The article is based on measurement of data speeds but makes bold claims like:
> Faster internet data means that users can load websites and start watching movies more quickly, make crisper video calls and get higher-quality video.
But that's not what their data measured -- it measured bandwidth not page or video loads. Not to mention it goes against the experience everyone's had of a device getting slower with most OS updates that are optimized for a newer device. The bandwidth didn't go down with OS upgrade, so a measurement thereof is pretty meaningless. All else being equal that statement is true, but by definition (comparing disparate devices and manufacturers) everything else is different in this data set.
They do qualify it a few paragraphs later:
> To be sure, it can be difficult for users to tell the differences between how fast pages load on a phone.
I thought that's what you were claiming to be noticeably faster here?
Only to water down the qualification with:
> But it’s easier to sense the quality of video, how long it takes to pull up a song and how long it takes to send an email.
Yes this statement is true in the barest sense, but in the context of the article it's very misleading since none of the data even attempted to measure these things.
And sending an email? Who regularly sends huge files that reside on the phone? And what phone doesn't do that in the background anyway?
Then there's this sentence that gets an award for obtuse phrasing of the week:
> Apple’s main processors that control the speed of launching apps, swiping through PDFs and loading games are often recognized as some of the fastest in the industry.
In an article about measuring speeds differences down to two or three decimals points, it's incongruous to talk about "often recognized as" versus just looking at any of the thousands of benchmarks (also from "real world" users that are out there). And even weirder that the metrics above of page loads and video loads are seemingly unaffected by processor speed.
Bloomberg tech reporting is very clickbaity of late. Or it's a conspiracy to encourage bigger ad-buys from Apple and for them to retreat from ad blocking and tracking protections. Probably not that, but it's more exciting to imagine than the alternative of simple incompetence.
> Faster internet data means that users can load websites and start watching movies more quickly, make crisper video calls and get higher-quality video.
But that's not what their data measured -- it measured bandwidth not page or video loads. Not to mention it goes against the experience everyone's had of a device getting slower with most OS updates that are optimized for a newer device. The bandwidth didn't go down with OS upgrade, so a measurement thereof is pretty meaningless. All else being equal that statement is true, but by definition (comparing disparate devices and manufacturers) everything else is different in this data set.
They do qualify it a few paragraphs later:
> To be sure, it can be difficult for users to tell the differences between how fast pages load on a phone.
I thought that's what you were claiming to be noticeably faster here?
Only to water down the qualification with:
> But it’s easier to sense the quality of video, how long it takes to pull up a song and how long it takes to send an email.
Yes this statement is true in the barest sense, but in the context of the article it's very misleading since none of the data even attempted to measure these things.
And sending an email? Who regularly sends huge files that reside on the phone? And what phone doesn't do that in the background anyway?
Then there's this sentence that gets an award for obtuse phrasing of the week:
> Apple’s main processors that control the speed of launching apps, swiping through PDFs and loading games are often recognized as some of the fastest in the industry.
In an article about measuring speeds differences down to two or three decimals points, it's incongruous to talk about "often recognized as" versus just looking at any of the thousands of benchmarks (also from "real world" users that are out there). And even weirder that the metrics above of page loads and video loads are seemingly unaffected by processor speed.
Bloomberg tech reporting is very clickbaity of late. Or it's a conspiracy to encourage bigger ad-buys from Apple and for them to retreat from ad blocking and tracking protections. Probably not that, but it's more exciting to imagine than the alternative of simple incompetence.