Orbis Unmasked: What to expect from next-gen


Recommended Posts

Graphics aren't everything. Growing up with consoles like Atari, Nintendo, and so on, I am fine with where console graphics are right now. All I want is better AI, better stories, some originality, and stable frames per second.

Graphics aren't everything. Growing up with consoles like Atari, Nintendo, and so on, I am fine with where console graphics are right now. All I want is better AI, better stories, some originality, and stable frames per second.

+1 for better stories, maybe if developers stopped being so mp first on their titles we'd get just that.

Graphics aren't everything. Growing up with consoles like Atari, Nintendo, and so on, I am fine with where console graphics are right now. All I want is better AI, better stories, some originality, and stable frames per second.

Good luck at getting originality out of the gaming industry nowadays. Publishers tend to be too afraid of funding that kind of thing.

Yeah......no.

Posting pictures of games without anti-aliasing isn't helping your point. And consoles have a quarter of the resolution available to PC users , which looks particularly bad when you're pumping it through a 40"+ HDTV.

Graphics aren't everything. Growing up with consoles like Atari, Nintendo, and so on, I am fine with where console graphics are right now. All I want is better AI, better stories, some originality, and stable frames per second.

Nobody claimed graphics were everything. But PCs have better controls for a lot of genres (mouse + keyboard, flight sticks, etc) and you can't use "stable frames per second" against the PC, as it's perfectly possible to set all the graphics to low, set the resolution to 720p and use a framerate limiter at 30fps if you want to match the console experience.

Posting pictures of games without anti-aliasing isn't helping your point. And consoles have a quarter of the resolution available to PC users , which looks particularly bad when you're pumping it through a 40"+ HDTV.

Nobody claimed graphics were everything. But PCs have better controls for a lot of genres (mouse + keyboard, flight sticks, etc) and you can't use "stable frames per second" against the PC, as it's perfectly possible to set all the graphics to low, set the resolution to 720p and use a framerate limiter at 30fps if you want to match the console experience.

you talk like everyone have easy access to a beast machine like yours ... nope, consoles are a lot easier to use, have excellent graphics and many people are using controllers on PC games, even in shooters, because the controller is ideal for couch gaming on a big TV, KB+mouse not.

  • Like 1
you talk like everyone have easy access to a beast machine like yours

The strength of PC gaming is that people can spend what they want and adjust the game settings to balance performance. My system is way beyond what most PC gamers have but I could still get a better gaming experience than consoles with a fraction of the system.

consoles are a lot easier to use, have excellent graphics and many people are using controllers on PC games

Consoles are certainly easier to use but they in no way have "excellent graphics". As for controllers, that's the strength of the PC - you can use a controller if you want (and I do for many games) but you're not limited by it. And I have my computer hooked up to a 42" HDTV, so I can sit back on my couch with a wireless X360 controller and play games maxed out at 1080p @60fps.

There's a very good video comparison on GameTrailers that shows DmC: Devil May Cry on the PC @ 60fps versus the PS3 @ 30fps. The graphical quality is considerably lower on console (and that's matching the resolution) and the low framerate of the console version is horrible - to me that is unacceptable.

The strength of PC gaming is that people can spend what they want and adjust the game settings to balance performance. My system is way beyond what most PC gamers have but I could still get a better gaming experience than consoles with a fraction of the system.

THAT is not a claim you can make, you can say that for yourself you get a better experience on your PC' you can not claim your PC experience is better than someone elses console experience, unless you're able to meld your mind with them and compare.

I know people who would have a better gaming experience on an old SNES than your fancy rig, PC, console, Size of your rig and e-peen has NOTHING to do with gaming experience. Not universally so anyway. Some people are graphics ###### and will not be satisfied with anything but top end PC or Consoles for the first 3 months, others are more into the gameplay and don't care about the graphics, or let it have a secondary seat, and will only enjoy special games like jrpgs or such, others get their most joy out of old retro games.

  • Like 2

There's a very good video comparison on GameTrailers that shows DmC: Devil May Cry on the PC @ 60fps versus the PS3 @ 30fps. The graphical quality is considerably lower on console (and that's matching the resolution) and the low framerate of the console version is horrible - to me that is unacceptable.

I'd have to argue with that being a "very good" comparison video. Mainly because of the ridiculously high amount of compression artifacts plaguing it.

Yeah......no.

Uncharted_3_Screen_6-000.jpg

image_killzone_3-13238-2035_0009.jpg

Try running the latest games with nVidia 7900GT graphics. BF3 for example runs at 12FPS on 7900GTX with everything turned off.

Woohoo KILLZONE FTW!

Question.

Going back to something I posted earlier in this thread, has anything new been rumoured or confirmed for the next gen consoles yet?

I know this is probably too much to ask for, seeing as they are rivals, but stuff like cross platform gaming, or at the very least chatting?

Lets face it, you can have an almost infinite combination of hardware and software, and operating systems, and still play some online games (like mmo's) on personal computers, regarldess of personal preference of computer, so why not consoles? (seeing as they are quite similar)?

Nothing is confirmed, everything is rumours and guesswork. Probably won't hear anything about services/features of the OS till E3.

I don't think you will ever see cross platform gaming or chatting, a lot of consoles are sold because x amount of friends have an xbox, so to play with your friends you go buy an xbox, if cross gaming/chat was allowed people could get whatever console they wanted, such as people who don't think Xbox Live is worth paying to play online, they could just get a PS3 and still play games with their friends.

It's not a technical reason (well maybe for PS3, it can't even do cross game chat), its just business.

The strength of PC gaming is that people can spend what they want and adjust the game settings to balance performance. My system is way beyond what most PC gamers have but I could still get a better gaming experience than consoles with a fraction of the system.

There's a very good video comparison on GameTrailers that shows DmC: Devil May Cry on the PC @ 60fps versus the PS3 @ 30fps. The graphical quality is considerably lower on console (and that's matching the resolution) and the low framerate of the console version is horrible - to me that is unacceptable.

You are comparing a console that came out 6 years ago with current day PC specs. I'd like to see you play games in 1080p@60 with maxed out settings on a ?350-400 PC (rumoured cost of next gen consoles).

To keep up with graphics PC owners have to upgrade their PC at least every 2 years, with a ?250+ graphics card, that's not even including CPU/Mobo/RAM upgrades.

As I already said, for completely unscientific benchmark, a 7900GTX gpu (being around the same performance of the PS3 RSX GPU) can barely run BF3 with everything on low in 1680x1050 at 12FPS.

  • Like 1

You are comparing a console that came out 6 years ago with current day PC specs. I'd like to see you play games in 1080p@60 with maxed out settings on a ?350-400 PC (rumoured cost of next gen consoles).

To keep up with graphics PC owners have to upgrade their PC at least every 2 years, with a ?250+ graphics card, that's not even including CPU/Mobo/RAM upgrades.

As I already said, for completely unscientific benchmark, a 7900GTX gpu (being around the same performance of the PS3 RSX GPU) can barely run BF3 with everything on low in 1680x1050 at 12FPS.

I wish console fans would atleast try to get some things right. You don't need to spend ?250/$400 on your gpu every 2 years to remain capable of playing modern games. I think i spent around $180 in 2011 on my current gpu(in the sig), less than half of your claim, and i remain capable of playing modern games just fine here in 2013. And if i were to decide to upgrade soon, it'd be because i want to, not because i strictly have to to be able to keep playing games.

Why am I a console "fan"?

I've been into PCs since I was a child in the 80s. I don't consider myself a console gamer, I do most if not all of my gaming on PCs, the multiplatform stuff at least.

I agree you don't HAVE to spend ?250 on a GPU but most first models (X850/X870 AMD and X700/ X800 of the Nvidias) of the next generation of GPUs are usually around that mark.

Sure you can spend less but then you have to drop the quality settings much sooner than you would and you end up with console level graphics anyway thanks to the lower image quality settings.

Face it, there is NO way a PC will be able to play the latest games if its using a 6 year old CPU/GPU and its stupid to compare modern day PCs with consoles 6 years old, you are going to have to have upgraded your PC at least twice to play the latest and greatest using image quality settings that are higher than console.

Console Vs PC is just stupid. I like both, and agree that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I like a PC when it's just ME time. But I like consoles for when its game time with my girl or other friends who come over often.

I like my good speaker set up on my PC, but I love my 7.1 surround sound set up for my PS3 which shakes the house.

But as time passes quicker and quicker as you age... I just can't justify putting that much time into my PC trying to "keep up". I have grown to love the simplicity that a console offers. I still like both equally. Due to the fact that they are both different in ways, but provide me with the same excitement and entertainment.

If you are chosing a side with electronics such as these, you are only losing out. Those who embrace the greatness of each, have more options to enjoy their entertainment with.

Console Vs PC is just stupid. I like both, and agree that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I like a PC when it's just ME time. But I like consoles for when its game time with my girl or other friends who come over often.

I like my good speaker set up on my PC, but I love my 7.1 surround sound set up for my PS3 which shakes the house.

But as time passes quicker and quicker as you age... I just can't justify putting that much time into my PC trying to "keep up". I have grown to love the simplicity that a console offers. I still like both equally. Due to the fact that they are both different in ways, but provide me with the same excitement and entertainment.

If you are chosing a side with electronics such as these, you are only losing out. Those who embrace the greatness of each, have more options to enjoy their entertainment with.

Well said.

Pretty much my biggest reason for not gaming much these days on my PC (I have decided I am going to play both Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite on my PC) is at work, I sit in front of a computer all day. Last thing I want to do these days is come home, and sit in front of a computer some more.

And as pointed out, gaming from ones couch is a lovely, lovely thing. Yes, I can hook my beast of a PC tower up to my TV as well, but the thing is not really easy on the eyes, and my wife would not be that happy with this massive tower just sitting next to our entertainment center. Now once Valve's Steam Box comes out, I will be taking a very close look at it.

So consoles offer me the same exact gaming experience, and what I mean by that is once I choose start, I am enjoying the game exactly as much as I would on my PC even if it does in fact have nicer graphics, so take this fact into account with the fact I can sit on my couch, have a 7.1 sound system hooked up to a 55" TV, so yeah, console gaming servers me just fine. In fact, I may even prefer it these days just for the convenience and comfort that it allows. Does not mean I am anti gaming on a PC, just means for my personal preference, consoles are the better way to play.

THAT is not a claim you can make, you can say that for yourself you get a better experience on your PC' you can not claim your PC experience is better than someone elses console experience, unless you're able to meld your mind with them and compare.

What are you talking about? My claim was that with a lesser PC than my current system I could still have a better gaming experience than consoles, which is objectively true. You can use a wireless X360 controller, plug the PC into a HDTV and have better quality visuals (higher resolution, better texture quality, anti-aliasing) at a higher framerate.

I know people who would have a better gaming experience on an old SNES than your fancy rig, PC

That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making, which was comparing the same games on different platforms.

Some people are graphics ###### and will not be satisfied with anything but top end PC or Consoles for the first 3 months, others are more into the gameplay and don't care about the graphics, or let it have a secondary seat, and will only enjoy special games like jrpgs or such, others get their most joy out of old retro games.

It's not about being a "graphics ######" - it's about the PC producing an objectively better gaming experience. It's like choosing between caged-hen eggs and free-range organic eggs - if you're on a budget then caged-hen eggs are fine for a lot of people but most wouldn't opt for them if they had a choice.

I'd have to argue with that being a "very good" comparison video. Mainly because of the ridiculously high amount of compression artifacts plaguing it.

That's what makes the video all the more impressive, as the visual quality was obvious even in such a heavily compressed video!

You are comparing a console that came out 6 years ago with current day PC specs. I'd like to see you play games in 1080p@60 with maxed out settings on a ?350-400 PC (rumoured cost of next gen consoles).

But that's not a fair comparison, is it? The whole point of PC gaming is that you can upgrade and continually improve your gaming experience. You can't overlook one of the primary strengths of the platform. And as I said, if you buy a lot of games then the price difference isn't as substantial because of the mark-up on console games. You have a lower buy-in cost on console but you get a lesser experience, while paying more for games over the entire life of the console.

What are you talking about? My claim was that with a lesser PC than my current system I could still have a better gaming experience than consoles, which is objectively true. You can use a wireless X360 controller, plug the PC into a HDTV and have better quality visuals (higher resolution, better texture quality, anti-aliasing) at a higher framerate.

No it's not, that's extremely subjective. YOU think you get a better experience that way, that doesn't mean everyone does.

gaming experience is a lot more than graphics. that's what you don't understand. all you think about is resolution and framerates.

No it's not, that's extremely subjective. YOU think you get a better experience that way, that doesn't mean everyone does.

Same controller. Same display. Better graphics. Better framerate. Better loading times.

I'm talking about the gaming experience itself - that is, from the moment you launch the game. I simply don't see where consoles are subjectively or objectively better.

Also the only thing you can truly upgrade on a PC today is the graphics card, it's also the part that has any real merit in most cases, except for certain storage medium upgrades, in both cases you're upgrading at the costs of a new console, which is the worth of 2-3 full price games. but then again over here, the big chains usually sell the big triple A games at 40-50% off normal price in the firs few weeks, to get people into the stores (the chains usually rotate which offers it on which games)

For upgrading other parts of the computer, you're looking at a chain reaction of costs, need a new CPU, well then you have to have a new motherboard, you probably need new memory to make use of it, and depending on your graphics card, upgrading the CPU may have no effect. and when you've upgraded all these, you probably need a new PSU as well.

Same controller. Same display. Better graphics. Better framerate. Better loading times.

I'm talking about the gaming experience itself - that is, from the moment you launch the game. I simply don't see where consoles are subjectively or objectively better.

Still missing a whole lot of variables there.

Since yo're talkign about the gaming experience. how about the experience that you can sit back, click on the controller and the gaming machine starts up. instantly putting you where you can launch you game. It automatically gives you the best visuals you can get without need for tweaking and messing about. you get proper surround sound right away, no messing around, no configuration and messing about. Want to play music while you play, well that's also available, right there on your controller, no need to grab a keyboard to alt tab. Friend lists and multiplayer, also on the controller.

Also same display doesn't always apply, unless you are willing to have a huge noisy gaming rig in your living room, or you have an expensive media center box, and/or probably live alone with no GF.

Personally I play PC games on my PC, either laptop ion the living room or my gaming rig in our computer room. and I play my console games in my 55 inch in my living room, I've tried at times to play through the HTPC, but I get bored with it quickly and find the 360 offers a better experience, even thought he HTPC may give better graphics and whatever, Last time I just played some Trackmania simply to test out the 3D in Trackmania on the TV.

Since yo're talkign about the gaming experience. how about the experience that you can sit back, click on the controller and the gaming machine starts up.

Computer standby.

instantly putting you where you can launch you game.

Steam Big Picture mode.

It automatically gives you the best visuals you can get without need for tweaking and messing about.

nVidia's GeForce Experience.

Want to play music while you play, well that's also available, right there on your controller, no need to grab a keyboard to alt tab.

Most people wouldn't want to play music over a game but that option is available on PC with a wireless keyboard and mouse.

Friend lists and multiplayer, also on the controller.

Steam Big Picture.

Also same display doesn't always apply, unless you are willing to have a huge noisy gaming rig in your living room, or you have an expensive media center box, and/or probably live alone with no GF.

Computers can be as quiet as you like. At the extreme end, passive coolers and watercooling systems allow for less noise than consoles; with a regular budget you can create a system that makes very little noise, with "silent" fans and sound dampening. As for the last part, way to make baseless insinuations - my last girlfriend really enjoyed gaming with me on PC, using wireless X360 controllers and playing games through my 42" HDTV from my bed.

And you downplay how substantial the visual difference is. Even PC gaming on low settings isn't as bad as console performance. If people want to game at 720p or below at 30fps then that's fine but that's not acceptable to people who are used to what PC gaming can deliver. It's like recommending cassette tapes and earbuds to someone used to 24-bit audio with high-quality speakers - sure you can listen to music but you're not getting the best experience. It may be more convenient (in some respects) and cheaper but it's certainly not acceptable to those who have experienced better.

Computer standby.

Steam Big Picture mode.

nVidia's GeForce Experience.

Most people wouldn't want to play music over a game but that option is available on PC with a wireless keyboard and mouse.

Steam Big Picture.

Computers can be as quiet as you like. At the extreme end, passive coolers and watercooling systems allow for less noise than consoles; with a regular budget you can create a system that makes very little noise, with "silent" fans and sound dampening. As for the last part, way to make baseless insinuations - my last girlfriend really enjoyed gaming with me on PC, using wireless X360 controllers and playing games through my 42" HDTV from my bed.

And you downplay how substantial the visual difference is. Even PC gaming on low settings isn't as bad as console performance. If people want to game at 720p or below at 30fps then that's fine but that's not acceptable to people who are used to what PC gaming can deliver. It's like recommending cassette tapes and earbuds to someone used to 24-bit audio with high-quality speakers - sure you can listen to music but you're not getting the best experience. It may be more convenient (in some respects) and cheaper but it's certainly not acceptable to those who have experienced better.

Standby is not what I was talkign about, but anyway

Steam big picture mode, sure.. except you still need to start steam and all that.

yeah, GeForce experience, what about the 99.9% of games that are not supported by it, and the ~50% gamers who use AMD ?

Funny, Xbox has shown that people DO want to play their OWN music over a game instead of listening to a crappy soundtrack, so did the PS3 with all the complaining about how it didn't support this. Since the majority of games I play on my computer will be MMO's, I can tell I'll not be listening to their monotonous repetitive music for years on end, or even months or weeks. generally I have a movie or something going on while playing these though, or an audio book.

And what about the games that are not on steam big picture, oh and... wait a minute.. last I checked, getting the steam overlaye require keyboard shortcuts, NOT the xbox 360 controller.

sure computer can be as expensive... sorry quiet as you like. you can buy a nice looking HTPC case that you can actually put next to the TV and not look terrible, this one alone costs as much as a console, then you can buy another console worth of liquid coling for it(that's the cheaper and easier fully encapsulated ones... oops, need to cover the GPU to, then you pretty much need to build a more expensive custom set...

And seriously, there are MILLIONS of people used to PC gaming, who still game on PC. who still finds console gaming just as enjoyable and even better in many cases to that of PC gaming.

and you're highly over exaggerating the visual difference.

Steam big picture mode, sure.. except you still need to start steam and all that.

Steam starts with Windows and you can configure Big Picture mode to launch by default, turning your system into a gaming hub. Plus you have numerous additional features, like in-game screenshot functionality and game guides.

yeah, GeForce experience, what about the 99.9% of games that are not supported by it, and the ~50% gamers who use AMD ?

The vast majority of games auto-detect the appropriate resolution and graphical settings anyway. And at least with PC games if you get any slowdown you can simply upgrade your computer; if you get slowdown on console games?and that does happen?then there's nothing you can do about it.

Funny, Xbox has shown that people DO want to play their OWN music over a game instead of listening to a crappy soundtrack, so did the PS3 with all the complaining about how it didn't support this.

As I said, you can achieve the same thing on PC. But it's not directly related to the gaming experience and I've seen nothing to suggest it is used by anything more than a tiny minority of players.

And what about the games that are not on steam big picture, oh and... wait a minute.. last I checked, getting the steam overlaye require keyboard shortcuts, NOT the xbox 360 controller.

Steam Big Picture supports all games. Not all can be installed through it?support is still being added?but having to install games with mouse and keyboard is no more of an inconvenience than having to insert a game disc into the console.

and you're highly over exaggerating the visual difference.

:| Take a game like Black Ops 2 - it runs at 880x720 on X360 (lower on PS3), which amounts to 0.6m pixels; on the PC it can run at 2560x1600, which is 4.1m pixels. That means the X360 version is 15% the resolution of the PC version. Even the games that run at 720p do so at 30fps (half the framerate, possibly a quarter depending on the PC display) and their resolution is only 22% that of the PC. That's without factoring in the inferior performance, lower quality visuals, etc. The PC has?depending on the game?higher resolution textures, hardware tessellation, hardware accelerated physics, 3D-support, higher polygon counts, better anti-aliasing and more.

Reducing the resolution by 85%, halving the framerate and reducing visual fidelity is substantial - there really is no other way to put it. Especially when this discussion is about the next-gen consoles, which are going to be a huge improvement but won't even come close to PC level fidelity. If you're still not willing to accept that the PC has a substantial advantage then there really is nothing more I can say.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!