Truly impressive. Smaller, yet faster than the competition. Surprising how many of the chips are now internal Apple components:
1. CPU/GPU
2. Auxiliary Machine Learning/AI chip
3. NAND controller
4. IR Deapth sensor & signal processing chip
5. Power management IC (surprising that Apple is doing Analog IC design too!)
Axiom in the tech world is that "Apple is a software company that builds hardware". Above is ample evidence of Apple being a hardware-heavy innovation machine.
A software company building hardware is Google, and it's Pixel phones show
> A software company building hardware is Google, and it's Pixel phones show
FWIW Google has put a lot of effort in the hardware of their datacenters, and in that sense they're a hardware giant as well. Compared to their datacenter projects, Pixel is a funny hobbby for Google.
> Power management IC (surprising that Apple is doing Analog IC design too!)
Have you seen the tear down of the old MacBook power bricks? Check it out if you haven’t. There’s a lot of tech in there to improve efficiency (ie keep that tiny brick from melting)
There's a lot to be said for "if you want something done properly, do it yourself". Hard to do in a connected ecosystem but Apple has the level of platform control that they can do whatever they feel they need to do without having to consider partners, competitors or exogenous forces.
Typing this from a Pixel 2 XL after having been a happy Pixel XL owner. The 2 is truly the greatest phone I've ever owned, and that includes iphones along the way. If this is what you get with a software company building hardware, I'd say keep it up.
I think Apple is a Design company, as in that's their main value add. Like Steve Jobs said, design is not just how their products look but how they work - something that requires both software and hardware.
On the other hand Google seems to be more of a software company, which reflects in their general culture and hiring practices.
I think Apple explicitly position themselves as the combination of hardware and software and want as much vertical integration as possible... the more hardware they control the better they can make software to run on it.
Who thinks Apple is a software company? Because they're wrong. Apple started off making hardware and they've always made hardware. They make software to compliment their hardware.
Indeed, Apple is excellent at integration. But at the system level, that leaves them with fewer partners who can help with the business side of things. They had to become excellent in operations, strategy and sales, which they did as well.
Strategically, I think Apple has made a right move by internalising all the hardware designs. That said, as many have suggested, the new iPhone is no more than just another faster, smaller, and costlier.
This is an engineering masterpiece. The electrical engineer in me is mind-blown. I love the inter-PCB BGA-style interface. Standoff, connector and shield all in one component. And the component density is stunning.
Clean internal layout, relatively serviceable, structured light 3D scanning built in. You can debate whether or not Apple have made good UI decisions, but the hardware design execution here is superb.
I'm just wondering, how does it compare to let say a samsung galaxy S8 in terms of engineering? on paper, they seem to be pretty similar devices but Samsung doesn't get nearly as much praise. Is Apple really ahead there?
Part of me thinks it's absolutely stunning that such engineering is even possible, and frankly, in a way, how much you get for your money. The future is here.
Then I realize, the only reason this is remotely possible is due to volume. So it almost says less about technical progress and performance per cubic inch per dollar coming down, and more about how volume makes the above possible.
The LG V30 teardown is pretty impressive too. I watched it first, a couple weeks ago, so the iPhoneX teardown didn't do much for me. If I had watched them in a different order, maybe I'd find the iPhone one more impressive.
Though most impressive ever for me was a Panasonic cassette player (walkman style) in the 90's. The thing was barely larger than a cassette itself. My young mind was blown out.
Amazing to see everything shrink (except for the battery). Reminds me of a quote referencing Blackberry falling behind the iPhone: "Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it."
The most impressive thing to me is how similar the iPhone X is to the original iPhone (shown side by side in the second picture).
Ten years ago, Apple totally nailed the design. Same buttons, same speaker design, same full panel display. Even design work by a company as talented as Apple, you might expect that a new model ten years into the future may look quite different, but it looks the same.
I've owned various iPhones (starting with the 4 in 2010) and I'm going to take a serious look at the Pixel 3 in 2018.
Performance is a feature, and I don't see a compelling reason why I should upgrade my 6S. I have a suspicion that Apple will keep the '6' chassis they've stuck with since the release of the 6 (6/6S/7/8) at 2GB of memory, and will continue to do so with the 9 next year. Pixel 2 performance with 4GB of memory is impressive. And I will not pay $1000 for a phone, that's absurd.
Features I focus on when evaluating a phone - how quickly does the device unlock? Does it have a fingerprint reader? How quickly can I open the camera app? How are the photos? (I really hope Android device makers diverge from Apple and pursue a under the front glass fingerprint reader instead of facial recognition). I could care less about AI assistants/animojis. Get the basics down.
Google _still_ has significant QA issues nearly six years after designing their first phone (Nexus 4) for OEM manufacturing.
RCS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services) still needs to get off the ground. Until then, iMessage will still rule. My family is familiar with the built in messaging app, and I'm not asking my parents to use a separate app for texting. RCS will be able to replace iMessage for us.
Apple is a $875 billion dollar company because they figured out how to do customer service/QA/hardware and designed an easy to use OS.
I'm not asking Google to focus on ease of use for the OS, just get QA/service/hardware correct, at a $650 price point.
The SIM card holder's size shows its age. It is literally as big as the A11 package.
Such archaic things need to evolve or disappear. What's the status on electronic SIM? We don't need a piece of plastic that holds a numeric key and takes up EXPENSIVE real-estate in one of the most densely packed electronic devices in the world.
Apple doesn't have the leverage to sway the standards?
the sim is no piece of plastic. SIM cards are computers! they have a CPU. they have memory, a file system. they run applets, yes Java applets. sims are one of the most secure pieces of technology out there, part of the Secure Element standard. the sim is responsible for a lot of your phones security. lots of encryption keys live on the sim and nothing can access them at all. I am much much happier to trust the hardware than software for some of this. smaller form factors are always coming out for sim, but it's worth the space
Its funny that in the old days the main selling point of GSM/SIM-Cards were that you could physically change from phone to phone and kept your line (and contacts), now we the recent race to get things as little as possible and that virtually no one is using by default any of the extra-GSM functionalities has (contact backup), coming back to a non-physical identity as the solution (like in the CDMA days) that will force you to go to carrier every time you need to change yout phone and depend on 3rd party online services for the extra functionalities.
Since then, Apple has been pushing for carriers to support a new standard for an embedded chip in the device to hold the data currently stored on one or more removable SIM cards.
>The Apple SIM supports wireless services across multiple supported carriers, which can be selected from a user interface within their operating systems, removing the need to install a SIM provided by the carrier itself.
They did it with their most recent Apple Watch, which could be a first start to also bring it to the iPhone. They probably want to first get the adoption going, before making it available globally.
> don't need a piece of plastic that holds a numeric key
Doesn't a SIM include a small micro-controller and firmware (ref#1)?
It isn't just a numeric key holder.
In addition, wouldn't having an apple designed electronic SIM reduce what 3rd party firmware (hardware SIM card) is running on their devices? Seems like a good deal to me.
TL;DR: I see that Apple is doing great engineering, but where is this engineering better than Samsung's? Or is it not?
---
This was fascinating, but I am not very knowledgable when it comes to hardware and I have a burning question.
Everybody here seems to think this was a great feat of engineering. I am looking also at the teardown of the Samsung Galaxy S8. Where is Apple doing a better work than Samsung? Is it just the fact that Apple are "doing it themselves" that is impressive? (not implying it isn't.)
The only thing I can see is that the iPhone X seems to devote much more space to battery, by cramming up all of the components tighter together. Does this mean the iPhone X will have a better battery life?
I truly have no dog in the fight, and have no interest in starting a flame war. I'm just curious.
PD: Yeah, the A* CPUs are fantastic, no doubt. But that doesn't show in this teardown.
Do you really need to hold it up to your face like I've been seeing? The reviewers look so awkward and uncomfortable. I was hoping it would see your face laying on the desk and whatnot.
I'm still on the fence about whether this is a great phone or not because I use every one of my phones a significant amount when not directly looking at it.
But this hardware is absolutely incredible. I wish there was a clear casing to the phone. Apple has always done a great job design the internals and clearly this is no exception.
Hardware company or Software company, we can always debate about it and choose whatever we want to say.
In few years Apple will be a "Trillion dollar company" and there won't be any debate or doubt about it.
> If the back glass breaks, you'll be removing every component and replacing the entire chassis.
oof, sounds like this is in part because of the "camera nub". I know a number of people who have had the back glass panel replaced on their iPhones, almost as many as the front. Sounds like X owners may want to opt for a case or some extra protection for the back glass and chassis to save the pain of getting this replaced/repaired, it sure isn't likely to be a DIY project for most.
It seems this is the second times after the Apple Watch 3 in september that the Wifi/BT module is branded with the Apple name. Does someone knows if they have designed their own Wifi/BT chipset or if it is licensed from somebody else?
It is interesting to observe that this teardown has been carried out down under (in Australia). Maybe it had something to do with the timezones and release date.
[+] [-] mankash666|8 years ago|reply
Axiom in the tech world is that "Apple is a software company that builds hardware". Above is ample evidence of Apple being a hardware-heavy innovation machine.
A software company building hardware is Google, and it's Pixel phones show
[+] [-] marcell|8 years ago|reply
FWIW Google has put a lot of effort in the hardware of their datacenters, and in that sense they're a hardware giant as well. Compared to their datacenter projects, Pixel is a funny hobbby for Google.
[+] [-] Illniyar|8 years ago|reply
Is that really a common belief? I know many people who think the opposite - apple is a hardware company.
In fact Tim Cook went out of his way several times to remind people that apple isn't a hardware company.
[+] [-] hinkley|8 years ago|reply
Have you seen the tear down of the old MacBook power bricks? Check it out if you haven’t. There’s a lot of tech in there to improve efficiency (ie keep that tiny brick from melting)
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rufugee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnevets|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jack000|8 years ago|reply
On the other hand Google seems to be more of a software company, which reflects in their general culture and hiring practices.
[+] [-] gehsty|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abritinthebay|8 years ago|reply
I disagree with both.
Apple is a design company that builds hardware and software together so the design works as intended.
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ksk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alvis|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manojlds|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwilliaams|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] asteli|8 years ago|reply
Clean internal layout, relatively serviceable, structured light 3D scanning built in. You can debate whether or not Apple have made good UI decisions, but the hardware design execution here is superb.
[+] [-] nimish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|8 years ago|reply
Then I realize, the only reason this is remotely possible is due to volume. So it almost says less about technical progress and performance per cubic inch per dollar coming down, and more about how volume makes the above possible.
[+] [-] overcyn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] QAPereo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andmarios|8 years ago|reply
Though most impressive ever for me was a Panasonic cassette player (walkman style) in the 90's. The thing was barely larger than a cassette itself. My young mind was blown out.
[+] [-] pat2man|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2043613
[+] [-] marze|8 years ago|reply
Ten years ago, Apple totally nailed the design. Same buttons, same speaker design, same full panel display. Even design work by a company as talented as Apple, you might expect that a new model ten years into the future may look quite different, but it looks the same.
[+] [-] karpodiem|8 years ago|reply
Performance is a feature, and I don't see a compelling reason why I should upgrade my 6S. I have a suspicion that Apple will keep the '6' chassis they've stuck with since the release of the 6 (6/6S/7/8) at 2GB of memory, and will continue to do so with the 9 next year. Pixel 2 performance with 4GB of memory is impressive. And I will not pay $1000 for a phone, that's absurd.
Features I focus on when evaluating a phone - how quickly does the device unlock? Does it have a fingerprint reader? How quickly can I open the camera app? How are the photos? (I really hope Android device makers diverge from Apple and pursue a under the front glass fingerprint reader instead of facial recognition). I could care less about AI assistants/animojis. Get the basics down.
Google _still_ has significant QA issues nearly six years after designing their first phone (Nexus 4) for OEM manufacturing.
RCS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services) still needs to get off the ground. Until then, iMessage will still rule. My family is familiar with the built in messaging app, and I'm not asking my parents to use a separate app for texting. RCS will be able to replace iMessage for us.
Apple is a $875 billion dollar company because they figured out how to do customer service/QA/hardware and designed an easy to use OS.
I'm not asking Google to focus on ease of use for the OS, just get QA/service/hardware correct, at a $650 price point.
[+] [-] fermienrico|8 years ago|reply
Such archaic things need to evolve or disappear. What's the status on electronic SIM? We don't need a piece of plastic that holds a numeric key and takes up EXPENSIVE real-estate in one of the most densely packed electronic devices in the world.
Apple doesn't have the leverage to sway the standards?
[+] [-] foolfoolz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SadWebDeveloper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GeekyBear|8 years ago|reply
https://www.cnet.com/news/sim-card-maker-apples-design-won-s...
Since then, Apple has been pushing for carriers to support a new standard for an embedded chip in the device to hold the data currently stored on one or more removable SIM cards.
>The Apple SIM supports wireless services across multiple supported carriers, which can be selected from a user interface within their operating systems, removing the need to install a SIM provided by the carrier itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_SIM
[+] [-] okanesen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stock_toaster|8 years ago|reply
In addition, wouldn't having an apple designed electronic SIM reduce what 3rd party firmware (hardware SIM card) is running on their devices? Seems like a good deal to me.
ref#1: https://www.slideshare.net/c.enrique.ortiz/sim-card-overview
[+] [-] mattnewton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzhiurgis|8 years ago|reply
Yes you can buy roaming packs, but local SIM cards are as low as 5$ for unlimited LTE.
[+] [-] parent5446|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikurei|8 years ago|reply
---
This was fascinating, but I am not very knowledgable when it comes to hardware and I have a burning question.
Everybody here seems to think this was a great feat of engineering. I am looking also at the teardown of the Samsung Galaxy S8. Where is Apple doing a better work than Samsung? Is it just the fact that Apple are "doing it themselves" that is impressive? (not implying it isn't.)
The only thing I can see is that the iPhone X seems to devote much more space to battery, by cramming up all of the components tighter together. Does this mean the iPhone X will have a better battery life?
I truly have no dog in the fight, and have no interest in starting a flame war. I'm just curious.
PD: Yeah, the A* CPUs are fantastic, no doubt. But that doesn't show in this teardown.
[+] [-] nsxwolf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BinaryIdiot|8 years ago|reply
But this hardware is absolutely incredible. I wish there was a clear casing to the phone. Apple has always done a great job design the internals and clearly this is no exception.
[+] [-] sk2code|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaux|8 years ago|reply
That's a big surprise to me!
[+] [-] diggan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcescalante|8 years ago|reply
oof, sounds like this is in part because of the "camera nub". I know a number of people who have had the back glass panel replaced on their iPhones, almost as many as the front. Sounds like X owners may want to opt for a case or some extra protection for the back glass and chassis to save the pain of getting this replaced/repaired, it sure isn't likely to be a DIY project for most.
[+] [-] djrogers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mandeepj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doe88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sengork|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synaesthesisx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamandcheese|8 years ago|reply
That seems a bit exaggerated.
I count 11 iterations. 18 total products.[+] [-] Synaesthesia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valine|8 years ago|reply