I don't think it's a memory issue. I think it was some sort of design decision that if a page was loaded x amount of time ago that it should be refreshed when activated. I'm pretty sure my iPhone 3GS doesn't do this and it has the same memory as the iPad.
It is annoying, though, but hopefully they will fix it with a software update.
On one hand, there are 3rd-party browsers that can hold multiple pages without reloading.
On the other hand, this does not happen with 8 pages on the iPhone using multiple apps somerunning in te backdround but mostly switching between them.
I don't believe this is by design. I've measured the RAM usage between the 3GS and iPad WiFi, the iPad needs a lot more RAM yet both come with 256MB.
Then what? It's just too depressing that the computer hardware industry does not have plans IN PLACE for the safe, environmentally responsible disposal of its products. This is as bad as BP (and others) going ahead and drilling without a back up plan to immediately contain a serious accident.
Apple recycles your old computer for free. Just haul it in.
It still makes sense today. With the iPod Touch 3G having 802.11b/g and 64GB storage I don't this is viable as an all-or-nothing sync.
Use the same strategy as with TimeCapsule backups. Use a wired connection if you have a lot of data to copy (in this case the USB cable) and use WiFi the rest of the time. Apart from the first sync when you copy your entire library to the device, the typical amount of data been copied is going to be pretty small and easily accomplished over WiFi.
What are they classifying the iPad as? I mean, are we going to see a massive jump in Apple market share because they are counting the iPad as a computer or will it just have 100% of the sub-netbook market? Personally I'd like to see them count as computers so all those companies who have made huge market share gains simply by selling $300 netbooks will know they aren't the only ones who can play that game
Why not simply count the iPad as what it is; a tablet computer? That way the iPad's marketshare will be many times higher than if it was counted as just a computer.
"Users can browse the web, read and send email, enjoy and share photos, watch HD videos, listen to music"
ENJOY and share photos? To ascribe something like "enjoyment" to a product is bias of the worst sort. I know this place doesn't claim to employ journalists, but show a little adult objectivity please. I view photos, and whether I enjoy them is my call. But Apple has not a damn thing to do with that.
That is easy to solve as there are already per device settings in iTunes. For example, my iPod classic syncs my entire music collection, whilst my iPhone uses a playlist to determine what to sync as it only has room for a subset of my collection. All I'm asking is this is done automatically via WiFi instead of me having to physically connect a USB cable to my iPhone or iPad.
Using USB to copy data made sense with iPods as they didn't have wireless networking, but now we have iPads, iPhones and iPod touches we should be able to break free of the need to use cables.
Ah! I understand, and I agree! Especially for the iPad which benefits from a wall charger (separate from a computer/iTunes direct connection). It would be beneficial for those devices with WiFi to have a setting to enable wireless synch!
Ah! I understand, and I agree! Especially for the iPad which benefits from a wall charger (separate from a computer/iTunes direct connection). It would be beneficial for those devices with WiFi to have a setting to enable wireless synch!
.
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
I don't think it's a memory issue. I think it was some sort of design decision that if a page was loaded x amount of time ago that it should be refreshed when activated. I'm pretty sure my iPhone 3GS doesn't do this and it has the same memory as the iPad.
It is annoying, though, but hopefully they will fix it with a software update.
Yes, I think it is a software thing (possibly iOS). I just tried on my 3GS running 4.0-- started posting a comment on a forum, then serially started another window, copy/ pasted from NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost... No problems.
Same thing in iPad worked for NY, LA, then refreshed after Wash-- nothing worth copying, anyway
Use the same strategy as with TimeCapsule backups. Use a wired connection if you have a lot of data to copy (in this case the USB cable) and use WiFi the rest of the time. Apart from the first sync when you copy your entire library to the device, the typical amount of data been copied is going to be pretty small and easily accomplished over WiFi.
I fully agree and understand with your PoV, but this is Apple, where being first to be first or adding it in a way that doesn't enrich the collective's user experience simply isn't acceptable. When they can feel they have a solution that won't add more cons than pros I think we'll see it, but who knows when that will be.
Frankly, if anything needed to be added to iOS for v4.0 (if not much, much earlier) it's a replacement for the anemic messaging system that offers no history and will only show one message as an overlay providing it's not too long. This is both a surprise to not have been changed at point and also a joke considering the number of messages I get on my iPhone since Push Notifications were added.
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
I think you're right. When I drag big files (movies) from one Mac on my network to another, it takes forever if I've not plugged them both into the router.
Considering that the average iPad is $600, and Apple makes about 60% profit of off the iPhone platform (lets assume iPad is similar). Thats already over 1Billion profit!
Apple keeps it up and this could be a killer cash cow. They say stocks guna go up to $375!
Which loosely translates into: I know nothing, nada, zilch...
Yes, I know nada!
But, SJ recognizes opportunity, where others see only failure and frustration.
Also, I suspect that Apple wants to stagger refresh cycles of its major devices, balance resources, growth, etc. It appears that two of Apple's major refresh cycles (announce/ship) are shaping up as:
--iPad: Jan/Feb (FY Q2)
--iPhone May/Jul (FY Q4)
There is an interesting opportunity that will present itself in Jan (if not 2011, then 2012).
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
Apple already supports Time Capsule backups over WiFi.
Considering that the average iPad is $600, and Apple makes about 60% profit of off the iPhone platform (lets assume iPad is similar). Thats already over 1Billion profit!
Apple keeps it up and this could be a killer cash cow. They say stocks guna go up to $375!
I really wish people would stop using that fabricated 60% profit figure.
First of all, even the erroneous reports said it was 60% GROSS MARGIN, not profit. You have to subtract a lot of expenses from GM to get profit.
More importantly, that figure was thrown out by some magazine 'journalist' who didn't have any concept of financial reporting. It came about because when Apple started with the iPhone, they expensed all the costs at time of sale, but accrued the revenues over time. That means that at the time of the initial sale, there was little or no margin or profit, but the profit came in as time passed. This accounting system was based on the then-current interpretation of GAAP rules.
Then the SEC issued new GAAP guidelines that allowed for most or all the revenue to be accrued all at once. At that time, Apple accrued a lot of revenue for phones sold previously. Since most of the expense had already been incurred, the margin was very high, causing the average gross margin for phones at that time to be high - in the 60% range. That does not mean that the normal GM for iPhones is 60%-it is much less by all reports.
"Users can browse the web, read and send email, enjoy and share photos, watch HD videos, listen to music"
ENJOY and share photos? To ascribe something like "enjoyment" to a product is bias of the worst sort. I know this place doesn't claim to employ journalists, but show a little adult objectivity please. I view photos, and whether I enjoy them is my call. But Apple has not a damn thing to do with that.
If you're looking at your own photos and you don't enjoy them, that's your fault -- not Apple's or the writer's. Besides, one definition of enjoy is "to possess and benefit from" not necessarily to derive pleasure.
I really wish people would stop using that fabricated 60% profit figure.
First of all, even the erroneous reports said it was 60% GROSS MARGIN, not profit. You have to subtract a lot of expenses from GM to get profit.
More importantly, that figure was thrown out by some magazine 'journalist' who didn't have any concept of financial reporting. It came about because when Apple started with the iPhone, they expensed all the costs at time of sale, but accrued the revenues over time. That means that at the time of the initial sale, there was little or no margin or profit, but the profit came in as time passed. This accounting system was based on the then-current interpretation of GAAP rules.
Then the SEC issued new GAAP guidelines that allowed for most or all the revenue to be accrued all at once. At that time, Apple accrued a lot of revenue for phones sold previously. Since most of the expense had already been incurred, the margin was very high, causing the average gross margin for phones at that time to be high - in the 60% range. That does not mean that the normal GM for iPhones is 60%-it is much less by all reports.
Yeah! Apple's GM on the iPad is probably 30-35%! Great, certainly but not 60%! Further, it could be lower, to price the product lower and gain a market foothold. Remember, early rumors had the Apple Tablet priced in the $1,000-$1,100 range.
From what I've read, Apple's aggressive pricing (as well as the product, itself) has forced the competition back to the drawing boards. Likely, the iPad won't see any real competition until late 2011 - early 2012! IMO, HP has the best chance to provide early competition,
Look at it this way: what kind of tablet experience could anyone [else] offer that you would pay $500 to buy?
Also, I suspect that Apple wants to stagger refresh cycles of its major devices, balance resources, growth, etc. It appears that two of Apple's major refresh cycles (announce/ship) are shaping up as:
--iPad: Jan/Feb (FY Q2)
--iPhone May/Jul (FY Q4).
Did you consciously leave out the Touch? iPods get updated about every September, give or take a month, it has been a pattern from before the iPhone. Almost every iPod gets a refresh then, once a year.
Apple already supports Time Capsule backups over WiFi.
Indeed. But have you actually used it? Time Capsule meters data very slowly, which I take it is a deliberate effort to keep demands on bandwidth to a minimum, which is why initial backups take hours to complete. Would such a solution be acceptable for syncing an iPad or iPhone if it involved shifting large amounts of data?
Comments
I don't think it's a memory issue. I think it was some sort of design decision that if a page was loaded x amount of time ago that it should be refreshed when activated. I'm pretty sure my iPhone 3GS doesn't do this and it has the same memory as the iPad.
It is annoying, though, but hopefully they will fix it with a software update.
On one hand, there are 3rd-party browsers that can hold multiple pages without reloading.
On the other hand, this does not happen with 8 pages on the iPhone using multiple apps somerunning in te backdround but mostly switching between them.
I don't believe this is by design. I've measured the RAM usage between the 3GS and iPad WiFi, the iPad needs a lot more RAM yet both come with 256MB.
Buy, buy, buy. Dump your old computers.
Then what? It's just too depressing that the computer hardware industry does not have plans IN PLACE for the safe, environmentally responsible disposal of its products. This is as bad as BP (and others) going ahead and drilling without a back up plan to immediately contain a serious accident.
Apple recycles your old computer for free. Just haul it in.
It still makes sense today. With the iPod Touch 3G having 802.11b/g and 64GB storage I don't this is viable as an all-or-nothing sync.
Use the same strategy as with TimeCapsule backups. Use a wired connection if you have a lot of data to copy (in this case the USB cable) and use WiFi the rest of the time. Apart from the first sync when you copy your entire library to the device, the typical amount of data been copied is going to be pretty small and easily accomplished over WiFi.
What are they classifying the iPad as? I mean, are we going to see a massive jump in Apple market share because they are counting the iPad as a computer or will it just have 100% of the sub-netbook market? Personally I'd like to see them count as computers so all those companies who have made huge market share gains simply by selling $300 netbooks will know they aren't the only ones who can play that game
Why not simply count the iPad as what it is; a tablet computer? That way the iPad's marketshare will be many times higher than if it was counted as just a computer.
"Users can browse the web, read and send email, enjoy and share photos, watch HD videos, listen to music"
ENJOY and share photos? To ascribe something like "enjoyment" to a product is bias of the worst sort. I know this place doesn't claim to employ journalists, but show a little adult objectivity please. I view photos, and whether I enjoy them is my call. But Apple has not a damn thing to do with that.
That is easy to solve as there are already per device settings in iTunes. For example, my iPod classic syncs my entire music collection, whilst my iPhone uses a playlist to determine what to sync as it only has room for a subset of my collection. All I'm asking is this is done automatically via WiFi instead of me having to physically connect a USB cable to my iPhone or iPad.
Using USB to copy data made sense with iPods as they didn't have wireless networking, but now we have iPads, iPhones and iPod touches we should be able to break free of the need to use cables.
Ah! I understand, and I agree! Especially for the iPad which benefits from a wall charger (separate from a computer/iTunes direct connection). It would be beneficial for those devices with WiFi to have a setting to enable wireless synch!
.
Ah! I understand, and I agree! Especially for the iPad which benefits from a wall charger (separate from a computer/iTunes direct connection). It would be beneficial for those devices with WiFi to have a setting to enable wireless synch!
.
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
I don't think it's a memory issue. I think it was some sort of design decision that if a page was loaded x amount of time ago that it should be refreshed when activated. I'm pretty sure my iPhone 3GS doesn't do this and it has the same memory as the iPad.
It is annoying, though, but hopefully they will fix it with a software update.
Yes, I think it is a software thing (possibly iOS). I just tried on my 3GS running 4.0-- started posting a comment on a forum, then serially started another window, copy/ pasted from NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost... No problems.
Same thing in iPad worked for NY, LA, then refreshed after Wash-- nothing worth copying, anyway
.
Use the same strategy as with TimeCapsule backups. Use a wired connection if you have a lot of data to copy (in this case the USB cable) and use WiFi the rest of the time. Apart from the first sync when you copy your entire library to the device, the typical amount of data been copied is going to be pretty small and easily accomplished over WiFi.
I fully agree and understand with your PoV, but this is Apple, where being first to be first or adding it in a way that doesn't enrich the collective's user experience simply isn't acceptable. When they can feel they have a solution that won't add more cons than pros I think we'll see it, but who knows when that will be.
Frankly, if anything needed to be added to iOS for v4.0 (if not much, much earlier) it's a replacement for the anemic messaging system that offers no history and will only show one message as an overlay providing it's not too long. This is both a surprise to not have been changed at point and also a joke considering the number of messages I get on my iPhone since Push Notifications were added.
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
I think you're right. When I drag big files (movies) from one Mac on my network to another, it takes forever if I've not plugged them both into the router.
Considering that the average iPad is $600, and Apple makes about 60% profit of off the iPhone platform (lets assume iPad is similar). Thats already over 1Billion profit!
Apple keeps it up and this could be a killer cash cow.
Which loosely translates into: I know nothing, nada, zilch...
Yes, I know nada!
But, SJ recognizes opportunity, where others see only failure and frustration.
Also, I suspect that Apple wants to stagger refresh cycles of its major devices, balance resources, growth, etc. It appears that two of Apple's major refresh cycles (announce/ship) are shaping up as:
--iPad: Jan/Feb (FY Q2)
--iPhone May/Jul (FY Q4)
There is an interesting opportunity that will present itself in Jan (if not 2011, then 2012).
.
On one hand, there are 3rd-party browsers that can hold multiple pages without reloading.
On the other hand, this does not happen with 8 pages on the iPhone using multiple apps somerunning in te backdround but mostly switching between them.
I don't believe this is by design. I've measured the RAM usage between the 3GS and iPad WiFi, the iPad needs a lot more RAM yet both come with 256MB.
If that is true (iPad uses more RAM) then it would be relatively easy to fix within Safari, for example:
-- Save the content to SSD when a page is saved (dismissed).
-- When a saved (dismissed) page is redisplayed reload the saved version from SSD, and free the SSD storage
-- When the Current page is reloaded, new URL, link, bookmark its content is cached in RAM, as it is now
-- When you leave/return to Safari, the current page gets saved/redisplayed as above.
So if you want to stay within Safari, save (dismiss) the pafge if you want return to it!
If you leave Safari, the current page will be saved/dismissed for you.
.
In theory, but consider the bandwidth implications of having potentially many gigabytes of files shifting over WiFi networks. The saturation could be total for long periods of time. I think there's a reason why Apple has chosen not to provide this function.
Apple already supports Time Capsule backups over WiFi.
Wow 3 million iPads!
Considering that the average iPad is $600, and Apple makes about 60% profit of off the iPhone platform (lets assume iPad is similar). Thats already over 1Billion profit!
Apple keeps it up and this could be a killer cash cow.
I really wish people would stop using that fabricated 60% profit figure.
First of all, even the erroneous reports said it was 60% GROSS MARGIN, not profit. You have to subtract a lot of expenses from GM to get profit.
More importantly, that figure was thrown out by some magazine 'journalist' who didn't have any concept of financial reporting. It came about because when Apple started with the iPhone, they expensed all the costs at time of sale, but accrued the revenues over time. That means that at the time of the initial sale, there was little or no margin or profit, but the profit came in as time passed. This accounting system was based on the then-current interpretation of GAAP rules.
Then the SEC issued new GAAP guidelines that allowed for most or all the revenue to be accrued all at once. At that time, Apple accrued a lot of revenue for phones sold previously. Since most of the expense had already been incurred, the margin was very high, causing the average gross margin for phones at that time to be high - in the 60% range. That does not mean that the normal GM for iPhones is 60%-it is much less by all reports.
Quote:
"Users can browse the web, read and send email, enjoy and share photos, watch HD videos, listen to music"
ENJOY and share photos? To ascribe something like "enjoyment" to a product is bias of the worst sort. I know this place doesn't claim to employ journalists, but show a little adult objectivity please. I view photos, and whether I enjoy them is my call. But Apple has not a damn thing to do with that.
If you're looking at your own photos and you don't enjoy them, that's your fault -- not Apple's or the writer's. Besides, one definition of enjoy is "to possess and benefit from" not necessarily to derive pleasure.
I really wish people would stop using that fabricated 60% profit figure.
First of all, even the erroneous reports said it was 60% GROSS MARGIN, not profit. You have to subtract a lot of expenses from GM to get profit.
More importantly, that figure was thrown out by some magazine 'journalist' who didn't have any concept of financial reporting. It came about because when Apple started with the iPhone, they expensed all the costs at time of sale, but accrued the revenues over time. That means that at the time of the initial sale, there was little or no margin or profit, but the profit came in as time passed. This accounting system was based on the then-current interpretation of GAAP rules.
Then the SEC issued new GAAP guidelines that allowed for most or all the revenue to be accrued all at once. At that time, Apple accrued a lot of revenue for phones sold previously. Since most of the expense had already been incurred, the margin was very high, causing the average gross margin for phones at that time to be high - in the 60% range. That does not mean that the normal GM for iPhones is 60%-it is much less by all reports.
Yeah! Apple's GM on the iPad is probably 30-35%! Great, certainly but not 60%! Further, it could be lower, to price the product lower and gain a market foothold. Remember, early rumors had the Apple Tablet priced in the $1,000-$1,100 range.
From what I've read, Apple's aggressive pricing (as well as the product, itself) has forced the competition back to the drawing boards. Likely, the iPad won't see any real competition until late 2011 - early 2012! IMO, HP has the best chance to provide early competition,
Look at it this way: what kind of tablet experience could anyone [else] offer that you would pay $500 to buy?
.
Also, I suspect that Apple wants to stagger refresh cycles of its major devices, balance resources, growth, etc. It appears that two of Apple's major refresh cycles (announce/ship) are shaping up as:
--iPad: Jan/Feb (FY Q2)
--iPhone May/Jul (FY Q4).
Did you consciously leave out the Touch? iPods get updated about every September, give or take a month, it has been a pattern from before the iPhone. Almost every iPod gets a refresh then, once a year.
Apple already supports Time Capsule backups over WiFi.
Indeed. But have you actually used it? Time Capsule meters data very slowly, which I take it is a deliberate effort to keep demands on bandwidth to a minimum, which is why initial backups take hours to complete. Would such a solution be acceptable for syncing an iPad or iPhone if it involved shifting large amounts of data?