or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wizard69

You are somewhat right here.They don't and that can be a problem. However I doubt Apple has the big problems moving between process that people imagine. It would be a big deal for a smaller company but I would imagine that Apple has at least two possible as many as four teams working on processor design. These teams are focused on processor release at various times into the future, targeting processes expected to be up and running by then.In this industry you don't...
Thor second source for Samsung is Global Foundries. TSMC provides an alternate manufacturing process that wouldn't be considered a second source.
I don't buy that either. The Texas plant was/is a partnership with Apple. It was built to supply Apple and has been expanded to keep up with Apples demands. Samsung is huge no doubt there but even Samsung didn't have the capacity to meet Apples needs.This capacity need is why nobody should be surprised about Samsungs relationship with Global Foundries. Part of that deal is to help them deal with excess demand from Apple. Apples demand has had Samsungs plants running...
Beyond that just because Samsung has a viable process that they can demonstrate doesn't imply that that their factories are ready. I suspect that activity at Samsungs plants has not curtailed but is rather focused on conversion to 14 nm. People here seem to be under the impression that one flips a switch and the old factory starts to crank out new product on a smaller process. This isn't true as there is often significant rebuilding of the lines required.If you...
Every week there is a different report with respect to skylake. The latest I heard was Skylake in 2016. I honestly don't think Intel knows what it is going to do.It isn't unreasonable to think that Apple went with TSMC to allow Samsung and Global foundries to convert their factories to 14 nm. There is a massive push going on to get 14 nm out the door by these two. For these companies you either build a new plant or retro fit an old one.There are many possibilities...
I suspect that we will see more models before we see dramatically new internals. A watch with a round display comes to mind.
The thing I see here is that if the watch launches with 14 nm tech it will take a couple of years until a new process exists to give the hardware meaningful improvements.I actually see the big potential for an update to be new battery technology. By far it is what limits the watch can do.I don't see this happening.
That is pretty much the point, it's inky 1.2 billion. There are literally thousands of watch models on the market making up that 1.2 billion. Most of those sales are of fairly cheap watches. Considering this I would see ten million in first year sales as an excellent result.
I can't argue with what you have said above.However here I have a different opinion. First I see all sorts of innovation in this Watch. Honestly I don't know how you can dismiss the positives so quiickly. As for the things you rightly point out as problematic, the functionality & battery leife especially, those can improve with time. Unfortunately I don't see a huge improvement coming in 2015 after the first release. I could see the watch going 2-3 years before...
I really doubt that Apple has even thought about this. I'm expecting two thing to happen that Apple users might not be accustomed too. One is that there will be long waits between each iWatch revision. Two is that when a revision does come it will be a big overhaul.I'm not sure why people think Apple would have policies any different than any other watch maker. You buy a watch it is yours. You want a new one shell out the cash.
New Posts  All Forums: