You keep going back to Apple adding things to iPhones and iPads, but, those additions, didn’t materially make the iPhones or iPads any more functional. Faster perhaps, and perhaps capable of multi-tasking, and perhaps a sharper screen. But, none of those things were actually necessary for the features and functionality which people use their phones for. I’m one of those, as a techie, that likes things like multi-processors/multi-cores and nicer/brighter screens, but, functionally, they really aren’t needed for smartphones and for tablets. Nokia demonstrated with the Nokia 900 that, a single core processor can be as capable as a multi-core processor, and that a nice bright/sharp screen is more than enough for what people use those gadgets for. With Windows 8, Microsoft is, in a way, forcing the smartphone and tablet manufacturers to increase the number of cores and to add multi-tasking capabilities, but, it’s more of a move to keep Windows phones in competitive mode, and the same would apply to future Windows tablets. But, the general public wasn’t really in need of a retina display, or a 4-core processor. Most don’t even know what’s in their smartphones, and wouldn’t understand it. But, Apple and other OEMs will keep adding to those gadgets and other computing equipment, just to get a refresh of their computing devices, and with it, a new cycle of sales, which of course, means more cash in the manufacturer’s coffers.
Me, personally, I’d like to have a million-cores in my tablet, with a 50,000 pixels/inch display, but then, I’m not a regular user. I love gadgetry and I love superior tech, but, for most of the regular people out there, it’s overkill, and most of the tech inside those gadgets goes unused. In fact, are you aware that, most developers don’t even know how to program efficiently or at all for multi-tasking? And yet, people are being sold on tech that’s unnecessary or overkill. It’s like selling a car to the public that can go 300 miles per hour, which they’ll never use at beyond 70 mph. Most of the tech is for bragging rights, and for fresh new sales cycles. And then, because the tech is superior to the older tech, the Apple will take advantage and charge people a premium price, with prices that are way over what other manufacturers charge for similarly equipment gadgets.
Like I said, Apple had better keep taking advantage of people while they can, because, the time is fast approaching when people will realize that, they’ve been had. In one or two years, the jig will be up.
Yes, they did. An iPhone 4S is noticeably smoother in use than an iPhone 3GS with the latest OS applied. Smoothness is especially important in a phone, where no matter what's going on in the background you need call functionality to be perfect (unlike my old Android phone). The only way to do this is multiple cores.
Nokia demonstrated with the Nokia 900 that, a single core processor can be as capable as a multi-core processor
For the record, this is the phone that sucked so bad they had to start giving it away, right? Microsoft's already abandoned it. Windows 7 will get an update or two more, and then die. Windows 8 is not backward compatible either, so what's the incentive for anyone to buy apps on the platform?
But, the general public wasn’t really in need of a retina display, or a 4-core processor.
Retina display isn't a need for all, but it is sure nice to have. You have to use it to appreciate it, because now I couldn't go back (I was blind but now I see!). The Retina display wasn't just a spec sheet check, it was a direct usability improvement, which is the kind of thing Apple goes for.
As far as 4-core being needed today, that's probably why Apple has stuck with two cores for now. My iPhone 4S works just fine with two cores at 800 MHz. Apple will not put more power than is necessary because Apple doesn't go by spec sheet alone. Extra cores would mean lower battery life, and battery life is more important to Apple than comparing core counts on a spec sheet. So according to what you say above, this should be a positive thing in your book. But here's where Apple haters say "So Apple is selling a low-spec phone for a normal price, what a rip-off!" You would like to have it both ways, wouldn't you?
Apple hasn't even gone 4G because of spotty availability and horrible battery life with the current generation of chipsets. Apple chose to forego that spec sheet check because the overall user experience could be hurt. There is no technical reason why Apple couldn't have put it in.
But, Apple and other OEMs will keep adding to those gadgets
That is generally true across the board for many industries. Even bicycle makers keep improving their products. The desire to make something even better, to stay ahead of the competition, is in most entrepreneurs. But at least now you're not confining your complaints to Apple.
In fact, are you aware that, most developers don’t even know how to program efficiently or at all for multi-tasking?
Yes, if you are referring to multithreading. Are you aware that when developing for Apple, most of the grunt work of multithreading is done for you? Some operations, like calling animations, are even automatically multithreaded. That and other operations (especially those done on graphics, audio or video) are also automatically performed on the GPU if that would be faster.
Like I said, Apple had better keep taking advantage of people while they can, because, the time is fast approaching when people will realize that, they’ve been had
Same is true for all manufacturers then. The one that will win is the one that differentiates itself from the pack and consistently delivers products that enhance the user experience.
BTW, see the latest article about Microsoft's "Lost Decade" in Vanity Fair? Ex-employees talk about how management killed Microsoft. I didn't know Microsoft had an e-reader in the works in 1998, did you? Of course not, because Microsoft's myopic, Windows-focused management killed it. It was moved under Office, and there the idea was that Office works with a pen or mouse, and your product doesn't have a pen or mouse, so it's a no-go. Microsoft could have founded the e-reader craze, and most e-readers could be using a Microsoft operating system instead of Android. But, no, now Microsoft sits on the sidelines because of poor management. There might have been an effort at Microsoft to make a touch-screen tablet like the iPad, and it was killed because "It's not regular Windows."
Like I said way back, Microsoft: Lots of talented engineers strangled by visionless management.