No it would be dual 1GHz Cortex A9, I just mean the A8 naming convention works to suggest it's dual-core vs the A4.
It wouldn't be the aqua UI though, it would be Lion's fullscreen UI. Apple doesn't wait for consumer interest either otherwise there wouldn't be an iPad right now. At the moment, the Motorola Atrix phone is the only device doing this and it's not great because the performance is sluggish. I remember back when the only real touchscreen phone before the iPhone was the LG Prada and then Apple upped the game for everyone.
It's convenient that Lion and the next iPhone will debut at the same time.
It's also convenient that Apple rolled out an app store 6 months prior to get Mac apps all curated and prepared to go onto iOS (w/ only cocoa support, no carbon, java, etc...) This was their "nice" way of getting developers to switch all apps over to using cocoa only so that they are portable to iOS and will be handled by different UIs for different situations (iPhone, iPad, ATV, Desktop). I think this year will be too early still though, but iOS 6 will be the time it will be brought forward I think, iOS 5 seems a bit early still [but I'm always open for Apple to surprise us]!
The average consumer will read specs if they are presented to them and they will assume that the A9 is faster. It's not a good perception, even if it doesn't impact their buying decision.
The problem here is that people are adding to the confusion by misinterpreting and shortening the actual name of the ARM product... ARM sells application processors called "Cortex-A" There are currently four versions in the series; Cortex-A5, Cortex-A8, Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15. They are not known as the A5, A8, A9 or A15 they are in fact "Cortex-A" models 5,8,9, and 15.
Please educate yourselves and others, and stop the spread of confusion.
People aren't buying Android phones because they get excited by the latest mobile CPU, as much as tech blogs and enthusiasts like to salivate over same. They buy Android phones because they went to the Verizon store and they wanted to upgrade and that's what was there. Sure, the sales guy is right there to assure them that the more expensive choice goes to 11, but that's the case regardless of what's under the hood.
How many people give a shit, or even know, what's in the current iPhone compared to what's in the latest wonder Android phone? They care if their battery goes dry before they can get through a day, they care if video plays without dropping frames, they care if the UI feels reasonably fluid and doesn't have weird stutters and pauses that make the machine more difficult to use.
I couldn't agree more and actually I think the way Apple have done their physical stores has made specs even less interesting to the average consumer.
People can now go into the stores and expect to play with the choices available to them, and will make a decision on which feels right for them.
It's like buying a car. They have specs galore available for them, but I'll buy the one I feel drives the best in the price range I'm looking for.
I don't think the Cortex A8 can actually *do* dual core. Aren't all the dual core Arm chips based on the Cortex A9?
The naming is confusing, but perhaps they are striking back at all the bloggers that spent the last few years calling the iPhone 3G, "2G" (for second gen), and the 3Gs, "3G."
Yes. Cortex A8 is a single core CPU, 65nm fab and 32 bit. The Cortex A9 is 1-4 cores, 64 bit and fabricated down to a 45nm die.
You're right, they try to keep the specs hidden on the iPhone so that they don't become a major purchasing consideration for most people.
I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Even if it doesn't affect too many people, it's best to avoid unnecessary mis-perceptions. I wish they didn't choose to start the name with "A" at all but I guess "I" was already taken and would have been even more confusing.
I really don't think the next iPhone will be called iPhone 5 because it would look like a real backwards move to go from iPhone 5 in 2011 to iPhone 4G in 2012.
the should stick with the number. iPhone 4, 5, 6... the 3G really messed it up. and now the original is also called the 2G which confuses people as well.
What about a combo CDMA/GSM chip/phone? Possible? Why not? (Keep in mind that a computer smaller than the size of a room was impossible at one point in time. And it's not like it would be a quantum leap, but more like a x.x.1 update.)
it?s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn?t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
The fact that the iPhone 4 CDMA isn?t a ?world mode? phone does show that it?s not the best option for Apple. Eventually, like with WiFi and Bluetooth chips, these disparate wireless chips will get small and power efficient enough to be included on one tiny chip, but it?s not usually the smallest devices on the market that are setting this trend. It?s larger devices with more internal space and bigger batteries.
I?d say that this year?s new iPhone will not be ?world mode?, but I hope I?m wrong.
The problem here is that people are adding to the confusion by misinterpreting and shortening the actual name of the ARM product... ARM sells application processors called "Cortex-A" There are currently four versions in the series; Cortex-A5, Cortex-A8, Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15. They are not known as the A5, A8, A9 or A15 they are in fact "Cortex-A" models 5,8,9, and 15.
Please educate yourselves and others, and stop the spread of confusion.
My original post had the term "Cortex" in it (missed the hyphen though). It's just time consuming to keep repeating that through every post.
it?s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn?t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
The fact that the iPhone 4 CDMA isn?t a ?world mode? phone does show that it?s not the best option for Apple. Eventually, like with WiFi and Bluetooth chips, these disparate wireless chips will get small and power efficient enough to be included on one tiny chip, but it?s not usually the smallest devices on the market that are setting this trend. It?s larger devices with more internal space and bigger batteries.
I?d say that this year?s new iPhone will not be ?world mode?, but I hope I?m wrong.
Sprint has an announcement on 2/7 where they claim they will unveil an industry first and show that "the impossible is possible". I think they will be announcing CDMA2000 upgrades are complete on their network, allowing voice/data simultaneously. They could also announce an iPhone the same day, but probably not. If that Qualcomm chip works for Apple tho, imagine the iPhone 5 being announced for all 4 carriers this summer with CDMA/GSM both. One assembly line, cover all the US carriers. Verizon should be done w/their CDMA2000 upgrade by then as well.
Sprint has an announcement on 2/7 where they claim they will unveil an industry first and show that "the impossible is possible". I think they will be announcing CDMA2000 upgrades are complete on their network, allowing voice/data simultaneously. They could also announce an iPhone the same day, but probably not. If that Qualcomm chip works for Apple tho, imagine the iPhone 5 being announced for all 4 carriers this summer with CDMA/GSM both. One assembly line, cover all the US carriers. Verizon should be done w/their CDMA2000 upgrade by then as well.
1) Is Sprint rumoured to have VoRA (VoIP on EV-DO Rev. A) or EV-DO Rev. B?
2) I doubt that Qualcomm chip will work for Apple as it?s Snapdragon CPU and Adeno GPU. I?m sure Apple will stick with Samsung and Imagination. However, that is just a reference model and the tech can be licensed from Qualcomm.
If the iPad 2, with its additional room and mini-PCIe GSM/UMTS that is larger than the Gobi cards you can buy now that are pretty much true ?world mode chips with 4x GSm bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA\\EVDO bands then we might be able to consider this for the next iPhone. But note the 3 HW models for the next iPad are listed in iOS 4.3.
Most consumers really could care less whether a phone has a dual-core, or single-core setup. C'mon people, I think we're beyond that now.
Apple has shown that it can provide a better overall experience using less "horsepower" compared the the other folks with higher-clocked CPU's, and whatever else is under the hood.
When I see other manufacturers advertising CPU cores, or Ghz ratings, etc.. that's just to get the tech-heads wet, because no one else really cares anymore.
Its possible Apple could be working with Qualcomm secretly on a world radio that will be exclusive to Apple for some short amount of time. Apple has done things like this before.
It would be much more Apple's style to create one iPad and one iPhone that works on all networks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
it’s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn’t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
Its possible Apple could be working with Qualcomm secretly on a world radio that will be exclusive to Apple for some short amount of time. Apple has done things like this before.
It would be much more Apple's style to create one iPad and one iPhone that works on all networks.
Carriers are already paying $400 for iphone subsidies --- they are not going to pay for the extra $20 for a world iphone which their own subscribers never going to use.
Comments
No it would be dual 1GHz Cortex A9, I just mean the A8 naming convention works to suggest it's dual-core vs the A4.
It wouldn't be the aqua UI though, it would be Lion's fullscreen UI. Apple doesn't wait for consumer interest either otherwise there wouldn't be an iPad right now. At the moment, the Motorola Atrix phone is the only device doing this and it's not great because the performance is sluggish. I remember back when the only real touchscreen phone before the iPhone was the LG Prada and then Apple upped the game for everyone.
It's convenient that Lion and the next iPhone will debut at the same time.
It's also convenient that Apple rolled out an app store 6 months prior to get Mac apps all curated and prepared to go onto iOS (w/ only cocoa support, no carbon, java, etc...) This was their "nice" way of getting developers to switch all apps over to using cocoa only so that they are portable to iOS and will be handled by different UIs for different situations (iPhone, iPad, ATV, Desktop). I think this year will be too early still though, but iOS 6 will be the time it will be brought forward I think, iOS 5 seems a bit early still [but I'm always open for Apple to surprise us]!
The average consumer will read specs if they are presented to them and they will assume that the A9 is faster. It's not a good perception, even if it doesn't impact their buying decision.
The problem here is that people are adding to the confusion by misinterpreting and shortening the actual name of the ARM product... ARM sells application processors called "Cortex-A" There are currently four versions in the series; Cortex-A5, Cortex-A8, Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15. They are not known as the A5, A8, A9 or A15 they are in fact "Cortex-A" models 5,8,9, and 15.
Please educate yourselves and others, and stop the spread of confusion.
Ok what's different about this processor VS the other ones?
People aren't buying Android phones because they get excited by the latest mobile CPU, as much as tech blogs and enthusiasts like to salivate over same. They buy Android phones because they went to the Verizon store and they wanted to upgrade and that's what was there. Sure, the sales guy is right there to assure them that the more expensive choice goes to 11, but that's the case regardless of what's under the hood.
How many people give a shit, or even know, what's in the current iPhone compared to what's in the latest wonder Android phone? They care if their battery goes dry before they can get through a day, they care if video plays without dropping frames, they care if the UI feels reasonably fluid and doesn't have weird stutters and pauses that make the machine more difficult to use.
I couldn't agree more and actually I think the way Apple have done their physical stores has made specs even less interesting to the average consumer.
People can now go into the stores and expect to play with the choices available to them, and will make a decision on which feels right for them.
It's like buying a car. They have specs galore available for them, but I'll buy the one I feel drives the best in the price range I'm looking for.
I don't think the Cortex A8 can actually *do* dual core. Aren't all the dual core Arm chips based on the Cortex A9?
The naming is confusing, but perhaps they are striking back at all the bloggers that spent the last few years calling the iPhone 3G, "2G" (for second gen), and the 3Gs, "3G."
Yes. Cortex A8 is a single core CPU, 65nm fab and 32 bit. The Cortex A9 is 1-4 cores, 64 bit and fabricated down to a 45nm die.
http://www.arm.com/files/pdf/ARMCortexA-9Processors.pdf
Apple's SOC is fully optimized for its specific software and hardware needs. While everyone else is using generic off the shelf SOC.
Apple's CPU is akin to AMD's Fusion. The GPU is on the Chip with the CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4
Apple's SOC is fully optimized for its specific software and hardware needs. While everyone else is using generic off the shelf SOC.
Which means no unwanted silicon. That results in smaller size, better performance, and better battery life.
It's like a custom made shirt versus something you pick up off the rack at the department store.
Perhaps that's why Apple doesn't mention the CPU in the specs? (or GPU, RAM and other things for that matter).
It's on the design page at the very least.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
You're right, they try to keep the specs hidden on the iPhone so that they don't become a major purchasing consideration for most people.
I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Even if it doesn't affect too many people, it's best to avoid unnecessary mis-perceptions. I wish they didn't choose to start the name with "A" at all but I guess "I" was already taken and would have been even more confusing.
I really don't think the next iPhone will be called iPhone 5 because it would look like a real backwards move to go from iPhone 5 in 2011 to iPhone 4G in 2012.
the should stick with the number. iPhone 4, 5, 6... the 3G really messed it up. and now the original is also called the 2G which confuses people as well.
iPhone (2007), iPhone 3G (2008), iPhone 3GS (2009), iPhone 4 (2010), iPhone 4S (2011), iPhone 4G (2012)?
What about a combo CDMA/GSM chip/phone? Possible? Why not? (Keep in mind that a computer smaller than the size of a room was impossible at one point in time. And it's not like it would be a quantum leap, but more like a x.x.1 update.)
it?s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn?t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
The fact that the iPhone 4 CDMA isn?t a ?world mode? phone does show that it?s not the best option for Apple. Eventually, like with WiFi and Bluetooth chips, these disparate wireless chips will get small and power efficient enough to be included on one tiny chip, but it?s not usually the smallest devices on the market that are setting this trend. It?s larger devices with more internal space and bigger batteries.
I?d say that this year?s new iPhone will not be ?world mode?, but I hope I?m wrong.
Which means no unwanted silicon. That results in smaller size, better performance, and better battery life.
It's like a custom made shirt versus something you pick up off the rack at the department store.
Which means that Apple took out the second LCD screen output on the CPU --- as Apple will never have flip phone format.
Don't forget the impending iPad 2.0 rumors.
Impending? Have you been in a cave the last couple of months?
The problem here is that people are adding to the confusion by misinterpreting and shortening the actual name of the ARM product... ARM sells application processors called "Cortex-A" There are currently four versions in the series; Cortex-A5, Cortex-A8, Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15. They are not known as the A5, A8, A9 or A15 they are in fact "Cortex-A" models 5,8,9, and 15.
Please educate yourselves and others, and stop the spread of confusion.
My original post had the term "Cortex" in it (missed the hyphen though). It's just time consuming to keep repeating that through every post.
At least try to be polite.
it?s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn?t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
The fact that the iPhone 4 CDMA isn?t a ?world mode? phone does show that it?s not the best option for Apple. Eventually, like with WiFi and Bluetooth chips, these disparate wireless chips will get small and power efficient enough to be included on one tiny chip, but it?s not usually the smallest devices on the market that are setting this trend. It?s larger devices with more internal space and bigger batteries.
I?d say that this year?s new iPhone will not be ?world mode?, but I hope I?m wrong.
Sprint has an announcement on 2/7 where they claim they will unveil an industry first and show that "the impossible is possible". I think they will be announcing CDMA2000 upgrades are complete on their network, allowing voice/data simultaneously. They could also announce an iPhone the same day, but probably not. If that Qualcomm chip works for Apple tho, imagine the iPhone 5 being announced for all 4 carriers this summer with CDMA/GSM both. One assembly line, cover all the US carriers. Verizon should be done w/their CDMA2000 upgrade by then as well.
Sprint has an announcement on 2/7 where they claim they will unveil an industry first and show that "the impossible is possible". I think they will be announcing CDMA2000 upgrades are complete on their network, allowing voice/data simultaneously. They could also announce an iPhone the same day, but probably not. If that Qualcomm chip works for Apple tho, imagine the iPhone 5 being announced for all 4 carriers this summer with CDMA/GSM both. One assembly line, cover all the US carriers. Verizon should be done w/their CDMA2000 upgrade by then as well.
1) Is Sprint rumoured to have VoRA (VoIP on EV-DO Rev. A) or EV-DO Rev. B?
2) I doubt that Qualcomm chip will work for Apple as it?s Snapdragon CPU and Adeno GPU. I?m sure Apple will stick with Samsung and Imagination. However, that is just a reference model and the tech can be licensed from Qualcomm.
If the iPad 2, with its additional room and mini-PCIe GSM/UMTS that is larger than the Gobi cards you can buy now that are pretty much true ?world mode chips with 4x GSm bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA\\EVDO bands then we might be able to consider this for the next iPhone. But note the 3 HW models for the next iPad are listed in iOS 4.3.
Apple has shown that it can provide a better overall experience using less "horsepower" compared the the other folks with higher-clocked CPU's, and whatever else is under the hood.
When I see other manufacturers advertising CPU cores, or Ghz ratings, etc.. that's just to get the tech-heads wet, because no one else really cares anymore.
I really don't understand why this matters. In what way would it improve the iOS products?
With a dual-core 1GHz CCPU, OpenCL-capable GPU, 1 GB RAM they would have a real powerhouse capable of running OpenCL, CGD, and the latest OpenGL...
What that could mean to the end user is things like:
-- quickly creating iMovies on an iPad
-- AirPlay HD from an iDevice to an ATV or to another iDevice
-- See the AirPlay video on both the sending and receiving devices
-- Keynote presos from the iPad to ATV/HDTV -- multiple mirrored displays
-- Screen Sharing / BackToMyMac to/from iPad
-- collaboration among multiple iPads
-- more robust bg task postings - similar to widgets home screen on JailBroken or Android
-- CAD, Pro Apps on the iPad
-- "bettery battery"
The iPad is underpowered for it's screen size -- it could do much more with the above hardware.
The smaller screen would limit the need for this on an iPhone or Touch.
It would be much more Apple's style to create one iPad and one iPhone that works on all networks.
it’s technically possible. Qualcomm recently demoed a reference model phone using Snapdragon and having GSM/HS*PA|CDMA/EVDO about the size of the iPhone. That doesn’t mean all the necessary bands can be supported or the size or power efficiency is small enough for Apple.
iPhone (2007), iPhone 3G (2008), iPhone 3GS (2009), iPhone 4 (2010), iPhone 4S (2011), iPhone 4G (2012)?
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
Its possible Apple could be working with Qualcomm secretly on a world radio that will be exclusive to Apple for some short amount of time. Apple has done things like this before.
It would be much more Apple's style to create one iPad and one iPhone that works on all networks.
Carriers are already paying $400 for iphone subsidies --- they are not going to pay for the extra $20 for a world iphone which their own subscribers never going to use.