Multiple differences between Samsung and Apple:

1. Samsung was a semiconductor maker, that successfully moved up to make phones. Apple was a integrator of third party chips that successfully went down to own many of the chips.

2. Apple's chips are significantly better than the competition. Partly because the chip division has a captive customer whose requirements are more apparent, plus no middlemen thanks to the vertical integration

3. Samsung's components need to serve multiple segments of the phone market, and other external customers. Apple only builds for Apple's specs

4. Every new breakthrough on the iPhone has been because of a chip that Apple alone had. From the very first iPhone's capacitive touch sensors to the new IR sensor system, no one else has the access for a couple phone cycles. Apple put out a 64 bit ARM processor even before arm had finalized the instruction set

Number 4 got me curious about the latency for the competitors catching up with the various hardware advances.

Capacitive touch screen:

  iPhone: June 29, 2007
  HTC Dream/G1: October 20, 2008 (479 days later)

Fingerprint sensor:

  iPhone 5s: September 20, 2013
  Galaxy S5: April 11, 2014 (203 days later)

ARMv8 (64-bit) ISA:

  iPhone 5s: September 10, 2013
  Galaxy Note 4: October 17, 2014 (402 days later)

Tiny bezel:

  Galaxy S6 Edge: April 10, 2015
  iPhone X: November 3, 2017 (938 days later)

OLED screen:

  Samsung Galaxy: June 29, 2009
  iPhone X: November 3, 2017 (3049 days later)

4. Is absolutely wrong in every aspect. Most "innovation" was bought tech (primesense, for instance). The ARMv8 ISA was finalized ages before the chips got designed. Middle of 2011 IIRC.

Having the foresight and capabilities to make the right acquisitions at the right times is just good business. Splitting hairs over whether the technology was internally developed or purchased is irrelevant to the point being made about the exclusivity of the hardware.

True - They bought 3rd party companies with the tech. Still doesn't change the observation that they made it better, and tailored it specifically for the iPhone. None of those sensors have drop in replacements. And Apple put out the 64bit proc prior to ARM having IP --> FACt

Samsung has a problem with adding features to their devices that are simply not well executed.

For instance, from the NY Times review of the Galaxy Note 8:

>Some of the biometrics, including the ability to unlock your phone by scanning your face or irises, are so poorly executed that they feel like marketing gimmicks as opposed to actual security features.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/technology/personaltech/s...

Samsung's screens are excellent, but their CPU/GPU performance is a generation (or more) behind Apple. Plus they are way behind in integrated functionality such as motion coprocessor, ai processing, and secure enclave.

I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that the Samsung OLED screen on the iPhone X is significantly better than the ones Samsung puts on it's flagship phones, in color fidelity especially. Partly because of Apple's attention to detail, but also because Samsung's flagship phones ship in much higher volume than the X is expected to.

>>> I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that the Samsung OLED screen on the iPhone X is significantly better than the ones Samsung puts on it's flagship phones

I can't believe that. I just can't.

All iPhone X reviews mention the screen tech difference, all of them say how they don't notice a difference.

Most reviewers (and people) don't appreciate color fidelity. Jon Gruber was just talking about how Google spent the time/effort to make the colors of the Pixel display more accurate and natural, and then people complain they don't "pop" and look as good as the super-saturated colors on other android phones.

>>> Most reviewers (and people) don't appreciate color fidelity

It's not about "appreciating". It's that it doesn't matter. Everyone talked about retina resolution, then about "true colors".

Today we have Samsung making all the screens.

The point is, nobody except professionals care.

I very much care.

The colour reproduction on Samsung phones is just awful after spending so much time on MacBooks and iPhones. Over saturated and as you increase brightness it washes everything out.

I spent time with the iPhone X today so can comment on the screen first hand.

What makes the screen different is that the colours aren't oversaturated like Android phones. It was identical to the iPhone 8 screen (LED) only significantly brighter.

From what I've read what makes it better are things like the reduced blue-shift that occurs when moving the phone and the significant reduction in burn-in effect. But what most people will think is that it is the colours that make it better. Even though that could largely be software.

I can believe it. The quality is all about cost. What level of rejected units can you accept for price $X? If Apple can pay more (due to cost, scale, or just where the price of the phone is allocated between parts) they can buy a better screen.

Yeah the S8 and S8 Plus had (has?) significant top/side edge colour shift.

(Speaking as the owner of the Plus, who has his first replaced and the second is somewhat better but not perfect. Wife's S8 is also affected but she doesn't see it or doesn't care. I would still take that slight imperfection over the horrid notch though).

Not quite. Samsung fabs chips. They may even design chips. But they don’t work ‘together’.

Samsung makes 5 processors and puts them on the open market.

The another part of Samsung buys those chips off the shelf and used them in their phones.

My understanding is the two units don’t work together hand in hand like Apples teams do, they work together the way Samsung and HTC do.

Basically, yeah, they don't make the OS. I think the parent comment was more aimed at software companies. Though, you could look at it from the opposite point of view as well.