, and having iPhones go obsolete faster also means more profits (since people will need to replace them sooner).

That might be bad news for iPhone users that keep their phones for 6-7 years but not for people who upgrade every 2-5 years. The A15 is currently one of the best chips in the mobile industry even if the A16 is better on paper. The differences are difficult to notice and I doubt people will be complaining anytime soon.

 

[russell_314]

Many of the people who see nothing wrong with Tim Cook charging premium prices for the iPhone 14 while including the previous generation A15 CPU in it are probably the same people who see nothing wrong with Cook including the 15 year old first-generation iPhone’s USB 2.0 transfer speeds in the iPhone 14.

Nope sure don't. I'd say going by sales many others don't as well. I thought you were trying to be funny and make a joke with your post but I guess you're really serious with this one

 

[Tripps9000]

I have the iPhone 14 myself and the a15 has been a beast super fast and powerful to me I don’t care what chip it has as long as it does what I need it to do.

 

[Anaxarxes]

By not providing the latest generation CPU, the phone will become obsolete faster than if it had the latest CPU. That’s yet another win for Tim Crook: using an older processor means more profits, and having iPhones go obsolete faster also means more profits (since people will need to replace them sooner).

most people replace their phones in 4-5 years, some do 3 and some. THe only trigger you have that it's last year's chip, which does not matter if the same chip is still the best one out there.

 

[bc 08]

Why aren’t more people voicing disappointment for Tim Cook blatantly trying to rip off customers by putting the previous year’s iPhone 13 CPU into this year’s flagship iPhone 14?

Apple has never done that before. In fact, all three iPhone SE generations received the latest generation CPU that was in the current flagship iPhone.

Cook puts older hardware into the latest iPhones in order to save production costs to maximize profits. It would be bad enough if he did that to pass the cost savings on to customers by lowering prices, but he doesn’t even lower prices.

Cook is a greedy suit with an MBA (a degree that is typically a sign of mediocrity). Why do so many people support his unprecedented decision to put last year’s CPU (A15) into this year’s flagship iPhone?

The Pros should have always been the first to get the latest SoC, IMO.
“Pro” should have always meant more than camera and bezels so it never made sense to me why the base phones got the absolute latest chips.

Most Android phone don’t put the latest, most powerful chips in their mid-range phones either.

Also, it’s not like the A15 isn’t already the 2nd most powerful chip on the market.

 

[jazzer15]

I have the iPhone 14 myself and the a15 has been a beast super fast and powerful to me I don’t care what chip it has as long as it does what I need it to do.

Off topic, but curious why you went for the 14 rather than the Pro. Was it simply the price difference/budget or was there more to the decision? Thanks.

 

[MyPhone99]

14/14 + are very good phones but i feel they overpriced them. Had they sold both of them for a 100$ less they would have been the best choices for many people

 

[Andeddu]

Last year’s flagships were the 13 Mini, 13, 13 Pro and Pro Max. This year’s flagships are the Pro and Pro Max. Apple are now making a distinction between their lineup and creating an upper mid-range phone market.

 

[glaze2]

Why aren’t more people voicing disappointment for Tim Cook blatantly trying to rip off customers by putting the previous year’s iPhone 13 CPU into this year’s flagship iPhone 14?

Apple has never done that before. In fact, all three iPhone SE generations received the latest generation CPU that was in the current flagship iPhone.

Cook puts older hardware into the latest iPhones in order to save production costs to maximize profits. It would be bad enough if he did that to pass the cost savings on to customers by lowering prices, but he doesn’t even lower prices.

Cook is a greedy suit with an MBA (a degree that is typically a sign of mediocrity). Why do so many people support his unprecedented decision to put last year’s CPU (A15) into this year’s flagship iPhone?

Rules for the youth of today:

1. If you don’t need a new phone, then don’t buy a new phone.
2. Only but tech that you need, not tech that you want.
3. Consider the refurbished market.

 

[Devyn89]

Last year’s flagships were the 13 Mini, 13, 13 Pro and Pro Max. This year’s flagships are the Pro and Pro Max. Apple are now making a distinction between their lineup and creating an upper mid-range phone market.

They’ve been doing this since 2017, iPhone X as the flagships and 8 and 8 Plus as premium midrange. Did the same in 2018 with XS, XS Max and Xr, then made it less confusing that’s what they were doing with the Pro series and the rest is where we are today. I think it’s been pretty clear the high end, $1,000+ phones, are the flagships.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

They’ve been doing this since 2017, iPhone X as the flagships and 8 and 8 Plus as premium midrange. Did the same in 2018 with XS, XS Max and Xr, then made it less confusing that’s what they were doing with the Pro series and the rest is where we are today. I think it’s been pretty clear the high end, $1,000+ phones, are the flagships.

They’ve now raised the price of the premium midrange now though where some models exceed £1k like the 14 Plus. To many consumers it’s a flagship device with a very premium price tag.

 

[ThomasJL]

Genuine question, how are you getting on with your Android phone and which one do you have? There is no way you have any Apple devices with this amount of vitriol towards them I'm assuming?

I’ve never had an Android phone. My very first iPhone was a first-generation iPhone, then an iPhone 4, 4S, 5S, 6, SE (2016), and now an SE (2020).

As much as I dislike what Tim Cook has done to iPhone hardware and software, I still think iPhones are better than Android phones in terms of software. For me, software is more important than hardware.

I criticize Apple a lot because I’m very disappointed that Tim Cook not only gives customers less in terms of hardware and software improvements (in comparison to what was previously offered under Steve Jobs), but he also charges much more for it—much beyond the natural rise of prices that are proportional to rises in inflation.