Strange that even a hard-nosed tech site like anandtech can't resist the typical fetishiztion of buttons and whispered sighs of "So intuitive" and "designey!" Meanwhile, valid competitors like the Nexus or Samsung line-ups either get strict apathy or get criticized in a way that Apple is immune to (for example the Note's size being unacceptable yet the 6+ size being perfect). Or the Jobsian logic that the press repeats (size of iphone is perfect because of human thumb size) and then ignores when even Apple itself doesn't buy that argument anymore.

I think the world of tech reviewing proves how well marketing works, especially against those who often see themselves as resistant to it and self-declared rational/skeptical/intellectual thinkers. If anything, these types seem more susceptible to it for some reason.

I don't even really read reviews in a serious fashion at this point, except maybe at Ars. Reviews seem to be marketing vehicles, either consciously or sub-consciously on the part of the reviewer. Ars seems to be more even-handed than most and they try not to fall too deeply into the trap of bikeshedding or pandering for ad impressions. I can't be the only one unhappy with how these things are reviewed nowadays. It seems like the narrative of the "nerds have won" in regardless to tech is pretty disingenious. If anyone has won, its the marketers. The more you spend to promote your talking points, the more often those talking points will be believed or, at least, repeated. It doesn't seem anymore complex than that.

I'm also willing to concede that there's a subjective element here that makes reviewing of commodity tech almost like reviewing the arts. At a certain point performance, durability, etc are all fine for the top competitors and reviews just address things that are more subjective than objective for the lack of things to talk about. Mobile has certainly reached that space and the only rational move for these companies is to just invest more in marketing to make your 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store' look better than the other guy's 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store.'

Now the role of the reviewer is to communicate these marketing messages effectively.

It's frustrating. I have to grip the phone unnaturally so that I don't click both buttons at the same time.

Who cares about the box.

I'm just curious if the new size will be a good fit for me or not.

And if you can't have a hobby then being irrationally angry on the internet will do instead.

He posted the exact same comment in the 6+ companion review, disappointing.

"it is truly unbelievable how a company, formerly known for its remarkable design, dares to put out such a crap ton of shit"

Then he / she goes on to describe how, in his opinion, apple has failed.

You tend to get so much of the latter on HN, so reading that guy's comment is almost refreshing :)

From what I understand of the technology it was built with efficiency from the ground up as opposed to the nVidia tech of the time such as the TNT and Geforce which were designed for raw performance.

Good article about it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/558/4

I think Videologic/Imagination Tech patented the heck outta a lot of the techniques they came up with so wouldn't be surprised if they're ahead of the pack on efficiency.

He mentions it on the third paragraph.

"As I discuss in the iPhone 6 Plus review, going by Consumer Reports' data it seems that there is a weak point near the bottom of the volume rocker, although it's far less likely to be an issue on the iPhone 6 due to its smaller size."

http://www.phonecruncher.com/news/2576225/apple_bans_german_...

Granted, I don't this should be as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be, but I think the discussion should go beyond chastising owners for putting their phones in the wrong pocket. That's not much better than saying "you're holding it wrong."

If the back pocket is "not supported", that's fine, but when support is pulled on anything that people use, (however obscure or unwise its use may be), there's going to be friction.

This is where the marketing concept of "life-proof" comes from. Shit happens. Day-to-day consumer devices are going to get bumped, dropped, damp, sat on, etc. If the iPhone can't handle those things, the answer isn't "Be more careful you idiots", the answer is people will (presumably) stop buying them.

https://imgur.com/spdm6mm

"I fed my phone to my dog! Can I have a new one?"

"I dropped my phone out of my car! Can I have a new one?"

"My phone fell into a commercial smoothie blender! Can I have a new one?"

http://www.phonecruncher.com/news/2576225/apple_bans_german_...

I went from a 4 to a 5S, and was very happy, but I'm not sure that I'd have bothered if I had a 5, or even a 4. Phones don't generally need to be upgraded every year, and most people don't do this.

I feel that most phones these days have pretty adequate cameras for their most common use-cases (Instagram, facebook, some holiday/party snaps, etc.).

For any other use-case a proper camera is the way to go in my opinion.

Apple makes a really big deal about their cores and GPU, as they have every right to (they're pretty great). Quite aside from their keynotes that focus extensively on this, on the product page you learn, right near the top, about the A8 64-bit processor and M8 coprocessor, as if these facts have any relevance to an end user. They're bragging points. Apple talks about their 64-bit advantage ad nauseam.

They absolutely brag about their chip. They boast specs (as they boast "retina" displays and thinness and grams and materials).

No it wasn't. A57 wasn't actually done when Apple outed Cyclone. Apple clearly ran with early aspects of A57 (your disingenuous misreading about ARMv8 being ignored). At exactly the same timeframe, nvidia, Qualcomm, and others had as many details of A57 and ARMv8, and none of them ran with it. Indeed, nvidia and Qualcomm are just getting to 64-bit parts, doing a pretty good job with their existing architectures.

Apple wanted to be first, and they pounded every bit out of 64-bits in their marketing. But here, again, we have to pretend that reality isn't as it actually is.

Also, it's clear that they DON'T try all that hard; they could have used the six-core variant of the PowerVR used here, at the cost of battery life

This is absurdity theater. Apple has chosen higher bin/tier PowerVR parts than her peers for virtually every single generation. But because they didn't choose even higher we are to believe that they don't try hard? Do you actually look at the benchmarks, or just continue on with a ridiculous narrative based upon preconceived notions?