Then, that's the story, isn't it? The earth just moved!
I appreciate all the points you raise below -- and the knowledge and reasoning that support them.
My point is that Apple is in a singular position to do this -- risks, costs, qualifications/limitations be damned!
I am betting that Apple will do it!
What..?
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),
All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.
Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
There are some articles of Nokia and other making deals with Qualcomm that netted them billions in lump sum payout and a presumed renegotiated licensing fee. I have no idea what that actually means. For all we know those lump sum payouts were negotiations to keep them from going to court because they were violating Qualcomm?s patents.
There really isn?t enough information to make an educated guess, we only have historical moves by vendors. Most notably, as you?ve pointed out, that ?world mode? phones simply aren?t common.
Maybe a less expensive iPhone, iPod Touch or intelligent universal remote control.
Really inexpensive, really low-power.
Anything running iOS I?d expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I don?t think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasn?t able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.
That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.
Also, I can?t recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today I?d say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.
As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),
All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.
Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
I didn't explain myself well!
As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.
Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I?d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
Quote:
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.
Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.
We?ve been over this. They CAN, but that doesn?t mean it?s the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).
They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.
Even the crippled and erroneously named ?world mode? phones from other carriers are not common. That?s a huge clue.
Quote:
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.
In most countries, it does not. In North America it would? providing it?s also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws don?t prevent it.
I understand why you want this. I?d like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.
Quote:
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesn?t plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?
it?s easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesn?t RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.
If it?s 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apple?s net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. That?s a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and that?s before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.
Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomm?s roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. I?m certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.
Anything running iOS I?d expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I don?t think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasn?t able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.
That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.
Also, I can?t recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today I?d say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.
As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.
Good reasoning.
IDK anything about the OS on the iPod Nano.
But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.
This is an insane business decision. Talking to a dentist friend of mine in the pub.
he: can I connect a video camera to do dentistry.
me: No. The camera needs an SD card which you can add to the reader, or you can connect a static camera which will launch some app to install the pictures.
Doctors and dentists use this fibre optic cameras to connect to monitors which show them what the camera is seeing. That would so much cheaper on an iPad that everybody would do it. They could take a snapshot and annotate the snapshot and then store it in a local intranet, or email it, or keep it on the iPad.
There are so many things that could be done with an iPad which gave people access to some accessories. That decision is insane. If they dont add a standard USB cable to it this year, or just update next year, Android tablets will take this space
And I am sure the sales to dentists will completely overshadow the millions of iPads already sold.
The point being, Apple first shoots for the 80% (or maybe even 60%) solution, ie, implement what attracts 80% of potential buyers. Focus on a good implementation to get as many of this 80% population as buyers. Then iterate and add more features to attract additional use cases.
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.
In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.
But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.
Anyone know?
According to Erica?s Sadun it?s Pixo OS with a UI built by Apple. That makes a lot of sense.
According to Wikipedia the CPU appears to be a Samsung APL3278A01 SoC. I can?t find the MHz, but it?s definitely not (ARMv7) Cortex and definitely not fast enough for iOS using the (ARMv6) ARM11 at 400MHz of the first iPhone as a bare minimum.
No one, to my knowledge is complaining about the resolution of the current iPad. So the big question in regards to a super-high-resolution screen on an iPad would be - WHY?
Even on the iPhone and Touch such technology is rather gimmicky. It sounds impressive. It's a great marketing tool. But really, if the resolution on those screens was somewhat lower, who would have noticed?
By the way, who wants valuable memory chewed up by content designed for such ultra-high resolution, not to mention computing power, battery life, bandwidth, and so on and so on. If the content isn't super-high resolution, what's the point?
(my specialty is vision, so I may have a few points related to how my patients and I report using the devices): The resolution of the iPhone 4 is a GAME CHANGER. Most people who surf the web on phones hold the phone very close (especially near-sighted folks, who just remove their glasses, and hold the phone nearer than, or at, their "farpoint" of focus (related to their myopic magnitude). The average myope, regardless of age, probably holds the phone at less than 33 cm away, and many, like myself, hold it much closer. Those who own the older 3G and 3GS almost always have to pinch or poke the screen to get it up to large size to read it - not so on the iPhone 4, which allows you to see the pages without bothering to zoom in. The resolution is so much better that it is much easier to read on the iPhone 4 -while I disliked the term "retina" display, I know where they were coming from, and Apple has coined a term anyone who knows Apple can instantly relate to - a screen resolution that, NO MATTER HOW CLOSE YOU HOLD IT, is like reading from high quality, glossy, magazine paper. This screen is worth the price of admission, in my opinion.
Since the iPad may not be held as closely as a phone, it is not as critical to have the same pixel density as the iPhone 4, but I would bet that it will get much better in future iPads, and make video watching much easier.
All these attempts at higher density and brighter displays translate to better imaging, and less visual fatigue. The biggest drawback to any viewing experience is what's called "veiling glare" which can come from any light source in the simultaneous viewing area, or from glare off the screen itself from sources to the side and back.
The screen of the iPad obviously needs to be improved in this area, and non-glare screens are already evident in other products - this would be my first order of improvement of the ipad, along with weight. Other additions are welcome, but to me, secondary to the above.
(and, by the way, I know we may never get that 7inch iPad, most of my pilot friends and I would love one, for the specific task of having it up front on the yoke, rather than what folks have to do now, which is mount it to the side or on the knee - not ideal for instrument approach flying). Also, the iPad heats up too much in the cockpit, and shuts down frequently - NOT OK at all, if you plan on using it for primary, critical, flight information. Sigh - listening Steve? \
In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.
In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.
At least that is something. Maybe we?ll get to a point in our lifetimes where global calling is as inexpensive as calling someone down the road.
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
We’ve been over this. They CAN, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).
They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.
Even the crippled and erroneously named “world mode” phones from other carriers are not common. That’s a huge clue.
In most countries, it does not. In North America it would… providing it’s also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws don’t prevent it.
I understand why you want this. I’d like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.
But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesn’t plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?
it’s easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesn’t RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.
If it’s 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apple’s net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. That’s a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and that’s before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.
Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomm’s roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. I’m certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.
I think that with hundreds of millions of units in play, Apple could offer to buy:
-- 10 million @ $5.00 each.
-- Prepay for 100 million @ $0.50 each.
An unstated objective for Apple might be to offer/sell an unlocked, carrier-neutral iPhone in every market -- a single SKU for each storage option.
If Apple could do this then they would be the only mfgr (for a period of time) who offers a "buy anywhere use anywhere" smartphone.
There are lots of user scenarios:
-- You live in a good ATT Area, but often travel to. SF or NY - you buy unlocked and PayGo or roam.
-- You live in an. Area good for VZ, but travel to Europe - you buy VZ plan and PayGo or roam when in Europe.
-- You live in an area with good coverage from all the carriers. - you shop the carriers for the best plan, optionally including subsidy from carrier. You don't travel much - but you know you could, with no loss of service or penalty.
The thing about this (and it may take a few years) it doesn't require the consumer or the phone manufacturer beholden to the carriers. The carriers are reduced to what the should be: a regulated utility providing access and bandwidth.
Eventually the iPad will be able to print on any wireless printer, handle cameras and SD cards, probably connect to a midi device ( for Garage Band). It will do what the Air does but in a tablet fashion.
, and... there's an SD slot. That's right -- our sources say with near certainty that the device will have a dedicated SD slot built in (with no traditional USB slot)."
You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?
I'm not saying it will happen just that it might be an interesting path for Apple to follow. Plus we have the rumor about the split of the development teams at Apple.
As to Cortex A5 it can easily be implemented as a low cost SMP with multiple cores. This could lead to an iPhone with very good performance with a long battery life. My biggest fear with respect to A9 is power draw in a pocketable device. That of course depends upon the process tech and Apples power reduction skills. Beyond that iPhone 4 doesn't suffer performance issues the way iPad does.
In a nut shell IPad needs a different class of processor. I'm not convinced that Cortex A5 can replace Apples hopped up Cortex A8 but if it can it ought to a very low power implementation. It is an interesting thought exercise.
Comments
Maybe he means non-crippled USB.
I am sure he knows how to read and type.
The Cortex A5 opens another possible direction for iPhones.
Cortex A5 does put a wrinkle into the metal work.
You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?
Then, that's the story, isn't it? The earth just moved!
I appreciate all the points you raise below -- and the knowledge and reasoning that support them.
My point is that Apple is in a singular position to do this -- risks, costs, qualifications/limitations be damned!
I am betting that Apple will do it!
What..?
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),
All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.
Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
There are some articles of Nokia and other making deals with Qualcomm that netted them billions in lump sum payout and a presumed renegotiated licensing fee. I have no idea what that actually means. For all we know those lump sum payouts were negotiations to keep them from going to court because they were violating Qualcomm?s patents.
There really isn?t enough information to make an educated guess, we only have historical moves by vendors. Most notably, as you?ve pointed out, that ?world mode? phones simply aren?t common.
You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?
Maybe a less expensive iPhone, iPod Touch or intelligent universal remote control.
Really inexpensive, really low-power.
Maybe a less expensive iPhone, iPod Touch or intelligent universal remote control.
Really inexpensive, really low-power.
Anything running iOS I?d expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I don?t think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasn?t able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.
That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.
Also, I can?t recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today I?d say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.
As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.
What..?
Accepting Solipsism's points - you're saying Apple is in a singular position to charge us a little more for the phone (to cover Qualcomm licensing) as well as reduce battery life (to fit larger chipset in),
All this so they can offer us internationally a phone that can't do anything more than GSM anyway - even when we go to the US it wouldn't roam to Verizon anyway because GSM carriers don't have that kind of roaming agreement.
Sorry, I just don't get your "costs / limitations be damned" point.
BTW: I do think that Apple has the power to renegotiate the licensing costs, based on using the technology NOT being used for most handsets. But the other implications of a "world phone" aren't good.
I didn't explain myself well!
As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.
Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
I didn't explain myself well!
As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I?d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.
Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.
We?ve been over this. They CAN, but that doesn?t mean it?s the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).
They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.
Even the crippled and erroneously named ?world mode? phones from other carriers are not common. That?s a huge clue.
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.
In most countries, it does not. In North America it would? providing it?s also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws don?t prevent it.
I understand why you want this. I?d like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesn?t plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?
it?s easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesn?t RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.
If it?s 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apple?s net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. That?s a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and that?s before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.
Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomm?s roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. I?m certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.
Anything running iOS I?d expect to be at least Cortex-A8-based. I say at least because I don?t think we can rule out possible supply issues with Apple and Samsung producing enough dual-core Cortex-A9-based Apple SoCs (i.e. A4 or A8 or whatever), or that Apple wasn?t able to do some crazy things with Cortex-A8 that make it a better option over a less optimized Cortex-A9 based system.
That said, I think the latter is highly unlikely as Cortex-A9, while still being ARMv7 like Cortex-A8, has many new features that allow for better performance while being more power efficient. Even if they have to wait a month for the chips I think it would likely be better than another year before moving to Cortex-A9.
Also, I can?t recall Apple ever having a problem sourcing ARM chips. If I had to place a bet today I?d say that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch due out this year will all be dual-core Cortex-A9-based.
As for a universal remote, If that did come to pass would that be best served with iOS or with the much simpler OS used for the new iPod Nano. That device feels very responsive yet uses very little power in comparison to the Touch.
Good reasoning.
IDK anything about the OS on the iPod Nano.
But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.
Anyone know?
This is an insane business decision. Talking to a dentist friend of mine in the pub.
he: can I connect a video camera to do dentistry.
me: No. The camera needs an SD card which you can add to the reader, or you can connect a static camera which will launch some app to install the pictures.
Doctors and dentists use this fibre optic cameras to connect to monitors which show them what the camera is seeing. That would so much cheaper on an iPad that everybody would do it. They could take a snapshot and annotate the snapshot and then store it in a local intranet, or email it, or keep it on the iPad.
There are so many things that could be done with an iPad which gave people access to some accessories. That decision is insane. If they dont add a standard USB cable to it this year, or just update next year, Android tablets will take this space
And I am sure the sales to dentists will completely overshadow the millions of iPads already sold.
The point being, Apple first shoots for the 80% (or maybe even 60%) solution, ie, implement what attracts 80% of potential buyers. Focus on a good implementation to get as many of this 80% population as buyers. Then iterate and add more features to attract additional use cases.
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.
In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.
Good reasoning.
IDK anything about the OS on the iPod Nano.
But, I did JailBreak an early iPod and and install uLinux on it. It was limited as there was no MMU hardware. I suspect that today's Nano could run an iOS variant.
Anyone know?
According to Erica?s Sadun it?s Pixo OS with a UI built by Apple. That makes a lot of sense.According to Wikipedia the CPU appears to be a Samsung APL3278A01 SoC. I can?t find the MHz, but it?s definitely not (ARMv7) Cortex and definitely not fast enough for iOS using the (ARMv6) ARM11 at 400MHz of the first iPhone as a bare minimum.
No one, to my knowledge is complaining about the resolution of the current iPad. So the big question in regards to a super-high-resolution screen on an iPad would be - WHY?
Even on the iPhone and Touch such technology is rather gimmicky. It sounds impressive. It's a great marketing tool. But really, if the resolution on those screens was somewhat lower, who would have noticed?
By the way, who wants valuable memory chewed up by content designed for such ultra-high resolution, not to mention computing power, battery life, bandwidth, and so on and so on. If the content isn't super-high resolution, what's the point?
(my specialty is vision, so I may have a few points related to how my patients and I report using the devices): The resolution of the iPhone 4 is a GAME CHANGER. Most people who surf the web on phones hold the phone very close (especially near-sighted folks, who just remove their glasses, and hold the phone nearer than, or at, their "farpoint" of focus (related to their myopic magnitude). The average myope, regardless of age, probably holds the phone at less than 33 cm away, and many, like myself, hold it much closer. Those who own the older 3G and 3GS almost always have to pinch or poke the screen to get it up to large size to read it - not so on the iPhone 4, which allows you to see the pages without bothering to zoom in. The resolution is so much better that it is much easier to read on the iPhone 4 -while I disliked the term "retina" display, I know where they were coming from, and Apple has coined a term anyone who knows Apple can instantly relate to - a screen resolution that, NO MATTER HOW CLOSE YOU HOLD IT, is like reading from high quality, glossy, magazine paper. This screen is worth the price of admission, in my opinion.
Since the iPad may not be held as closely as a phone, it is not as critical to have the same pixel density as the iPhone 4, but I would bet that it will get much better in future iPads, and make video watching much easier.
All these attempts at higher density and brighter displays translate to better imaging, and less visual fatigue. The biggest drawback to any viewing experience is what's called "veiling glare" which can come from any light source in the simultaneous viewing area, or from glare off the screen itself from sources to the side and back.
The screen of the iPad obviously needs to be improved in this area, and non-glare screens are already evident in other products - this would be my first order of improvement of the ipad, along with weight. Other additions are welcome, but to me, secondary to the above.
(and, by the way, I know we may never get that 7inch iPad, most of my pilot friends and I would love one, for the specific task of having it up front on the yoke, rather than what folks have to do now, which is mount it to the side or on the knee - not ideal for instrument approach flying). Also, the iPad heats up too much in the cockpit, and shuts down frequently - NOT OK at all, if you plan on using it for primary, critical, flight information. Sigh - listening Steve?
In Europe, roaming was never a technical issue as all countries had GSM networks right from the start in mid 90s. Expensive it was however but then most frequent travellers used multiple SIM cards, ie, one for each country.
In the past decade, several large multi-national carriers have evolved, eg, Vodafone, T-mobile, Orange and others owning networks in five, ten or more countries and thus being able to offer somewhat pan-European contracts, though still relatively few people, essential professionals having to travel a lot, use them. In addition, the EU has put price limits on roaming charges as competition clearly was not working in driving down the prices (compared to national charges where competition between up to four GSM carriers per country plus several virtual network operators has driven down the prices). And these price caps are being progressively lowered.
At least that is something. Maybe we?ll get to a point in our lifetimes where global calling is as inexpensive as calling someone down the road.
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. I’d expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
We’ve been over this. They CAN, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).
They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.
Even the crippled and erroneously named “world mode” phones from other carriers are not common. That’s a huge clue.
In most countries, it does not. In North America it would… providing it’s also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws don’t prevent it.
I understand why you want this. I’d like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.
But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesn’t plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?
it’s easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesn’t RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.
If it’s 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apple’s net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. That’s a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and that’s before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.
Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomm’s roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. I’m certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.
I have seen. That roadmap!
I think that with hundreds of millions of units in play, Apple could offer to buy:
-- 10 million @ $5.00 each.
-- Prepay for 100 million @ $0.50 each.
An unstated objective for Apple might be to offer/sell an unlocked, carrier-neutral iPhone in every market -- a single SKU for each storage option.
If Apple could do this then they would be the only mfgr (for a period of time) who offers a "buy anywhere use anywhere" smartphone.
There are lots of user scenarios:
-- You live in a good ATT Area, but often travel to. SF or NY - you buy unlocked and PayGo or roam.
-- You live in an. Area good for VZ, but travel to Europe - you buy VZ plan and PayGo or roam when in Europe.
-- You live in an area with good coverage from all the carriers. - you shop the carriers for the best plan, optionally including subsidy from carrier. You don't travel much - but you know you could, with no loss of service or penalty.
The thing about this (and it may take a few years) it doesn't require the consumer or the phone manufacturer beholden to the carriers. The carriers are reduced to what the should be: a regulated utility providing access and bandwidth.
Gotta' go soon -- my Stealers need me!
It worked!
Eventually the iPad will be able to print on any wireless printer, handle cameras and SD cards, probably connect to a midi device ( for Garage Band). It will do what the Air does but in a tablet fashion.
http://line6.com/midimobilizer/
It's been able to for awhile now
, and... there's an SD slot. That's right -- our sources say with near certainty that the device will have a dedicated SD slot built in (with no traditional USB slot)."
Sneakernet!! Can they patent it?
http://line6.com/midimobilizer/
It's been able to for awhile now
Not quite a standard interface, but fair enough.
You two lost me. Why would you think the Cortex-A5 would the replacement for the Cortex-A8, and not the Cortex-A9?
I'm not saying it will happen just that it might be an interesting path for Apple to follow. Plus we have the rumor about the split of the development teams at Apple.
As to Cortex A5 it can easily be implemented as a low cost SMP with multiple cores. This could lead to an iPhone with very good performance with a long battery life. My biggest fear with respect to A9 is power draw in a pocketable device. That of course depends upon the process tech and Apples power reduction skills. Beyond that iPhone 4 doesn't suffer performance issues the way iPad does.
In a nut shell IPad needs a different class of processor. I'm not convinced that Cortex A5 can replace Apples hopped up Cortex A8 but if it can it ought to a very low power implementation. It is an interesting thought exercise.