[Closed] Technology devolution...

It's a huge race to have the best specification to sell the most devices. The last thing any company would do is launch anything less than the very best they think they can sell at any particular time.

Of course, they will already know they have something better tom come in development but that's a lot different from actually being able to mass produce n+1...

Rachel

There is more than enough technological advancement every year to justify a new iPhone model. Can you imaging how out of date the iPhone would be if it were only upgraded every 2 years?

There is always a cut-off point when deciding what to release in the next model. Some stuff will still be in prototype stage, will be awaiting an emerging technology or will simply be too expensive at that point in time. Then you need to get all the components working together and matching that up with software and any 3rd-party elements. Apple will already be working on phones we won't see for another 3-4 years.

Sure they could reduce the churn rate and only have a release every two years or so, but then they'd be even further behind Android.

But the processor they stick in the S version is always in the previous years ipad. And processors speed and less or more ram is the only iphone change with an S.
Just got me wondering.

I'm still saying the release yearly. But what I'm wondering if the iphone 6S is designed and manufacturable already. And they release a slightly worse 6 version that's better than a 5s simply cos they can.

I think there are plenty of examples where what you are suggesting would be true... but not phones.

If we take the advance from 7 speed to 8 spd to 9 speed to 10 speed to 11 speed with bikes. Theres been no technical or engineering epiphany between any of the those steps. Why not go straight to arrangement of cogs that is measurably the optimum? And why not have made that step 15 - 20 years ago.?

Used to work for huge company (not apple) designing hw for smart phones. As said above... We were working on stuff 2/3 years ahead of release. It's all about TRL (Technology Readieness Level)... If it's deemed mature enough for release it will get released. Problem is, technology is often not mature enough and is released at beta stage for the consumer - hence all the patches and seemingly endless upgrades. I always buy 6month to 1 year old hw and sw. You save money and let the other "keep up with the jonses" mugs work out all the problems.

Part and part I'd say, good marketing increases the sales by making just a few tweaks on the S models. Anyway if they didn't what would Android phones rip off whilst waiting 2 years for a new one?

What about the car industry? Are we really that far away from a practical car that doesn't run on fossil fuels? Or are the oil companies deliberately sand-bagging (in cahoots with car producers, of course) until they can turn the same profits as they do now?

This has been mikey74, reporting from the edge of sanity, for Tin Foil TV.

What about the car industry? Are we really that far away from a practical car that doesn't run on fossil fuels?

Yes but getting closer. The new generation hybrids are very interesting, full electric is getting better but still not great.

I liken it to the music industry,

Release a single
Wait a bit for it to get up the charts and get radio air time
Release another single from the same band
Wait a bit for air play.....
Etc etc

Release album, watch it chart.

I'm sure the marketing of a phone is not much different with the various " improvements" being like the singles to the music industry, each one being another hook in a potential phone buyer.

Maybe I'm just too cynical. iPhone 4s user but only until about two years after they were released....

Yes but getting closer. The new generation hybrids are very interesting, full electric is getting better but still not great.

But why is that? Do we really not have the technology? I kinda find that a little hard to believe. If we don't have the technology, why not? Is it because the industry is trying to maintain the reliance on fossil fuels as long as possible?

I'd say there's a little of that going on, it's not like the big players Samsung and Apple are fighting on a level playing field - they do their own thing really.

But why is that? Do we really not have the technology? I kinda find that a little hard to believe. If we don't have the technology, why not? Is it because the industry is trying to maintain the reliance on fossil fuels as long as possible?

[img] [/img]

Having the technology and making it useful are two very different things

I realise that, I just get the impression that "the industry" isn't too keen on developing it that much, which relates back to the OP.

They seem to be drip-feeding the technology just enough to keep the environmentalists happy, but not enough to end the dominance of fossil fuel burning cars.

I can't believe Intel aren't guilty of this.

Half the time their new releases are exactly the same as the previous years release, except they've bumped up the core clock a little.

AMD and Nvidia are guilty of the same thing, that or they get more power by just making a larger hotter card. Genuinely new architecture comes along only around every 3-4 years these days.

If a company has a monopoly on a product, then they can easily hold back the latest and greatest.

This is pretty rare, as usually there is a competing product, which should (in theory) push things forward.

As for cars of the electric variety, batteries haven't really got much better over the past few years, right now that is the main thing holding them back.

I can't believe Intel aren't guilty of this.

Half the time their new releases are exactly the same as the previous years release, except they've bumped up the core clock a little.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock ]See here[/url]. They are actually pretty honest about their release schedule and publish roadmaps regularly. This approach has been very good for their business, and I don't think there is anything dishonest about it, it's just that you can't just move from a 50nm to a 5nm process overnight.

Chambord, they've got the tick-tock release pattern down to such a fine art, that I reckon if they could make a 5nm chip now.

It's a uneducated hunch though, as it's not my area.

It's not really devolution. More just staged releases. But really that's down to market forces to sort, its getting there with the likes of the moto g and the likes now for phones.

At some point you just need to realise, I don't need all this shit they are trying to sell me. I got there years ago with computers. Realised that old computers or cheapness is perfectly fine for the likes of home use. Its getting that way with phones now IMO. The upgrade path unless you have a specific use is no longer relevant, you don't need a 500 quid phone anymore. A hundred quid android phone or someone's cast off will do fine!

Then again could just be me, I've always refused to be capitalisms technological guinea pig. Ones things for certain with technology is that the latest and greatest will be reasonably cheap in a few years. Like I say you just need to ask yourself if you need what they are trying to sell you, immediately.

Take a look at bike parts, you have 2 options
Launch your premium product then trickle down the improvements through the range (XX1>X01>X91- or whatever it is)
or launch the products at once and remove features through the range