or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's iPhone 5 a GSM-CDMA world phone, iPad 2 to have SD card slot - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone 5 a GSM-CDMA world phone, iPad 2 to have SD card slot - report - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The iPad is already more of a computer than a, "giant iPod Touch." Anyone who thinks of the iPad as a giant iPod Touch either a) hasn't used an iPad for any significant time, or b) is hung up on the superficiality of the fact that they both operate on touch input and unable to see anything beyond that.

Not used an iPad? Hung up on superficiality? kotatsu? No way.
post #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Maybe he means non-crippled USB.

I am sure he knows how to read and type.
post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

The Cortex A5 opens another possible direction for iPhones.

Cortex A5 does put a wrinkle into the metal work.

You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Then, that's the story, isn't it? The earth just moved!

I appreciate all the points you raise below -- and the knowledge and reasoning that support them.

My point is that Apple is in a singular position to do this -- risks, costs, qualifications/limitations be damned!

I am betting that Apple will do it!

What..?
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),

All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.

Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.

BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.

There are some articles of Nokia and other making deals with Qualcomm that netted them billions in lump sum payout and a presumed renegotiated licensing fee. I have no idea what that actually means. For all we know those lump sum payouts were negotiations to keep them from going to court because they were violating Qualcomms patents.

There really isnt enough information to make an educated guess, we only have historical moves by vendors. Most notably, as youve pointed out, that world mode phones simply arent common.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #86 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?

Maybe a less expensive iPhone, iPod Touch or intelligent universal remote control.

Really inexpensive, really low-power.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #87 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Maybe a less expensive iPhone, iPod Touch or intelligent universal remote control.

Really inexpensive, really low-power.

Anything running iOS Id expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I dont think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasnt able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.

That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.

Also, I cant recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today Id say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.


As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

What..?
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),

All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.

Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.

BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.

I didn't explain myself well!

As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans


As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.

Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.

To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.

This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #89 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I didn't explain myself well!

As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans

The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. Id expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.

Quote:
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.

Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.

Weve been over this. They CAN, but that doesnt mean its the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).

They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.

Even the crippled and erroneously named world mode phones from other carriers are not common. Thats a huge clue.

Quote:
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.

In most countries, it does not. In North America it would providing its also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws dont prevent it.

I understand why you want this. Id like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.

Quote:
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.

But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesnt plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?

its easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesnt RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.

If its 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apples net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. Thats a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and thats before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.


Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomms roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. Im certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4024/q...ce-improvement
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #90 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Anything running iOS Id expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I dont think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasnt able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.

That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.

Also, I cant recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today Id say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.


As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.

Good reasoning.

IDK anything about the OS on the iPod Nano.

But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.

Anyone know?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

This is an insane business decision. Talking to a dentist friend of mine in the pub.

he: can I connect a video camera to do dentistry.
me: No. The camera needs an SD card which you can add to the reader, or you can connect a static camera which will launch some app to install the pictures.

Doctors and dentists use this fibre optic cameras to connect to monitors which show them what the camera is seeing. That would so much cheaper on an iPad that everybody would do it. They could take a snapshot and annotate the snapshot and then store it in a local intranet, or email it, or keep it on the iPad.

There are so many things that could be done with an iPad which gave people access to some accessories. That decision is insane. If they dont add a standard USB cable to it this year, or just update next year, Android tablets will take this space

And I am sure the sales to dentists will completely overshadow the millions of iPads already sold.
The point being, Apple first shoots for the 80% (or maybe even 60%) solution, ie, implement what attracts 80% of potential buyers. Focus on a good implementation to get as many of this 80% population as buyers. Then iterate and add more features to attract additional use cases.
post #92 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.

In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.

In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.
post #93 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Good reasoning.

IDK anything about the OS on the iPod Nano.

But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.

Anyone know?

According to Ericas Sadun its Pixo OS with a UI built by Apple. That makes a lot of sense.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/09/08/hands...eals-hints-of/ According to Wikipedia the CPU appears to be a Samsung APL3278A01 SoC. I cant find the MHz, but its definitely not (ARMv7) Cortex and definitely not fast enough for iOS using the (ARMv6) ARM11 at 400MHz of the first iPhone as a bare minimum.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

No one, to my knowledge is complaining about the resolution of the current iPad. So the big question in regards to a super-high-resolution screen on an iPad would be - WHY?

Even on the iPhone and Touch such technology is rather gimmicky. It sounds impressive. It's a great marketing tool. But really, if the resolution on those screens was somewhat lower, who would have noticed?

By the way, who wants valuable memory chewed up by content designed for such ultra-high resolution, not to mention computing power, battery life, bandwidth, and so on and so on. If the content isn't super-high resolution, what's the point?

(my specialty is vision, so I may have a few points related to how my patients and I report using the devices): The resolution of the iPhone 4 is a GAME CHANGER. Most people who surf the web on phones hold the phone very close (especially near-sighted folks, who just remove their glasses, and hold the phone nearer than, or at, their "farpoint" of focus (related to their myopic magnitude). The average myope, regardless of age, probably holds the phone at less than 33 cm away, and many, like myself, hold it much closer. Those who own the older 3G and 3GS almost always have to pinch or poke the screen to get it up to large size to read it - not so on the iPhone 4, which allows you to see the pages without bothering to zoom in. The resolution is so much better that it is much easier to read on the iPhone 4 -while I disliked the term "retina" display, I know where they were coming from, and Apple has coined a term anyone who knows Apple can instantly relate to - a screen resolution that, NO MATTER HOW CLOSE YOU HOLD IT, is like reading from high quality, glossy, magazine paper. This screen is worth the price of admission, in my opinion.

Since the iPad may not be held as closely as a phone, it is not as critical to have the same pixel density as the iPhone 4, but I would bet that it will get much better in future iPads, and make video watching much easier.

All these attempts at higher density and brighter displays translate to better imaging, and less visual fatigue. The biggest drawback to any viewing experience is what's called "veiling glare" which can come from any light source in the simultaneous viewing area, or from glare off the screen itself from sources to the side and back.

The screen of the iPad obviously needs to be improved in this area, and non-glare screens are already evident in other products - this would be my first order of improvement of the ipad, along with weight. Other additions are welcome, but to me, secondary to the above.

(and, by the way, I know we may never get that 7inch iPad, most of my pilot friends and I would love one, for the specific task of having it up front on the yoke, rather than what folks have to do now, which is mount it to the side or on the knee - not ideal for instrument approach flying). Also, the iPad heats up too much in the cockpit, and shuts down frequently - NOT OK at all, if you plan on using it for primary, critical, flight information. Sigh - listening Steve? \
post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.

In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.

At least that is something. Maybe well get to a point in our lifetimes where global calling is as inexpensive as calling someone down the road.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #96 of 118
This report didnt mention NFC, there will be NFC.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.


We’ve been over this. They CAN, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).

They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.

Even the crippled and erroneously named “world mode” phones from other carriers are not common. That’s a huge clue.


In most countries, it does not. In North America it would… providing it’s also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws don’t prevent it.

I understand why you want this. I’d like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.


But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesn’t plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?

it’s easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesn’t RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.

If it’s 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apple’s net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. That’s a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and that’s before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.


Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomm’s roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. I’m certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4024/q...ce-improvement

I have seen. That roadmap!

I think that with hundreds of millions of units in play, Apple could offer to buy:
-- 10 million @ $5.00 each.
-- Prepay for 100 million @ $0.50 each.

An unstated objective for Apple might be to offer/sell an unlocked, carrier-neutral iPhone in every market -- a single SKU for each storage option.

If Apple could do this then they would be the only mfgr (for a period of time) who offers a "buy anywhere use anywhere" smartphone.

There are lots of user scenarios:

-- You live in a good ATT Area, but often travel to. SF or NY - you buy unlocked and PayGo or roam.

-- You live in an. Area good for VZ, but travel to Europe - you buy VZ plan and PayGo or roam when in Europe.

-- You live in an area with good coverage from all the carriers. - you shop the carriers for the best plan, optionally including subsidy from carrier. You don't travel much - but you know you could, with no loss of service or penalty.


The thing about this (and it may take a few years) it doesn't require the consumer or the phone manufacturer beholden to the carriers. The carriers are reduced to what the should be: a regulated utility providing access and bandwidth.

Gotta' go soon -- my Stealers need me!



It worked!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Eventually the iPad will be able to print on any wireless printer, handle cameras and SD cards, probably connect to a midi device ( for Garage Band). It will do what the Air does but in a tablet fashion.

http://line6.com/midimobilizer/

It's been able to for awhile now
post #99 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

, and... there's an SD slot. That's right -- our sources say with near certainty that the device will have a dedicated SD slot built in (with no traditional USB slot)."



Sneakernet!! Can they patent it?
post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

http://line6.com/midimobilizer/

It's been able to for awhile now

Not quite a standard interface, but fair enough.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?

I'm not saying it will happen just that it might be an interesting path for Apple to follow. Plus we have the rumor about the split of the development teams at Apple.

As to Cortex A5 it can easily be implemented as a low cost SMP with multiple cores. This could lead to an iPhone with very good performance with a long battery life. My biggest fear with respect to A9 is power draw in a pocketable device. That of course depends upon the process tech and Apples power reduction skills. Beyond that iPhone 4 doesn't suffer performance issues the way iPad does.

In a nut shell IPad needs a different class of processor. I'm not convinced that Cortex A5 can replace Apples hopped up Cortex A8 but if it can it ought to a very low power implementation. It is an interesting thought exercise.
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Not quite a standard interface, but fair enough.

Yeah lots of apps are already building in support for it. Oh here is another new toy to do that

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2011/...idi-interface/
post #103 of 118
To all technocrats out there,

I just wanted to make few points about future design of IPAD and Iphone-5.
Here is one more for curious non-techies who love Apple-

Try Kickstarter.com and look at( search for) TIKTOK-Lunatik, Padpivot, Dockem, Glif, ultimate one, Mixar.

I promise you will love it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #104 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Anything running iOS Id expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I dont think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasnt able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.

Obviosly not all of A8 but A5 should be able to run at a much higher clock tha ARM11 machines and be thrifty with power. If they can hit 800MHz or even 1Ghz in a dual or quad core implementation it would be a very nice platform for handhelds. One must remember that there have been several node shrinks since ARM 11 processors came out.
Quote:
That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.

This is true. A Cortex A9 in an iPhone is pretty much a question of power usage. The problem is it is hard for any one processor to do everything well. In otherwords what is good in the iPad may not be optimal in a cell phone.
Quote:
Also, I cant recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today Id say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.

That would be the minimal acceptable in an iPad.
Quote:

As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.

The universal remote likely uses an 8 bit CPU or one of the embedded ARM chips. it really doesn't take much to do a remote.
post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not saying it will happen just that it might be an interesting path for Apple to follow. Plus we have the rumor about the split of the development teams at Apple.

As to Cortex A5 it can easily be implemented as a low cost SMP with multiple cores. This could lead to an iPhone with very good performance with a long battery life. My biggest fear with respect to A9 is power draw in a pocketable device. That of course depends upon the process tech and Apples power reduction skills. Beyond that iPhone 4 doesn't suffer performance issues the way iPad does.

In a nut shell IPad needs a different class of processor. I'm not convinced that Cortex A5 can replace Apples hopped up Cortex A8 but if it can it ought to a very low power implementation. It is an interesting thought exercise.

I've read that a coretex A9 running 1 core is more power efficient than a comparable A8.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #106 of 118
The problem is ARM often specifies power per core so that when another is added you end up using more power. So even if this is correct for a given process, if Apple goes dual core we might end up using more power. I don't have numbers in front of me but I seem to remember numbers of around 600 milliwatts for the A9 core.

The thing here is that it is almost a given that these numbers won't apple to Apples SoC. For one thing a process shrink is likely. Second they will likely continue to use Intrisities Fast logic, possible over the whole chip. So it is really hard to estimate where Apple will be power wise, especially if you throw in PA Semis abilities. Plus Apple does have the option of running a slower clock on the iPhone.

I can see both sides of the discussion here, my problem is that in the long run I suspect that it will make a lot of sense to have a chip tailored to iPad like tablets and one more suitable for pocketable devices. By doing so Apple can optimize for the platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I've read that a coretex A9 running 1 core is more power efficient than a comparable A8.

The question is this if Apples A9 based SoC can hit 2GHz do they really need to implement that in a phone? I know some here will do back flips while saying yes yes yes, but others would be very concerned about battery life. I'm in the battery life camp myself. That is as long as they can continue to modestly improve iPhones performance. The thing is iPAD needs much more than a modest improvement.

The big bummer here is that we have to wait to April if the most recent rumors are true. I'm still hoping I can milk my iPhone 3Gs battery until iPhone 5 comes out.
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

I think people would feel a little ripped off too. It's dangerous of them to get in the habit of obsoleting cellular customers after 1 year. iPod nanos? Sure! Those cost $150 flat. Cell phones cost $2000 or more for the contract, I don't think its a good idea to piss people off when they're paying through the nose.

Prior iPhones would not be obsolete. I still use a 3G iphone...it works perfectly. The new ones are a bit faster and have some features that I don't have, but I don't consider it be obsolete. Whether you have an old phone or a new one, you're paying the same monthly fee for the contract. I skipped the 3GS because my contract wasn't up yet and I skipped the 4 initially because of the perceived problems and later because I thought I might switch to Verizon, but now that AT&T has improved my service and since you can't do voice & data concurrently on Verizon and the fact that they're supposedly eliminating the "new every 2" program, I'm sticking with AT&T anyway.

Furthermore, there's no reason to dump a CDMA-only or GSM-only iPhone to get a CDMA+GSM cell phone unless you plan to switch carriers often, which is near impossible unless you're willing to pay cancelation fees or unless you constantly travel around the world, in which case it would probably be worth it to you.

And in any case, there's nothing wrong and everything great with Apple redesigning the iPhone for the 5th gen release. I'm not sure I believe the rumor, but if it's true...great. I'd love to see Apple stay ahead of everyone else and continuing to push the bar of greatness.

So if Apple comes out with an iPhone 5 that's great, that's no reason for anyone to get pissed. Those who do are simply spoiled and immature. Do you get pissed when car manufacturers come out with new models every year?
post #108 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The problem is ARM often specifies power per core so that when another is added you end up using more power. So even if this is correct for a given process, if Apple goes dual core we might end up using more power. I don't have numbers in front of me but I seem to remember numbers of around 600 milliwatts for the A9 core.

The thing here is that it is almost a given that these numbers won't apple to Apples SoC. For one thing a process shrink is likely. Second they will likely continue to use Intrisities Fast logic, possible over the whole chip. So it is really hard to estimate where Apple will be power wise, especially if you throw in PA Semis abilities. Plus Apple does have the option of running a slower clock on the iPhone.

I can see both sides of the discussion here, my problem is that in the long run I suspect that it will make a lot of sense to have a chip tailored to iPad like tablets and one more suitable for pocketable devices. By doing so Apple can optimize for the platform.

The question is this if Apples A9 based SoC can hit 2GHz do they really need to implement that in a phone? I know some here will do back flips while saying yes yes yes, but others would be very concerned about battery life. I'm in the battery life camp myself. That is as long as they can continue to modestly improve iPhones performance. The thing is iPAD needs much more than a modest improvement.

The big bummer here is that we have to wait to April if the most recent rumors are true. I'm still hoping I can milk my iPhone 3Gs battery until iPhone 5 comes out.


I agree on both counts.

The iPhone needs a little more robust notifications, slightly expanded (but restricted) multitasking... But better battery and network speed are the bigest issues.

iMovie on the iPhone is more than I want to do -- because of screen size limitations.

For the iPad, I want all the processing power (CPU, GPU, RAM) that I can get without sacrificing battery -- or at least the choice to tradeoff power vs battery.

I can see doing an iMovie and h.264 encode on the iPad.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Well the Verizon iPhone rumors just stopped... just in time for the iPhone 5 rumors to spin out of control.
I wonder how much business the rumors of a new iPhone world phone (set for release in June) will cost Verizon?

No, The Verizon iPhone Rumors have spun out of control lately. Even Apple & Verizon are feeding this rumor by announcing such a product! When will it end?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple doesn't change the Mac external designs around too much currently because it hasn't had to do so.

I think its more to with SJ having lost interest in the Mac now the iPhone and iPad have proved a hit.

Sad but thats how it seems to me.\
post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree on both counts.

The iPhone needs a little more robust notifications, slightly expanded (but restricted) multitasking... But better battery and network speed are the bigest issues.

iMovie on the iPhone is more than I want to do -- because of screen size limitations.

For the iPad, I want all the processing power (CPU, GPU, RAM) that I can get without sacrificing battery -- or at least the choice to tradeoff power vs battery.

I can see doing an iMovie and h.264 encode on the iPad.

Careful for what you wish for. This line of thought leads to "I want an iPad with all the processing power & storage of a MacBook" so I can do XYZ. Next thing you'll say is, "wouldn't it be nice to have a physical keyboard," and then Apple will put one on the iPad so that it looks like a notebook, and pretty soon, you'll have a notebook running iOS instead of Mac OS X.

We've already gone down this road (or are going down this road) with Netbooks: first they start out as cheap underpowered notebooks with tiny screens and keyboards, and in the interest of progress and competition, Netbooks become more powerful and flexible, and growing in size, weight, and cost, until you're back to notebooks.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

No, The Verizon iPhone Rumors have spun out of control lately. Even Apple & Verizon are feeding this rumor by announcing such a product! When will it end?



REMEMBER ME?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #113 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckdutter View Post

It makes no sense that Apple would mass produce a CDMA version of the iPhone 4 running CDMA only if they are planning on releasing the iPhone 5 with a GSM/CDMA chip in it. Why would they not wait the extra 4 months and release one unified product? That seems like it would be much more Apple's style.


My Guess is that there may be a June phone announcement but due to delays, unsold volumes of iPhone 4s they want to celar out or any number number of other reasons, the phone may not actually ship until September or later. It was probably better to get a Verizon phone out now than to miss most of the year and lose the CDMA crowd to Android or RIM. I still feel we will get a modest 4s upgrade before we see the 5. Maybe the same form factor as the verizon version but a world phone with a speed bump and more storage. If that were the case a 4s would probably be all I'd need for a few years unless some new killer app came out that required more storage or speed or some yet unreleased magic feature. 4G/LTE/WiMAX is not ubiquitous enough yet to warrant me holding out for it.
post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



REMEMBER ME?

NOOOO!!! When will it end? OMG make the innovations stop!

(Cool pic. Can you 'shop the phone icon onto an iPod Nano screen?)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #115 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson View Post

My Guess is that there may be a June phone announcement but due to delays, unsold volumes of iPhone 4s they want to celar out or any number number of other reasons, the phone may not actually ship until September or later. It was probably better to get a Verizon phone out now than to miss most of the year and lose the CDMA crowd to Android or RIM. I still feel we will get a modest 4s upgrade before we see the 5. Maybe the same form factor as the verizon version but a world phone with a speed bump and more storage. If that were the case a 4s would probably be all I'd need for a few years unless some new killer app came out that required more storage or speed or some yet unreleased magic feature. 4G/LTE/WiMAX is not ubiquitous enough yet to warrant me holding out for it.

Honestly, people need to stop getting upset for the poor people who cant upgrade because they are in contracts in June. I was in a 3GS contract last June and didnt get the iPhone 4. I will get the iPhone 5. And I like shiny new gadgets. All that has happened here is something that happens every quarter since the launch of the iPhone - it moved onto a new carrier. This time the carrier is in the US, and this time the phone gets a new chip, but thats it. No real story.

The new iPhone (4s or 5) will have greater speed, more ram, a NFC chip ( most likely), a dual core processor making it the same jump - or better - as from the 3G to the 3GS. Which was a large jump.

However it will probably look more or less the same. It will probably be released in June. Verizon customers will be a tiny percentage of the iPhone installed base, why wait for them to be in a better position re: upgrades and what about the poeple who buy in June if it releases in September.?
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

There are lots of user scenarios:

-- You live in a good ATT Area, but often travel to. SF or NY - you buy unlocked and PayGo or roam.

CDMA does not work like that. You can not simply pop in a SIM or self provision the phone for whatever network you want to be on. Go take a Verizon phone and activate it on Sprint, well, try to at least, then report back how that worked for you.

Combining CDMA and GSM helps people on a CDMA network who want to travel. It does nothing for someone on a GSM network since the only way to use a foreign CDMA network would be through a roaming contract ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) through your home GSM provider. It will always be cheaper and easier to pop in a local GSM sim and pay competitive rates rather than roaming rates or paying a foreign provider to provision your CDMA phone for a brief visit.
post #117 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Is there an option 3 that simply allows Apple to change / tweak designs for the sake of evolution?

What is the purpose of evolution, if not to improve? Are you suggesting that Apple should just change things around for no reason?
post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by railstop View Post

"Apple this year plans to release a completely redesigned dual GSM-CDMA iPhone" - Don't think so. A complete redesign on the scale they want couldn't happen. Retooling itself would take more time than the time it took them to redesign a CDMA board to fit the iPhone 4. The cost involved in a retool right now would raise the cost of the next gen more than anyone could afford.

They've managed to retool for the nanos every year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's iPhone 5 a GSM-CDMA world phone, iPad 2 to have SD card slot - report