Apple's introduction of larger screen iPhones came as no surprise to industry observers, despite the fact that the company had loudly proclaimed the importance of one-handed phone use. But what motivated Apple to finally offer larger screen iPhones? Forbes analyzes the numbers that got Apple to change its tune about big screen phones.
According to Forbes:
By April 2013, company executives understood they had a strategic vulnerability. Worse still, premium-priced phones with 4-inch screens actually was a shrinking segment, down 22 million.
In choosing two models to fill the void, Apple is playing a clever game. It can satisfy customers who feel the need to have among the largest screens while also creating an “anchor” that makes the basic iPhone 6 seem less big.
But the main focus of offering larger models wasn’t to attract people already happy with iPhones*, rather it was to offer up something Android users could consider as an option.More at Forbes
I enjoyed reading the analysis by Forbes of Apple's motivation to release the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. But it also seemed somewhat amazing to me that the company didn't realize its mistake sooner. Android users have long known how much better larger screen phones can be, you'd think that Apple would have released a bigger screen iPhone two or three years ago.
I actually held an iPhone 6 in my hand while at Staples on an errand today. It was the first time I'd seen one in the wild, and it didn't seem all that big to me. They did not have the Plus model available, but the regular iPhone 6 seemed close enough to the iPhone 5S that most users wouldn't mind upgrading to the new one.
However, I didn't see anything in the iPhone 6 that made me think that it (or the Plus for that matter) would herald the dawn of an Android switcher era. No doubt they are both fine phones, but I was left somewhat unimpressed by the iPhone 6 compared to the various Android models that were also available at Staples.
I give Apple credit for finally waking up about bigger screen phones, but it really should not have taken them this long to figure it out. Oh well, better late than never I guess.
Android and 64-bit
TechRepublic delves into the issue of 64-bit Android, and thinks it might be a good idea to wait for high-end hardware.
According to TechRepublic:
But as the smartphone stands (on both camps), do 64-bit chips really matter (when they aren't sold with 64-bit-worthy amounts of memory)? There are other considerations:
Will battery life see significant improvement?
Do we, as of yet, have applications ready to take advantage of 64-bit chips?
Will 32-bit apps perform well on the 64-bit chips?
It's those last two questions that really have me concerned. First and foremost, when the Android 64-bit becomes available, will there be apps ready to take advantage of this?
So, the best bet for users who really want to gain the most out of 64-bit architecture on Android is to wait for the first high-end devices to roll out. At that level, the performance should best just about anything available.More at TechRepublic
Meanwhile, DigiTimes is reporting that Android manufacturers are moving as fast as they can to offer 64-bit devices:
According to DigiTimes:
With Google planning to release its Android L OS soon, which supports 64-bit processors, Android-based smartphone vendors will speed up their migration to the 64-bit architecture, making 64-bit CPUs mainstream technology for smartphones in the second half of 2015, according to industry sources.
Qualcomm has led rival suppliers to release its 64-bit-enabled Snapdragon 610/614/410 chips, which have won design-ins from China-based Lenovo, K-Touch, Huawei and Vivo as well as Taiwan-based HTC, said the sources.More at DigiTimes
See also:TechRadar: Android L reportedly accelerating race to 64-bit smartphones