Jon Stokes is well respected. What he says makes sense. Sometimes the articles here are a bit overblown, but the technical articles in Ars are also well respected. He's also saying that it looks as though it's true, but he's not saying it's 100% yet. I would tend to go with what he says unless shown differently.
We know it cost more than a few percent since buying PA Semi cost 28% just to play the game. I have no ida exactly how much it cost and clearly referred to the $1B a a rumour, but I also don't think it's impossible to have cost that much.
The cost to buy PA Risc should not be added into that cost. It's the cost to develop the chip itself that's being talked about. he original article was talking about any chip manufacturer. Even those with facilities. Please don't get into a semantics game.
There is no way it could have cost more than a fraction of that. Apple isn't developing a chip. They're modifying a well designed part. If Jon is right, the most they seem to have done with this first part was to cut out pieces, rather than to do much in the addition area.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
The cost to buy PA Risc should not be added into that cost. It's the cost to develop the chip itself that's being talked about. he original article was talking about any chip manufacturer. Even those with facilities. Please don't get into a semantics game.
There is no way it could have cost more than a fraction of that. Apple isn't developing a chip. They're modifying a well designed part. If Jon is right, the most they seem to have done with this first part was to cut out pieces, rather than to do much in the addition area.
We'll just have to see what was done.
PA Risc?
PA Semi.
PA RISC is HP's RISC processor family.
Secondly, you don't invest $1 Billion in R&D on legacy ARM CPUs.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
Unless you work for Apple you have no solid evidence that Apple intends to replace anything. In fact the iPad is a "companion device" meaning that it requires a host computer to sync to. You cannot buy an iPad and run in sans computer running OS X or Windows. So based on the information we have today the iPad is not going to suffice as a wholly separate product on its own island.
You keep infusing every iPad article with your FUD which is so poorly supported with actual fact or logical presumptio it's getting really old. You may be right, but right now the data out here doesn't support your hypothesis.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
I disagree on all parts.
? The iPad is not designed to replace a notebook running a desktop OS.
? They streamlined the MacBook lineup, they aren't phasing it out.
? They clearly priced the top of the line iPad lower than the MacBook.
? With the iPad starting at half the price of a MacBook they'd have to get the double the net profit of a MacBook to make profit.
? The iPad is designed and advertised as an accessory to a PC, not a replacement for it.
? Netbooks are their own worst enemy. They try to be multi-function pocket knife and while they might do well in a pinch or be fine for kids they are can't do any one thing very well. We'll likely see Chrome OS or Android OS with a new UI be common on future netbooks because of this.
Apple aren't talking about the inner workings of the A4 and they're not going to. Remember they're a platform company: they don't want you thinking about how the hidden inner workings of the iPad does or does not stack up to the competition, all they want you to think about is how great a time you're having using it! Will it feel fast enough? Does the battery last for as long as you need before recharging? Is the application experience a good one and does it meet your needs? Are you enjoying yourself? If the answer turns out to be yes to all those questions, then you're not going to care what's inside the iPad, and Apple will have done their job well.
That is disappointing if true. There is something fun about bragging rights, and I would really like to see their custom silicone kick butt over everything else, but it really doesn't matter - if the iPad does what it's supposed to do and does it well, who cares what CPU/GPU it has? I would say it's not as big of a deal what kind of processors special purpose devices have compared to general computing devices.
That is disappointing if true. There is something fun about bragging rights, and I would really like to see their custom silicone kick butt over everything else...
That's the thing, it doesn't mean it won't kick butt. They are using a custom chip with a custom OS designed for each other, which means the product could very well be faster than anything else on the market. The resulting product is the only thing that matters.
Remember that Apple hired two specialists, Mark Papermaster from IBM and Bob Drebin from AMD (I think). And that already back in 9/2008, Wei-Han Lien (Apple senior manager who came from PA Semi) had posted on LinkedIn that he was working on a new ARM chip for the next generation of iPhone (which could easily be also for this iPad).
I think it was Cook who also specifically pointed out last week that the key to better processing and better battery life was removing things that weren't needed in a customized SoC. So whether Apple started with an A8 or A9 might not be that important for this first iPad.
LOL, so you think there is going to be true multitasking when:
-the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices
-the iPad has to power a higher res display
-the iPad will introduce more powerful apps that will be more resource intensive
If that was your argument then you are making a lousy one. The 3GS is a meaningless argument. There will not be a situation where the iPhone will have multitasking and the iPad won't. Chances are it will 've some kind of gimped, widget based where certain kinds of apps can be run in the background without the full UI being launched.
But also note that the iPad has room for a much larger battery.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
You have to look at prices. Apple didn't phase out the MacBook line; it converted them into 13" MacBook Pros with better specs for the same prices.
Quote:
But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
An Apple netbook would not have been priced at $499. But regardless, we'll see if you're really smarter than Steve Jobs and his A-team of engineers and marketers.
He-he. A8/A9 dilemma has sure got nothing to do with the quality of Apple's product. Apple only states so far one thing: their processor is outstanding, when it comes to energy consumption. And we have no reasons to doubt what Apple says. We've equally got no right to judge whether they managed to reach that efficiency elegant.
But it's not the first time Ars is spreading suspicious speculations instead of exact information. It's Ars' credibility, which now looks questionable.
... the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices...
This is incorrect. Despite the fact that the OS running on the iPad and the OS running on the iPhone are both called iPhone OS, the version running on the iPad is a (likely non-strict) superset of the version running on the iPhone -- i.e., it includes the iPhone functionality as well as additional functionality not available on the iPhone.
This is incorrect. Despite the fact that the OS running on the iPad and the OS running on the iPhone are both called iPhone OS, the version running on the iPad is a (likely non-strict) superset of the version running on the iPhone -- i.e., it includes the iPhone functionality as well as additional functionality not available on the iPhone.
The fact that the iPad runs 3.2 is IMO due to an anticipated release in regard to iOS 4.0. I expect apple to run the exact same os on both the iPad and iPhone, but with different functionalities enabled for the iPad once this version will come out this summer, and hopefully announced later this month.
The fact that the iPad runs 3.2 is IMO due to an anticipated release in regard to iOS 4.0. I expect apple to run the exact same os on both the iPad and iPhone, but with different functionalities enabled for the iPad once this version will come out this summer, and hopefully announced later this month.
I don't think they will end up with to iOS lines.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
Well, I have no access to the SDK, but I believe that they found an temporary solution by writing iPhone OS 3.2 for the iPad, because they will add a lot of new features in iOS 4 (which will probably be rebranded to cover both iPad and iPhone OS), which could handle the difference between the two devices correctly.
If they wanted an OS of its own for the iPad, my guess is they would already have announced it, but I might be wrong about this.
[edit]
To sum it up, I think they had some timing issues between iOS 4.0 and the iPad, and the current situation is only a temporary solution. It's like the multitasking stuff: it seems weird that the iPad is limited like the iPhone, because it has clearly more screen real estate and horse power, and a different purpose. (I'm not sure that this last sentence really make sense ...)
Comments
Can we even trust Ars?
Apple didn't disclose anything.
Jon Stokes is well respected. What he says makes sense. Sometimes the articles here are a bit overblown, but the technical articles in Ars are also well respected. He's also saying that it looks as though it's true, but he's not saying it's 100% yet. I would tend to go with what he says unless shown differently.
We know it cost more than a few percent since buying PA Semi cost 28% just to play the game. I have no ida exactly how much it cost and clearly referred to the $1B a a rumour, but I also don't think it's impossible to have cost that much.
The cost to buy PA Risc should not be added into that cost. It's the cost to develop the chip itself that's being talked about. he original article was talking about any chip manufacturer. Even those with facilities. Please don't get into a semantics game.
There is no way it could have cost more than a fraction of that. Apple isn't developing a chip. They're modifying a well designed part. If Jon is right, the most they seem to have done with this first part was to cut out pieces, rather than to do much in the addition area.
We'll just have to see what was done.
Yeah. And if it appears to be Cortex-A9, I personally bother to make laughing bags out of trolls. And I can.
Right now, considering the thrust of the article, the trolls are the ones insisting that it's a Cortex A9, not the other way around.
Right now, considering the thrust of the article, the trolls are the ones insisting that it's a Cortex A9, not the other way around.
No, no. Trolls are trying to mess up as much nonsense as they can to divert the attention from few reasonable comments in the topic.
As for what A4 processor really is, it's reasonable to wait for some reliable evidence and trustful explanations from processor's maker.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
The cost to buy PA Risc should not be added into that cost. It's the cost to develop the chip itself that's being talked about. he original article was talking about any chip manufacturer. Even those with facilities. Please don't get into a semantics game.
There is no way it could have cost more than a fraction of that. Apple isn't developing a chip. They're modifying a well designed part. If Jon is right, the most they seem to have done with this first part was to cut out pieces, rather than to do much in the addition area.
We'll just have to see what was done.
PA Risc?
PA Semi.
PA RISC is HP's RISC processor family.
Secondly, you don't invest $1 Billion in R&D on legacy ARM CPUs.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
Unless you work for Apple you have no solid evidence that Apple intends to replace anything. In fact the iPad is a "companion device" meaning that it requires a host computer to sync to. You cannot buy an iPad and run in sans computer running OS X or Windows. So based on the information we have today the iPad is not going to suffice as a wholly separate product on its own island.
You keep infusing every iPad article with your FUD which is so poorly supported with actual fact or logical presumptio it's getting really old. You may be right, but right now the data out here doesn't support your hypothesis.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
The iPad has a lower barrier to entry than the $999 MacBook, also the accessories are optional.
Because the price is lower, it's going to sell more and thus should gain rapid adoption. But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
I disagree on all parts.
That is disappointing if true. There is something fun about bragging rights, and I would really like to see their custom silicone kick butt over everything else...
That's the thing, it doesn't mean it won't kick butt. They are using a custom chip with a custom OS designed for each other, which means the product could very well be faster than anything else on the market. The resulting product is the only thing that matters.
I think it was Cook who also specifically pointed out last week that the key to better processing and better battery life was removing things that weren't needed in a customized SoC. So whether Apple started with an A8 or A9 might not be that important for this first iPad.
LOL, so you think there is going to be true multitasking when:
-the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices
-the iPad has to power a higher res display
-the iPad will introduce more powerful apps that will be more resource intensive
If that was your argument then you are making a lousy one. The 3GS is a meaningless argument. There will not be a situation where the iPhone will have multitasking and the iPad won't. Chances are it will 've some kind of gimped, widget based where certain kinds of apps can be run in the background without the full UI being launched.
But also note that the iPad has room for a much larger battery.
If Apple didn't intend to replace the MacBook line with iPads, they wouldn't have phased out all the successfully selling MacBooks over the last year and just leave one.
You have to look at prices. Apple didn't phase out the MacBook line; it converted them into 13" MacBook Pros with better specs for the same prices.
But it won't beat a netbook, which is what Apple should have produced.
An Apple netbook would not have been priced at $499. But regardless, we'll see if you're really smarter than Steve Jobs and his A-team of engineers and marketers.
But it's not the first time Ars is spreading suspicious speculations instead of exact information. It's Ars' credibility, which now looks questionable.
... the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices...
This is incorrect. Despite the fact that the OS running on the iPad and the OS running on the iPhone are both called iPhone OS, the version running on the iPad is a (likely non-strict) superset of the version running on the iPhone -- i.e., it includes the iPhone functionality as well as additional functionality not available on the iPhone.
This is incorrect. Despite the fact that the OS running on the iPad and the OS running on the iPhone are both called iPhone OS, the version running on the iPad is a (likely non-strict) superset of the version running on the iPhone -- i.e., it includes the iPhone functionality as well as additional functionality not available on the iPhone.
The fact that the iPad runs 3.2 is IMO due to an anticipated release in regard to iOS 4.0. I expect apple to run the exact same os on both the iPad and iPhone, but with different functionalities enabled for the iPad once this version will come out this summer, and hopefully announced later this month.
I don't think they will end up with to iOS lines.
The fact that the iPad runs 3.2 is IMO due to an anticipated release in regard to iOS 4.0. I expect apple to run the exact same os on both the iPad and iPhone, but with different functionalities enabled for the iPad once this version will come out this summer, and hopefully announced later this month.
I don't think they will end up with to iOS lines.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
Well, I have no access to the SDK, but I believe that they found an temporary solution by writing iPhone OS 3.2 for the iPad, because they will add a lot of new features in iOS 4 (which will probably be rebranded to cover both iPad and iPhone OS), which could handle the difference between the two devices correctly.
If they wanted an OS of its own for the iPad, my guess is they would already have announced it, but I might be wrong about this.
[edit]
To sum it up, I think they had some timing issues between iOS 4.0 and the iPad, and the current situation is only a temporary solution. It's like the multitasking stuff: it seems weird that the iPad is limited like the iPhone, because it has clearly more screen real estate and horse power, and a different purpose. (I'm not sure that this last sentence really make sense ...)
[/edit]