Missing the point
I've said this before, and I'll say it again...
Apple could bring out a phone that cost 2 grand, was technologically inferior to this - and it would still be more successful in terms of sales, and the perception people have of how good it is.
Why is this? Because it's based on PERCEPTION: How good (or bad) the technology is, is absolutely irrelevant to most people (in the big wide world, beyond The Reg).
So saying it makes an iPhone 7 look "a bit crap" is absolutely meaningless, as it won't even make a dint in Apples sales figures, which at the end of the day, is all they really give a shit about.
As an analogy - there is a PERCEPTION about Linux that it's for geeks only and it certainly isn't seen as "cool". There's no person Joe Public can name behind it, who they care about. So when people say all this stuff about wondering why it didn't quite get the market share and recognition they deserve...the answer is right in front of you. How you market stuff, the people behind it, leads to the perception - and that's ultimately all the success and how "good" something is seen in the big wide world comes down to.