Yeah, I guess you are right there. But the other hand, the time for a car to go from launching the idea to the car at the dealer is 18 months ... Sounds weird that it should be about the same time for a phone.
Not even close. Production time from concept to dealer floor is more like 4 years for cars. Of course, that doesn't tell you anything about how long it takes for phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's obviously designed to do much more than the iPhone/Touch is. Don't agree with Apple when they make bad decisions.
All we have is YOUR opinion that Apple made a bad decision with no evidence to back it up. So who is more likely to know how an unreleased iPhone performs - Apple or you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available. Apple obviously decided to do this to save some money, likely the same reason why there's no camera yet.
What compromises? There aren't any, technologically.
I gave you three issues - and you chose to ignore them.
1. Availability. We don't even know for sure if 512 MB is possible in the format (part of the A4 package) Apple has chosen.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
Then, of course, there's the non-technical reason - cost.
What evidence do you have that increasing the RAM would provide enough advantage to offset those disadvantages? Since my iPad already responds instantaneously to my commands, it's not clear that there would be ANY benefit to counter all those disadvantages, much less sufficient benefit to justify the change.
Once again, do you think Apple is stupid? Do you think that it never occurred to them to consider 512 MB of RAM? They just arbitrarily picked 256 MB and stuck it in there without any tests or evaluation? That's the only logical conclusion from your insistence that not adding more RAM was a mistake - that you know more about this than Apple and somehow know all the costs and tradeoffs. That is, of course, patently absurd.
Really? That's such a minor thing. I hardly notice it.
Absolutely! I post many replies from my iPhone to various forums. They often require me to have to grab a link or image as "proof" or simply do a little research to make sure I have the details accurate. if i lose everything i am writing when I switch pages then I get really annoyed. Having to Select All and then Copy every time i wish to switch a page or leave Safari is too much rigmarole for my tastes.
I hear Atomic browser doesn't do this, and it has tabs, not pages. I may get an iPad 3G after the G4 iPhone, but I may just wait until the iPad OS gets updated. While I hate the low RAM and wonder how it will deal with v4.0's multitasking, this does seem to be a Safari issue.
Not even close. Production time from concept to dealer floor is more like 4 years for cars. Of course, that doesn't tell you anything about how long it takes for phones.
I am not working in that industry, but some people familiar with it have told me these things. I guess it depends on the model and where you live (US or EU), but it appears 18 months is the time frame for the faster projects. Could also be that I misunderstood what he meant and that the guy only spoke about a part of the process. I think he meant time to market though, which to me means concept to dealer.
Now who was saying Apple should use AMOLED on the iPhone? If the HTC Droid can't sell enough on one carrier I have to one wonder how the iPhone could possibly get the 30 million(?) they need to cover their needs.
I am not working in that industry, but some people familiar with it have told me these things. I guess it depends on the model and where you live (US or EU), but it appears 18 months is the time frame for the faster projects. Could also be that I misunderstood what he meant and that the guy only spoke about a part of the process. I think he meant time to market though, which to me means concept to dealer.
18 months is in the right range for PROTOTYPE to market (assuming that there are no major problems). Concept to market is much, much longer.
All we have is YOUR opinion that Apple made a bad decision with no evidence to back it up. So who is more likely to know how an unreleased iPhone performs - Apple or you?
That's an easy thing to post on your part. Yes, I do know something bout these issues, do you? I doubt it.
Apple doesn't always make the best decisions. If you can't understand that, there's no point in talking further about it.
Quote:
I gave you three issues - and you chose to ignore them.
1. Availability. We don't even know for sure if 512 MB is possible in the format (part of the A4 package) Apple has chosen.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
Then, of course, there's the non-technical reason - cost.
What evidence do you have that increasing the RAM would provide enough advantage to offset those disadvantages? Since my iPad already responds instantaneously to my commands, it's not clear that there would be ANY benefit to counter all those disadvantages, much less sufficient benefit to justify the change.
Once again, do you think Apple is stupid? Do you think that it never occurred to them to consider 512 MB of RAM? They just arbitrarily picked 256 MB and stuck it in there without any tests or evaluation? That's the only logical conclusion from your insistence that not adding more RAM was a mistake - that you know more about this than Apple and somehow know all the costs and tradeoffs. That is, of course, patently absurd.
I didn't ignore anything.
The only issue that's a real one is the cost, which I have mentioned here.
The others are non issues. As far as power and heat are concerned, larger chips of newer generations, which have been out for some time now, use about the same amount of power, and produce about the same amount of heat at the older chips do. You should know that. Heat isn't an issue for the iPad. Do you have one? I have the 3G 64GB model, and it never even gets warm after four or five hours of continuous use. That's even been noted by surprised reviewers. There is lots of room inside, unlike the iPhone, which is crammed. The aluminum acts as a good heat sink for the little heat that is produced.
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their newer laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Well, this is such a passive/aggressive kind of statement and uses such loaded terms ("Apple defenders"), that it's hard to respond to properly. I also don't know the details of that situation as well.
Apple, like most companies focusses on what the customer sees, not necessarily on specs and they use (mostly) high end panels and have led the industry in many respects with the quality of their displays. Apple has a large amount of artists and designers using their gear and those people *need* true colour reproduction, can tell when it's "off" and will be very vocal about it to Apple as well.
The issue you are referring to is *kind* of the same in that they were using a lower quality display for their entry level MacBooks for a while because they were cheaper, but I don't remember anyone at the time bringing up any evidence that the difference was actually noticeable to end users. There would be some users capable of noticing the difference perhaps, but then those users would not likely be buying an entry level laptop. In any case they reversed themselves on the issue and overall, Apple still uses much higher quality displays than most other manufacturers, which is kind of the point.
OLED on the other hand is easily detectable as "not true colour" by a much larger percentage of the population. All you have to do is look at it and you can see the colours are not right.
It's not an issue of using tricky technology to fool the eye into thinking it's seeing the right colours. The OLED screen simply presents rather wildly "off" colours and makes no attempts to correct them because the target market is people that *like* the over saturated colours. That's a big difference.
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available.
Are you sure about this, relative to the iPhone?
My understanding was that the new handset, like the iPad, is using a SoC (System-on-a-Chip). The RAM is part of the package. Just buying bigger chips might not be the option like it is with a desktop computer.
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
"nearly useless." .. I'll agree that It's usable on the highest setting but I find unacceptable that the screen must be turned to max, even automatically, in order for it to be usable outside. Like I said though, in ideal lighting, the Nexus screen is far more attractive than the 3GS.
Do you know where you read it was Super AMOLED? Could it simply be an older Samsung screen?
Super AMOLED isn't a category, it's marketing name. I'm not sure if that would be used in the specs.
Here's a quote from Ars article on the Nexus One screen. The link is below.
Quote:
The peculiar arrangement of subpixels on the N1 display is known as the PenTile matrix, developed by Nouvoyance (formerly Clairvoyante), and acquired by Samsung in March 2008.
That's what's in the Samsung Super AMOLED screen. Which while, at first, I was enthusiastic about the Samsung screen, with the extra brightness and efficiency, I lost interest in it. It would be a bad choice for an Apple product.
By the way, some are knocking the article about the Nexus screen for being inaccurate. That's not the Ars article they're talking about, it's the one the blogger did. Ars is correct, as is the scientifically worked article from the display testing company, who is very respected in the field. That testing company has come up with the tests and software the display industry uses for their own in house testing of their products.There's no argument about what the Nexus screen is, or how it works.
Even Google admits the screen relies upon human perceptual acuity for it's lack of proper pixels. I just hope other manufacturers don't follow this trend.
Absolutely! I post many replies from my iPhone to various forums. They often require me to have to grab a link or image as "proof" or simply do a little research to make sure I have the details accurate. if i lose everything i am writing when I switch pages then I get really annoyed. Having to Select All and then Copy every time i wish to switch a page or leave Safari is too much rigmarole for my tastes.
I hear Atomic browser doesn't do this, and it has tabs, not pages. I may get an iPad 3G after the G4 iPhone, but I may just wait until the iPad OS gets updated. While I hate the low RAM and wonder how it will deal with v4.0's multitasking, this does seem to be a Safari issue.
There are now bunches of browsers. I have one that shows two screens at once. It's called Double Up. Other than that feature, it's a pretty simple app. I hope it will get upgraded over time to become useful. But it does have its uses now at times.
Overall though, my iPad is a very useful device, and I wouldn't part with it.
That's an easy thing to post on your part. Yes, I do know something bout these issues, do you? I doubt it.
Apple doesn't always make the best decisions. If you can't understand that, there's no point in talking further about it.
They don't always make the best decision, but that is generally only known in retrospect. Today, we're trying to PREDICT what the best decision is. That means the reader has to decide who is more believable - Apple with their years of experience and all their experts or some anonymous loud-mouth on AI.
The decision is actually quite simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I didn't ignore anything.
The only issue that's a real one is the cost, which I have mentioned here.
The others are non issues. As far as power and heat are concerned, larger chips of newer generations, which have been out for some time now, use about the same amount of power, and produce about the same amount of heat at the older chips do. You should know that. Heat isn't an issue for the iPad. Do you have one? I have the 3G 64GB model, and it never even gets warm after four or five hours of continuous use. That's even been noted by surprised reviewers. There is lots of room inside, unlike the iPhone, which is crammed. The aluminum acts as a good heat sink for the little heat that is produced.
So you ARE ignoring the technical issues.
Going from 256 MB to 512 MB on a SOC design is immensely different than going from 32 to 64 GB FLASH memory. The fact that you are glossing over that indicates either that you don't know what you're talking about or you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Not to mention that it's foolish to compare 512 MB of current technology to 256 MB of past technology. Whatever RAM Apple chooses will be the same technology regardless of size. It's not like they can use a 2012 version of 512 MB and are forced to use a 2008 version of 256 MB, after all.
Let's look at facts:
Does 512 MB use more electricity than 256 MB? Obviously, the answer is yes - at any given state of technology.
Does 512 MB generate more heat than 256 MB? Again, obviously yes.
Does 512 MB cost more than 256 MB? Yes
Is 512 MB even possible on SOC at today's state of technology? You don't know, but Apple presumably does.
So, there are plenty of real potential problems. Now, let's take that to the logical conclusion. There are several possible options:
1. Apple never even considered 512 MB and you are the first to suggest it. That is so absurd that it can be ignored.
2. Apple considered 512 MB and evaluated it, but decided that 256 was more desirable for some reason.
Which of the two is more plausible? Clearly, #2. Your insistence that Apple should have used 512 MB and could have done so without difficulty is tantamount to a claim that you know more aobut this subject than Apple - which is, again, patently absurd.
My understanding was that the new handset, like the iPad, is using a SoC (System-on-a-Chip). The RAM is part of the package. Just buying bigger chips might not be the option like it is with a desktop computer.
The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know, and even if it were, the fact that a number of other phones have 512 and now one even will have 1GB means it's not a problem. The customer requests which level of RAM they would want, as they do with other specs. Besides, Apple has had a hand in deciding what goes into their devices from the beginning. As their one model sells vastly better than any other manufacturer's individual model, the size of those sales make a custom request cost less than it may seem.
They don't always make the best decision, but that is generally only known in retrospect. Today, we're trying to PREDICT what the best decision is. That means the reader has to decide who is more believable - Apple with their years of experience and all their experts or some anonymous loud-mouth on AI.
The decision is actually quite simple.
A lot has been written about multitasking on phones, and that would apply even more so for the tablet. 256MB RAM is considered to be minimal. If more were available, the programs wouldn't have to be turned off in the background. Working with larger images would be easier, etc.
I hope for your sake you're not calling me "anonymous loud-mouth". I use my own name, and my background can be found in the profile. I don't know who you are though.
Quote:
So you ARE ignoring the technical issues.
I'm not ignoring any of them, you're making up your own.
Quote:
Going from 256 MB to 512 MB on a SOC design is immensely different than going from 32 to 64 GB FLASH memory. The fact that you are glossing over that indicates either that you don't know what you're talking about or you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Not to mention that it's foolish to compare 512 MB of current technology to 256 MB of past technology. Whatever RAM Apple chooses will be the same technology regardless of size. It's not like they can use a 2012 version of 512 MB and are forced to use a 2008 version of 256 MB, after all.
Let's look at facts:
Does 512 MB use more electricity than 256 MB? Obviously, the answer is yes - at any given state of technology.
Does 512 MB generate more heat than 256 MB? Again, obviously yes.
Does 512 MB cost more than 256 MB? Yes
Is 512 MB even possible on SOC at today's state of technology? You don't know, but Apple presumably does.
So, there are plenty of real potential problems. Now, let's take that to the logical conclusion. There are several possible options:
1. Apple never even considered 512 MB and you are the first to suggest it. That is so absurd that it can be ignored.
2. Apple considered 512 MB and evaluated it, but decided that 256 was more desirable for some reason.
Which of the two is more plausible? Clearly, #2. Your insistence that Apple should have used 512 MB and could have done so without difficulty is tantamount to a claim that you know more aobut this subject than Apple - which is, again, patently absurd.
You've ignored reality again. You really don't understand the issues here. The FACT is that there are several phones out with 512MB, and one coming out with 1GB. Those are the FACTS.
Your facts aren't real. You'e just pretending to be logical.
Comments
Yeah, I guess you are right there. But the other hand, the time for a car to go from launching the idea to the car at the dealer is 18 months ... Sounds weird that it should be about the same time for a phone.
Not even close. Production time from concept to dealer floor is more like 4 years for cars. Of course, that doesn't tell you anything about how long it takes for phones.
It's obviously designed to do much more than the iPhone/Touch is. Don't agree with Apple when they make bad decisions.
All we have is YOUR opinion that Apple made a bad decision with no evidence to back it up. So who is more likely to know how an unreleased iPhone performs - Apple or you?
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available. Apple obviously decided to do this to save some money, likely the same reason why there's no camera yet.
What compromises? There aren't any, technologically.
I gave you three issues - and you chose to ignore them.
1. Availability. We don't even know for sure if 512 MB is possible in the format (part of the A4 package) Apple has chosen.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
Then, of course, there's the non-technical reason - cost.
What evidence do you have that increasing the RAM would provide enough advantage to offset those disadvantages? Since my iPad already responds instantaneously to my commands, it's not clear that there would be ANY benefit to counter all those disadvantages, much less sufficient benefit to justify the change.
Once again, do you think Apple is stupid? Do you think that it never occurred to them to consider 512 MB of RAM? They just arbitrarily picked 256 MB and stuck it in there without any tests or evaluation? That's the only logical conclusion from your insistence that not adding more RAM was a mistake - that you know more about this than Apple and somehow know all the costs and tradeoffs. That is, of course, patently absurd.
And it's mine that it uses the Samsung screen.
FWIW, GSMArena says AMOLED:
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_google_nexus_one-3069.php
Do you know where you read it was Super AMOLED? Could it simply be an older Samsung screen?
Really? That's such a minor thing. I hardly notice it.
Absolutely! I post many replies from my iPhone to various forums. They often require me to have to grab a link or image as "proof" or simply do a little research to make sure I have the details accurate. if i lose everything i am writing when I switch pages then I get really annoyed. Having to Select All and then Copy every time i wish to switch a page or leave Safari is too much rigmarole for my tastes.
I hear Atomic browser doesn't do this, and it has tabs, not pages. I may get an iPad 3G after the G4 iPhone, but I may just wait until the iPad OS gets updated. While I hate the low RAM and wonder how it will deal with v4.0's multitasking, this does seem to be a Safari issue.
Not even close. Production time from concept to dealer floor is more like 4 years for cars. Of course, that doesn't tell you anything about how long it takes for phones.
I am not working in that industry, but some people familiar with it have told me these things. I guess it depends on the model and where you live (US or EU), but it appears 18 months is the time frame for the faster projects. Could also be that I misunderstood what he meant and that the guy only spoke about a part of the process. I think he meant time to market though, which to me means concept to dealer.
I am not working in that industry, but some people familiar with it have told me these things. I guess it depends on the model and where you live (US or EU), but it appears 18 months is the time frame for the faster projects. Could also be that I misunderstood what he meant and that the guy only spoke about a part of the process. I think he meant time to market though, which to me means concept to dealer.
18 months is in the right range for PROTOTYPE to market (assuming that there are no major problems). Concept to market is much, much longer.
All we have is YOUR opinion that Apple made a bad decision with no evidence to back it up. So who is more likely to know how an unreleased iPhone performs - Apple or you?
That's an easy thing to post on your part. Yes, I do know something bout these issues, do you? I doubt it.
Apple doesn't always make the best decisions. If you can't understand that, there's no point in talking further about it.
I gave you three issues - and you chose to ignore them.
1. Availability. We don't even know for sure if 512 MB is possible in the format (part of the A4 package) Apple has chosen.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
Then, of course, there's the non-technical reason - cost.
What evidence do you have that increasing the RAM would provide enough advantage to offset those disadvantages? Since my iPad already responds instantaneously to my commands, it's not clear that there would be ANY benefit to counter all those disadvantages, much less sufficient benefit to justify the change.
Once again, do you think Apple is stupid? Do you think that it never occurred to them to consider 512 MB of RAM? They just arbitrarily picked 256 MB and stuck it in there without any tests or evaluation? That's the only logical conclusion from your insistence that not adding more RAM was a mistake - that you know more about this than Apple and somehow know all the costs and tradeoffs. That is, of course, patently absurd.
I didn't ignore anything.
The only issue that's a real one is the cost, which I have mentioned here.
The others are non issues. As far as power and heat are concerned, larger chips of newer generations, which have been out for some time now, use about the same amount of power, and produce about the same amount of heat at the older chips do. You should know that. Heat isn't an issue for the iPad. Do you have one? I have the 3G 64GB model, and it never even gets warm after four or five hours of continuous use. That's even been noted by surprised reviewers. There is lots of room inside, unlike the iPhone, which is crammed. The aluminum acts as a good heat sink for the little heat that is produced.
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their newer laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Well, this is such a passive/aggressive kind of statement and uses such loaded terms ("Apple defenders"), that it's hard to respond to properly. I also don't know the details of that situation as well.
Apple, like most companies focusses on what the customer sees, not necessarily on specs and they use (mostly) high end panels and have led the industry in many respects with the quality of their displays. Apple has a large amount of artists and designers using their gear and those people *need* true colour reproduction, can tell when it's "off" and will be very vocal about it to Apple as well.
The issue you are referring to is *kind* of the same in that they were using a lower quality display for their entry level MacBooks for a while because they were cheaper, but I don't remember anyone at the time bringing up any evidence that the difference was actually noticeable to end users. There would be some users capable of noticing the difference perhaps, but then those users would not likely be buying an entry level laptop. In any case they reversed themselves on the issue and overall, Apple still uses much higher quality displays than most other manufacturers, which is kind of the point.
OLED on the other hand is easily detectable as "not true colour" by a much larger percentage of the population. All you have to do is look at it and you can see the colours are not right.
It's not an issue of using tricky technology to fool the eye into thinking it's seeing the right colours. The OLED screen simply presents rather wildly "off" colours and makes no attempts to correct them because the target market is people that *like* the over saturated colours. That's a big difference.
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available.
Are you sure about this, relative to the iPhone?
My understanding was that the new handset, like the iPad, is using a SoC (System-on-a-Chip). The RAM is part of the package. Just buying bigger chips might not be the option like it is with a desktop computer.
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
"nearly useless." .. I'll agree that It's usable on the highest setting but I find unacceptable that the screen must be turned to max, even automatically, in order for it to be usable outside. Like I said though, in ideal lighting, the Nexus screen is far more attractive than the 3GS.
FWIW, GSMArena says AMOLED:
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_google_nexus_one-3069.php
Do you know where you read it was Super AMOLED? Could it simply be an older Samsung screen?
Super AMOLED isn't a category, it's marketing name. I'm not sure if that would be used in the specs.
Here's a quote from Ars article on the Nexus One screen. The link is below.
The peculiar arrangement of subpixels on the N1 display is known as the PenTile matrix, developed by Nouvoyance (formerly Clairvoyante), and acquired by Samsung in March 2008.
That's what's in the Samsung Super AMOLED screen. Which while, at first, I was enthusiastic about the Samsung screen, with the extra brightness and efficiency, I lost interest in it. It would be a bad choice for an Apple product.
By the way, some are knocking the article about the Nexus screen for being inaccurate. That's not the Ars article they're talking about, it's the one the blogger did. Ars is correct, as is the scientifically worked article from the display testing company, who is very respected in the field. That testing company has come up with the tests and software the display industry uses for their own in house testing of their products.There's no argument about what the Nexus screen is, or how it works.
Even Google admits the screen relies upon human perceptual acuity for it's lack of proper pixels. I just hope other manufacturers don't follow this trend.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...-and-hacks.ars
And it's mine that it uses the Samsung screen.
It's not super AMOLED.
Absolutely! I post many replies from my iPhone to various forums. They often require me to have to grab a link or image as "proof" or simply do a little research to make sure I have the details accurate. if i lose everything i am writing when I switch pages then I get really annoyed. Having to Select All and then Copy every time i wish to switch a page or leave Safari is too much rigmarole for my tastes.
I hear Atomic browser doesn't do this, and it has tabs, not pages. I may get an iPad 3G after the G4 iPhone, but I may just wait until the iPad OS gets updated. While I hate the low RAM and wonder how it will deal with v4.0's multitasking, this does seem to be a Safari issue.
There are now bunches of browsers. I have one that shows two screens at once. It's called Double Up. Other than that feature, it's a pretty simple app. I hope it will get upgraded over time to become useful. But it does have its uses now at times.
Overall though, my iPad is a very useful device, and I wouldn't part with it.
That's an easy thing to post on your part. Yes, I do know something bout these issues, do you? I doubt it.
Apple doesn't always make the best decisions. If you can't understand that, there's no point in talking further about it.
They don't always make the best decision, but that is generally only known in retrospect. Today, we're trying to PREDICT what the best decision is. That means the reader has to decide who is more believable - Apple with their years of experience and all their experts or some anonymous loud-mouth on AI.
The decision is actually quite simple.
I didn't ignore anything.
The only issue that's a real one is the cost, which I have mentioned here.
The others are non issues. As far as power and heat are concerned, larger chips of newer generations, which have been out for some time now, use about the same amount of power, and produce about the same amount of heat at the older chips do. You should know that. Heat isn't an issue for the iPad. Do you have one? I have the 3G 64GB model, and it never even gets warm after four or five hours of continuous use. That's even been noted by surprised reviewers. There is lots of room inside, unlike the iPhone, which is crammed. The aluminum acts as a good heat sink for the little heat that is produced.
So you ARE ignoring the technical issues.
Going from 256 MB to 512 MB on a SOC design is immensely different than going from 32 to 64 GB FLASH memory. The fact that you are glossing over that indicates either that you don't know what you're talking about or you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Not to mention that it's foolish to compare 512 MB of current technology to 256 MB of past technology. Whatever RAM Apple chooses will be the same technology regardless of size. It's not like they can use a 2012 version of 512 MB and are forced to use a 2008 version of 256 MB, after all.
Let's look at facts:
Does 512 MB use more electricity than 256 MB? Obviously, the answer is yes - at any given state of technology.
Does 512 MB generate more heat than 256 MB? Again, obviously yes.
Does 512 MB cost more than 256 MB? Yes
Is 512 MB even possible on SOC at today's state of technology? You don't know, but Apple presumably does.
So, there are plenty of real potential problems. Now, let's take that to the logical conclusion. There are several possible options:
1. Apple never even considered 512 MB and you are the first to suggest it. That is so absurd that it can be ignored.
2. Apple considered 512 MB and evaluated it, but decided that 256 was more desirable for some reason.
Which of the two is more plausible? Clearly, #2. Your insistence that Apple should have used 512 MB and could have done so without difficulty is tantamount to a claim that you know more aobut this subject than Apple - which is, again, patently absurd.
Are you sure about this, relative to the iPhone?
My understanding was that the new handset, like the iPad, is using a SoC (System-on-a-Chip). The RAM is part of the package. Just buying bigger chips might not be the option like it is with a desktop computer.
The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know, and even if it were, the fact that a number of other phones have 512 and now one even will have 1GB means it's not a problem. The customer requests which level of RAM they would want, as they do with other specs. Besides, Apple has had a hand in deciding what goes into their devices from the beginning. As their one model sells vastly better than any other manufacturer's individual model, the size of those sales make a custom request cost less than it may seem.
It's not super AMOLED.
You know that from where?
The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know,
So the problem is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
On the iPad, at least, the RAM is part of the SOC package. So your entire argument is based on not having any clue what you're babbling about.
They don't always make the best decision, but that is generally only known in retrospect. Today, we're trying to PREDICT what the best decision is. That means the reader has to decide who is more believable - Apple with their years of experience and all their experts or some anonymous loud-mouth on AI.
The decision is actually quite simple.
A lot has been written about multitasking on phones, and that would apply even more so for the tablet. 256MB RAM is considered to be minimal. If more were available, the programs wouldn't have to be turned off in the background. Working with larger images would be easier, etc.
I hope for your sake you're not calling me "anonymous loud-mouth". I use my own name, and my background can be found in the profile. I don't know who you are though.
So you ARE ignoring the technical issues.
I'm not ignoring any of them, you're making up your own.
Going from 256 MB to 512 MB on a SOC design is immensely different than going from 32 to 64 GB FLASH memory. The fact that you are glossing over that indicates either that you don't know what you're talking about or you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Not to mention that it's foolish to compare 512 MB of current technology to 256 MB of past technology. Whatever RAM Apple chooses will be the same technology regardless of size. It's not like they can use a 2012 version of 512 MB and are forced to use a 2008 version of 256 MB, after all.
Let's look at facts:
Does 512 MB use more electricity than 256 MB? Obviously, the answer is yes - at any given state of technology.
Does 512 MB generate more heat than 256 MB? Again, obviously yes.
Does 512 MB cost more than 256 MB? Yes
Is 512 MB even possible on SOC at today's state of technology? You don't know, but Apple presumably does.
So, there are plenty of real potential problems. Now, let's take that to the logical conclusion. There are several possible options:
1. Apple never even considered 512 MB and you are the first to suggest it. That is so absurd that it can be ignored.
2. Apple considered 512 MB and evaluated it, but decided that 256 was more desirable for some reason.
Which of the two is more plausible? Clearly, #2. Your insistence that Apple should have used 512 MB and could have done so without difficulty is tantamount to a claim that you know more aobut this subject than Apple - which is, again, patently absurd.
You've ignored reality again. You really don't understand the issues here. The FACT is that there are several phones out with 512MB, and one coming out with 1GB. Those are the FACTS.
Your facts aren't real. You'e just pretending to be logical.
You know that from where?
Everywhere. It was never marketed as super AMOLED because it's not super AMOLED like the Samsung Wave or the forthcoming Galaxy S.
So the problem is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
On the iPad, at least, the RAM is part of the SOC package. So your entire argument is based on not having any clue what you're babbling about.
Because it is on some, and not on others. It doesn't really matter either way. But you don't know that.