or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Alleged next-gen iPhone part shows aluminum back, smaller dock connector
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alleged next-gen iPhone part shows aluminum back, smaller dock connector - Page 4

post #121 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

LiquidMetal made with… FRICK, screw this memory. I know it. I KNOW it. One of the alloys is radio transparent to some frequencies. I know that others are transparent to different frequencies, but I only remember the name of the element for one of them… 

ZIRCONIUM! That's it.

Go back to the basics. Read Liquidmetal's web site - they actually do a pretty good job of describing it.

You can not have a liquidmetal product made from a single element. You need an alloy of different metals chosen in such a way the the different sizes of the metal atoms prevent crystallization. Zirconium can be one of the metals, but there must be others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I'm pretty sure that Zirconium is not liquid metal.  Two different things.  But Apple has a similar world-wide exclusive patent on it's use in any case. 

Zirconium is not liquid metal for the reasons given above. However, some liquidmetal alloys contain zirconium. In fact, I think the most common one contains a lot of zirconium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

They also have a patent on using both together because both can be moulded and neither shrinks appreciably when it cools.  So they could conceivably do a case that's all curvy and cool with some areas shiny liquid metal and other areas coloured crystal etc. This is one of the reasons I find this particular design to be dull as dishwater.  There is so much cool stuff they *could* do, but all they've done with this design (if it is theirs), is f*ck up the aspect ratio and reach for that old standard ... the "unibody" frame.  Yawn. 

The more I look at this design the more I think it's about making manufacturing and servicing easier, it has nothing to do with what the consumers really want or making it look cool or interesting. it looks like the Home button could be easier to replace for instance, and the top and bottom sections look to be easy to pop off and tinker with the insides. 

Exactly. The advantage of Liquidmetal products is that you can form them in near-net shape. Look at the speaker holes of the alleged prototype. To make that part out of a conventional metal, you need to drill each of those holes separately. With LM, you simply build them into the mold. Same with all the other fine features and ports. Even with LM material being somewhat more expensive than aluminum, the total cost for production might be much lower. This is exactly the kind of product that LM is suited for.

In addition, LM has stated that they have started commercial sales to several companies whose name they can not provide. Obviously, that doesn't prove anything, but it would be consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Thunderbolt needs Intel approval and they won't get that with an ARM device. There's no advantage to it on an iOS device anyway as the storage is too slow. Last but not least, the cables are very expensive. They wouldn't ship a $50 cable with every iPhone that only a fraction of the buyers could use.

First, Intel has already approved Apple's use of Thunderbolt. They don't need to approve every single application.

As for the cables, you don't think that the cost would come down if Apple purchased 100 million of them?

I don't think it's likely, either, but neither of your reasons is that compelling.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #122 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I'm not sure I buy this at all.  Given the timing, wouldn't right now be more the time when various prototypes are being created and far too soon for a finished product?  

 

Also, why replace the glass back (which admittedly can shatter sometimes), with an aluminium back that won't shatter, but will scratch far more easily?  It seems to me that there would be more complaints about the scratching than there would be incidences of shattered backs.  Even if you're going to do an aluminium back, why leave the glass bits at the top and bottom?  That's gives you the worst of both choices in that the glass bits could still shatter and the aluminium bits will still scratch.  It's also a bitch to join them up and creates two new seams where there (apparently) needn't be any at all.   

 

Also, why move the headphone jack to the bottom, and the speaker holes look both ugly and less efficient.  It really doesn't look very "Appley" to me at all.  

I don't know if this leak is legitimate, but all of those complaints can be explained pretty easily. Let's not forget, when people saw the iPhone 4 leak, they all exclaimed "look at those un-Apple-like seams!". Now it's considered a classic that will have served Apple for 2 generations. 

 

1) People pretty much accept scratches as incidental damage. When a glass back shatters, they go running to the nearest Apple Store. 

 

2) Aluminum blocks electromagnetic signals (AKA reception). That's why the original iPhone and 3G/4G iPads have plastic bands. 

 

3) Seams? Meh. All Apple products have seams, including the iPhone 4/S. From front to back, it's glass, steel, glass. Even the unibody MacBook has a removable bottom.

 

4) Moving the headphone jack to the bottom is quite logical - When held in the hand, the headphone wire leads directly to the user, rather than arcing up and bending back down. It also makes it easier to slip the phone into your pocket upside down, with the wire leading upwards and out of the pocket. Then when you remove it from your pocket, it's already facing you. The iPod Touch is designed like this.

Regarding the speaker grilles, I dunno if I like them either (I'd prefer tiny, MBP-style laser-perforated ones myself). But the effect is probably exaggerated since the body of the phone is empty and letting light through. The final product may very well have a fine speaker mesh underneath, or simply be blacked out.

post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

I think the phones will be announced when iOS 6 is ready for launch. Why would they announce a grand new iOS with lots of new features just to install on your old hardware? Apple want you running the latest software on the latest hardware, at least as far as their phones go.

Yep, that's been the pattern. iOS announced, beta released nearly immediately. iPhone announced 3 months later, along with iOS release date. iOS released, iPhone released 2-3 days later. iOS releases and iPhone releases are in sync within a half a week or so.

post #124 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

Does a device have to look dramatically different to improve? It's about the function first and foremost, isn't it?

 

 

No. It's much more important to have a radically new design so your friends will instantly know how cool you are. :)

post #125 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta 
First, Intel has already approved Apple's use of Thunderbolt. They don't need to approve every single application.

Of course they do, Sony couldn't implement it first according to the standard and then not and get away with it. Intel has to approve every implementation of Thunderbolt and certify it, otherwise it can't use the Thunderbolt brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta 
As for the cables, you don't think that the cost would come down if Apple purchased 100 million of them?

Why would they do that when not even 100 million people have a Thunderbolt port? It arrived Feb 2011 only on Apple computers. Apple sells 5 million Macs per quarter. That makes the upper bound on Thunderbolt port ownership 25 million people.

USB on the other hand, is owned by pretty much everyone that owns a computer.

The next iPhone will come with a USB cable for IO and only a USB cable.
post #126 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I'm pretty sure that Zirconium is not liquid metal.  Two different things.  But Apple has a similar world-wide exclusive patent on it's use in any case. 

 

They also have a patent on using both together because both can be moulded and neither shrinks appreciably when it cools.  So they could conceivably do a case that's all curvy and cool with some areas shiny liquid metal and other areas coloured crystal etc. This is one of the reasons I find this particular design to be dull as dishwater.  There is so much cool stuff they *could* do, but all they've done with this design (if it is theirs), is f*ck up the aspect ratio and reach for that old standard ... the "unibody" frame.  Yawn. 

 

The more I look at this design the more I think it's about making manufacturing and servicing easier, it has nothing to do with what the consumers really want or making it look cool or interesting. it looks like the Home button could be easier to replace for instance, and the top and bottom sections look to be easy to pop off and tinker with the insides. 

post #127 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Damn, looks like it might be real. It's not what I had in my head, but oh well, I'l buy one anyway.

If it's not fake that back is ugly.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #128 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

3) Seams? Meh. All Apple products have seams, including the iPhone 4/S. From front to back, it's glass, steel, glass. Even the unibody MacBook has a removable bottom.

Well, there was the Cube - and we all know how that turned out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Of course they do, Sony couldn't implement it first according to the standard and then not and get away with it. Intel has to approve every implementation of Thunderbolt and certify it, otherwise it can't use the Thunderbolt brand..

Care to provide a link to that? Everything I can find says that Apple has a license for any products they make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Why would they do that when not even 100 million people have a Thunderbolt port? It arrived Feb 2011 only on Apple computers. Apple sells 5 million Macs per quarter. That makes the upper bound on Thunderbolt port ownership 25 million people.
USB on the other hand, is owned by pretty much everyone that owns a computer.
The next iPhone will come with a USB cable for IO and only a USB cable.

OK, so 25 million cables will bring the price down if you want to be pedantic. But by the time the next iPhone comes out, the number will be much closer to 100 M considering more time for Mac sales plus some non-Apple systems that support Thunderbolt.

More importantly, much of the cost of the current Thunderbolt cables is in the electronics in the cable. It is entirely possible for Apple to put the electronics into the phone and make the cable a simple passive bundle of wires.

I already said that it is unlikely that Apple will offer only Thunderbolt. It is not, however, impossible for them to offer it as an option.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #129 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Care to provide a link to that? Everything I can find says that Apple has a license for any products they make.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/20/thunderbolt_trademark_rights_will_be_transferred_from_apple_to_intel.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #130 of 164

Some notes of interest using some crude Photoshop guestimating:

 

1) It looks like this case is about the same width as the iPhone 4S.

Using the headphone jack as a scale, the backplate is about 11.5 ports wide. Assuming they didn't radically redesign the headphone jack (5 mm diameter), this means that the backplate is about 58 mm wide. Nearly exactly the same as the 4S. If the new iPhone is any wider than the 4S, this backplate doesn't demonstrate it. 

 

2) The smaller port is also consistent with what we've been hearing about the "Micro Dock Connector". Using the same scale, the Micro Dock in this photo looks about 10 mm x 3.3 mm. This is a hair larger than Mini USB (about 3 mm x 7 mm).

 

3) As a previous commenter pointed out, the arrangement of the headphone jack (bottom left corner) is consistent with the supposed headphone/usb ribbon that came out awhile ago.

 

In short, it is pretty consistent with rumors we've been hearing. Same width, rearranged headphone, small dock connector. Either it's real, or a very elaborate, detailed hoax.

post #131 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

 

 

That right picture makes these leaks look quite authentic.  I prefer the speaker redesign in these leaks.  The current speaker grille collects dirt too easily.  Actually, I might like the headphone jack placement too... the cable might not dangle across the screen as much.

well said. +1

post #132 of 164

I honestly don't see how they can improve on the design aesthetics of the iPhone 4.  Like the current iMac, it's Apple's best work, and with all the time that's passed since these products have debuted, I have yet to see a more attractive product in either category.  

post #133 of 164

Sadly STILL no dedicated Direct Connect PTT button.  :(  

 

Android has it, I want it on iPhone!:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-127-sprint-direct-connecttheres-an-app-for-that/

 

After coming from an Nextel i90C to the iPhone in 2007 -- I STILL WANT DIRECT CONNECT FOR IPHONE!!!

post #134 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Sadly STILL no dedicated Direct Connect PTT button.  :(  

 

Android has it, I want it on iPhone!:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-127-sprint-direct-connecttheres-an-app-for-that/

 

After coming from an Nextel i90C to the iPhone in 2007 -- I STILL WANT DIRECT CONNECT FOR IPHONE!!!

 

The problem is they don't just make the phone for you and they don't just make the phone just for Americans either.  They make it for the whole world.  Quite a concept, eh?  :)

 

Maybe if you looked further than your own interests and your own country once in a while you'd realise this. 

post #135 of 164

Looks beautiful to me

post #136 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So does a Tesla S. What's your point? lol.gif

 

165665.png

Look at the dock connector holes for screws, how they align with the nuts in the frame

700  cable-120513.jpg

post #137 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So does a Tesla S. What's your point? lol.gif

 

165665.png

Look at the dock connector holes for screws, how they align with the nuts in the frame

700  cable-120513.jpg

post #138 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What other options? Isn't the dock connector cable USB on the other end anyway?

It also offers audio and video out, audio input with some docks and cords. It has Serial I/O too.
post #139 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Who Knows... but if the overall design does end up looking this (mildly) evolutionary, as in just an elongated version of the current theme, it'll just serve as further evidence that Apple's design team appears to have few truly new ideas on the horizon.

 

Or that the design team feels they have a design that doesn't need radical changes. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #140 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

People buy the iPhone and iPad because they have cutting edge design blended with leading edge technology.

 

Remove the annual or bi-annual design changes and you reduce the incentive for existing users to upgrade and you allow the competition to start putting out better looking devices.

 

Better looking maybe but better working. Maybe not. And you may be shocked to find out that some folks would rather have better working over looking when the look isn't total fugly. They don't need a major change up every year or two on the look if the working is always improving

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #141 of 164

Where does that say that Intel has to approve any products using Thunderbolt? It says that Intel will control the trademark, but doesn't say anything about Intel approving products.

Furthermore, Apple is already using the trademark. Where does that article say that Apple's license to the trademark doesn't allow them to release new products? Oh, it doesn't.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #142 of 164
The prototypes will be machined aluminum to simulate the finished form, as the LiquidMetal molds will be one of the most difficult, most expensive and certainly one of the last components to be finalized.
post #143 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop of Southwark View Post

 

Ok, we will have to wait and see.

 

[N.b. I do not rule out the socket also accepting a new proprietry connector that encapsulates a microUSB plug in its design.]

 

I will also through another one into the mix, HDMI type D connector, but I'd argue that is not at all likley. Indeed, if apple did go with a new custom design, it would almost certainly be something new called 'microDisplayPort' or something like that (to take this point full cirle), but my money goes for something incorporating microUSB *IF* they move from 30pin dock.

 

I think you are just reading the article incorrectly.  The one link you posted is from 2009 and doesn't actually say what you say it does anyway (that the micro USB has to be on the device end).  As Solipsism has already pointed out, it's about the chargers, not the cables and as long as the cable ends in a micro USB at the charger, it's compliant.  

 

Apple was also one of the first out of the gate to use a USB cable to attach to the charger instead of a proprietary hardwired charger.  

post #144 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post

The prototypes will be machined aluminum to simulate the finished form, as the LiquidMetal molds will be one of the most difficult, most expensive and certainly one of the last components to be finalized.

Just to expand on that.

Once the design is complete, a liquidmetal back won't be horrendously expensive. Given all the machining required to make the part from a solid block of aluminum (as shown in this 'prototype'), all the extra machining required might easily cost more than the added material cost for Liquidmetal, resulting for a lower part cost for LM, even though materials are higher.

The problem is that Liquidmetal components are made by a molding process. You have to produce a very expensive mold in order to make the parts. And not only is the mold expensive, but it often requires multiple iterations to get it just right. The fact that LM doesn't shrink much helps, but there will still likely be multiple iterations of the final mold - and these are very expensive. So you don't want to be designing or producing your mold until the component design is completely finalized - you need to know the location of every screw and every hole in order to do it right.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #145 of 164

These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #146 of 164
Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.
post #147 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorlightfoot View Post
Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.

 

They used chrome edges around the glass of a black iPhone.

post #148 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorlightfoot View Post

Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.


There are other reasons to be suspicious, this isn't one of them. I think you're misinterpreting the image, which is understandable if you only go on this sites's images. Linked in the story, see the fourth image:

http://www.engadget.com/photos/iphone-2012-back-plate-leak/#5051857

I don't see any black edges, except around the camera. The rest is just a property of shiny metal, making it look like there is black when the light is away from reflecting angle.
post #149 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.

 

Answer these honestly-

 

Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?

Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?

 

I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier.  I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think.  Some long phone might be worse- we'll see.  But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #150 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Answer these honestly-

Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?

I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier.  I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think.  Some long phone might be worse- we'll see.  But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.

I guess I have trouble understanding the focus on "ugly". Even if there were a universal standard, my phone sits in a belt case all the time except when I'm using it. And when I use it, the only thing I'm looking at is the screen - so the back wouldn't matter, anyway.

Isn't it interesting that the Apple haters accuse Mac fans of caring only about appearance, yet it's the haters who are so focused on the physical appearance of the phone?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #151 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Where does that say that Intel has to approve any products using Thunderbolt? It says that Intel will control the trademark, but doesn't say anything about Intel approving products.
Furthermore, Apple is already using the trademark. Where does that article say that Apple's license to the trademark doesn't allow them to release new products? Oh, it doesn't.

Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #152 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Answer these honestly-

Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?

I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier.  I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think.  Some long phone might be worse- we'll see.  But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.

The plastic backs got scratched too. I haven't seen the original model after it's been used for a couple years, but anodized aluminum is considerably more scratch resistant than most plastics.

Maybe you're thinking of the iPods with the scuff-prone shiny backs? Or did you mean it is a brush finish?

The general assumption I've seen was that the plastic back was done for cost reasons. I don't know if that's true or not. However, plastic parts are usually less expensive to make than metal. My 3G held up pretty well, but the back started looking bad before I upgraded it.
post #153 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.

What makes you think I hadn't read that?

It was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so there was no reason to bring it up.

To recap:

1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.

In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #154 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta 
To recap:

1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.

Intel certified Thunderbolt motherboard:

http://www.techpowerup.com/166399/ASUS-Launches-First-Intel-Thunderbolt-Certified-Motherboard.html

It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.

Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-dock-connector-to-support-displayport-usb-3-0-thunderbolt/

There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.
post #155 of 164
edit..

Edited by Gatorguy - 5/31/12 at 8:17am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #156 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.

Ah, the day wouldn't be complete without an insult from Jr... as usual. Now I can rest easy tonite. lol.gif

 

If you have some evidence that Intel is not responsible for certifying Thunderbolt components, since "that's not the way you understand it" please do share. Otherwise perhaps you have some other reason for thinking Intel as the rights holder wouldn't ultimately certify products using their technology and confirm the products meet all the specs? As Marvin mentioned it's common sense, at least for most of us. You can't have two different certification authorities with the possibility of having different views on the specifications. Either you didn't know/remember the rights were held by Intel, or there's something amiss in your reasoning IMO.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #157 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Intel certified Thunderbolt motherboard:
http://www.techpowerup.com/166399/ASUS-Launches-First-Intel-Thunderbolt-Certified-Motherboard.html
It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.
Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-dock-connector-to-support-displayport-usb-3-0-thunderbolt/
There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.

None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.

More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #158 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta 
None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.

More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.

I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.

Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.

One nice thing that could happen if they use standard mini USB3 is that they wouldn't need a camera kit any more. They might even be able to support USB pens using a cable.
post #159 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Why?

 

 

I'd rather have usable battery life. It's already too thin.

 

Well, why change the 1st gen, 3G/3GS iPhones? As technology improves, better ways can be found to design something. I don't mind the tapered edges at all- Steve Jobs had an obsession with making things small and thin and maintaining functionality and battery life. They can do it.

post #160 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.
Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.

Still waiting for you to show anything that says that Intel has to approve any Thunderbolt devices.

And there's also no evidence that it's impossible to make a Thunderbolt cable without processing chips. That's true for current devices, but there's no reason why they couldn't build the electronics into the device (and that's probably the way they'll go when they get to optical Thunderbolt, anyway). And, of course, the price of TB cables is huge now, but that doesn't mean it can't drop. If Apple were to release a TB-enabled iPhone which would require tens of millions of cables, the price would come down. Adding a $0.10 chip to the cable doesn't have to add a huge cost.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Alleged next-gen iPhone part shows aluminum back, smaller dock connector
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Alleged next-gen iPhone part shows aluminum back, smaller dock connector