Pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. If I did, apologies. It's not my place to tell anyone whether they should or should not desire more CPU performance.
My main point has been that you appear to be misunderstanding semiconductor economics. CPUs getting faster and cheaper is not some immutable law of nature. CPU speeds are fundamentally linked to semiconductor technologies, either directly in forms of higher frequencies and lower power consumption, or indirectly by it making manufacturing of larger CPUs economical. And those improvements aren't really happening anymore.
For example if you went back in time a year, you'd see ARM project that the A73 would get to 2.8GHz in a mobile phone power envelope. They were basing that on 10nm giving them a 15-20% frequency bump. Whoops, the reality turned out to be that the manufacturers don't seem able to clock it any higher with 10nm than 16nn.
No luck needed. If I marched into the store right now to buy a top end Android smartphone, the phones from the top 2 Android manufacturers would not be using a Snapdragon. Samsung's phones would be using Exynos 8895, Huawei's would be a Kirin 960. And guess what... The CPU performance of those SOCs be about the same speed as that of a Snapdragon 835.
Those numbers are basically irrelevant. What you're ignoring is that both Apple and Qualcomm have a similar silicon budget for the CPU. Apple has chosen to spend it on a 2+2 configuration, Qualcomm on a 4+4 configuration. Of course the first choice leads to better single core performance and worse multicore performance.
And this particular choice of core size is not unique to Qualcomm. It's one that's being made by everyone except Apple when it comes to the mobile phone space. We could say that all of these people are morons. But that would be a bit arrogant. Or we could accept that they're using actual market data to make these billion dollar decisions and all coming up with a certain answer, while we're just idly speculating.
Note: it's totally possible for the other manufacturers and Apple to be making decisions, and for both of them to be right. Apple is in a unique position. They sell a higher margin product to a captive audience, and they don't need to stretch a single CPU design to cover a wide range of phones. While e.g. the idea behind the A73 was that it'd be used in a quad-core configuration for high end phones, and dual-core configuration with an older process for the middle of the market.
It's almost as if the semiconductor process free ride was coming to an end...
Would you care to quantify that guess?
For example, in the other thread, you seemed to be over the moon about the A10x results. Anyone else looking at those results would have seen that they basically did nothing. No frequency bump compared to A10, despite having a tablet power envelope to work with. The only improvements they got were on memory-bound synthetics from doubling the memory bus width (but that translate to no performance gains on real-world CPU bound tasks), and a big gain on one sub-benchmark from increasing the cache by 2.5x. But for everything else, there were basically no improvements.
If you think the single-core performance changes between A10 and A10x were "knocking it out of the park", sure. I'll buy that they get results like that.