This is a wrinkle in the GSM system itself and one of the problems with voice and data being available at the same time. Its not very energy efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Phone calls have always seemed to drain my battery.
If so, I based that on a comment I read by a Bada app developer who stated:
iOS is compiled down to native code. It can use C++, and people do. It can use C, and people do. It can use Objective C ( a form of C) and people do. You dont really know much. The iOS team also write their own compiler which is designed to increase the efficiency of the native code being compiled by the native API.
Quote:
So who wrote Bada?
A team without the experience of writing an OS for more than 3 decades, whether in Next or Apple. They are not an OS team. If they were, where is the BADA desktop OS?[/quote]
Quote:
I have a Wave myself. For something with a non-existent OS - a result of not being developed by a non-existent OS team - and a bunch of parts just thrown together, it's pretty amazing. You are right, I can't see Samsung taking on OSX, but you are wrong about tablets. I can certainly see a Bada variant on a tablet, though I suspect Samsung will stick to Android for that application.
I am sure it is "amazing" at the level of your technical knowledge - which is close to imaginary. However by an OS team I mean someone who can write an OS from the lower level mobiles, to something running an iMac 27 inch screen, or a xServer, or an Air. I dont think Android can scale either.
[Originally Posted by jason98] Seems like a business perversion or at least a huge conflict of interests when Apple relies on one of its primary mobile competitors to build the key components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Not at all. Samsung makes a lot of money from building Apple's chips. Why should they give that money to someone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That is exactly what the A4 does and is why Apple purchased its own design IP.
Apple can design both the OS and chips to optimally work together. With that advantage Apple does not have to compete in the fastest CPU race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
I worry more about what's happened with other industries going down the road of outsourced production. The companies that start out building fairly peripheral parts keep moving up the food chain until they're building the whole product, and then the next stage is they begin marketing their own variants, removing a final outside distributor from the cost chain, and eventually take over the market. Show me a TV still manufactured in the US.
Also, there may be IP and patent laws, but certainly Samsung's sophisticated enough - given that they know Apple's designs so intimately through their manufacture - to reverse engineer any Apple improvements into their own Android phone parts - and suggest to Google how to exploit them through leaner, less generic code if standards could be dictated by Big G.
I at least see some advantages for Samsung here that could over time come back to bite Apple in the ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What I mean is that if one looks a little deeper there are a number of interesting things happening with Samsungs microprocessor devision that could be tied with Apple. Some things of note:
Samsung is ready with their 32/28nm process. That means a low power variant of the A4 could be ready real soon now.
Samsung has indicated an interest in partnerships in a discussion involving their new Austin plant.
Apple has indicated that 3.9 BILLION has gone to new capittal and inventory purchases. Since it takes about a billion and a half to get a new semiconductor plant up and running it is very easy to want to connect the dots here. Apple could very well be a partner in this development or new plant.
Samsung is part of a team that developed this process node and the software tools to exploit it. Others involved are Global Foundries and IBM, with a bunch of small fry. The interesting part here is tools compatibility, Apple could have Global Foundries build chips for them with minimal effort.
Samsungs process has been tuned for low power while Globals targets performance. So we could see Samsung making low power chips for Apple while Global produces a higher performance variant. The thought is very interesting. .
If you're as conversant on this as you sound, some verrry interesting notions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
I think the new Fab will work the same way as Foxconn. Where Both company are now building Sites and Plant specially for Apple. This provide greater control and secrecy that apple needs while off setting the cost of actually running production themselves.
Apple will leverages their management expertise, purchasing price on equipment etc.
See my comments on reverse engineering above....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Longer supply chain doesn't matter much for CPUs. The incremental cost of shipping them overnight is insignificant.
Burning jet fuel does matter to the environment, FWIW. Not the biggest greenie around, but always worth considering all the "costs."
iOS is compiled down to native code. It can use C++, and people do. It can use C, and people do. It can use Objective C ( a form of C) and people do. You dont really know much. The iOS team also write their own compiler which is designed to increase the efficiency of the native code being compiled by the native API.
I made a comparison between Bada and Android, so why do you keep banging on about iOS and C? Talk about non sequiteur and 'straw man' all rolled up into one!
Quote:
A team without the experience of writing an OS for more than 3 decades, whether in Next or Apple. They are not an OS team. If they were, where is the BADA desktop OS?
I am sure it is "amazing" at the level of your technical knowledge - which is close to imaginary. However by an OS team I mean someone who can write an OS from the lower level mobiles, to something running an iMac 27 inch screen, or a xServer, or an Air. I dont think Android can scale either.
Your definition of OS is amazing to the point where just the thought of addressing your little diatribe is mentally exhausting. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...You know that question I asked above? No need to answer it. Carry on. (where's that salute smilie AI?)
I worry more about what's happened with other industries going down the road of outsourced production. The companies that start out building fairly peripheral parts keep moving up the food chain until they're building the whole product, and then the next stage is they begin marketing their own variants, removing a final outside distributor from the cost chain, and eventually take over the market. Show me a TV still manufactured in the US.
I'm not sure what is your concern. Mobile phones already are not manufactured in the US, so there is nothing to loose there.
There is a difference between the company designing the product and the company manufacturing the product. Samsung is simply building the chip to Apple's specifications. Apple owns the designs and the intellectual property.
Quote:
Also, there may be IP and patent laws, but certainly Samsung's sophisticated enough - given that they know Apple's designs so intimately through their manufacture - to reverse engineer any Apple improvements into their own Android phone parts - and suggest to Google how to exploit them through leaner, less generic code if standards could be dictated by Big G.
No Apple would not allow that.
You know how these large companies work. Samsung's engineering department and manufacturing department don't have full access to each others information. I seriously doubt Samsung's chip engineers have access to Apple's chip designs.
Why would Samsung risk a lawsuit, risk its contracts and good standing with Apple, as well as good standing with anyone else who may want to use its manufacturing facilities? Stealing Apple's IP would not be worth it for many reasons.
I made a comparison between Bada and Android, so why do you keep banging on about iOS and C? Talk about non sequiteur and 'straw man' all rolled up into one!
Your definition of OS is amazing to the point where just the thought of addressing your little diatribe is mentally exhausting. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...You know that question I asked above? No need to answer it. Carry on. (where's that salute smilie AI?)
You are merely claiming straw man arguments. We are comparing Samsung to Apple here. You are mistaken twice. iOS is compiled to native code, and it has a better OS team. Bada is not going to compete.
I'm not sure what is your concern. Mobile phones already are not manufactured in the US, so there is nothing to loose there.
There is a difference between the company designing the product and the company manufacturing the product. Samsung is simply building the chip to Apple's specifications. Apple owns the designs and the intellectual property.
No Apple would not allow that.
You know how these large companies work. Samsung's engineering department and manufacturing department don't have full access to each others information. I seriously doubt Samsung's chip engineers have access to Apple's chip designs.
Why would Samsung risk a lawsuit, risk its contracts and good standing with Apple, as well as good standing with anyone else who may want to use its manufacturing facilities? Stealing Apple's IP would not be worth it for many reasons.
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
Endgadget (?) posts its new Apple product tear downs ASAP, but dollars to donuts, every other competitor has them torn apart and under analysis just as quickly. Being a contract manufacturer gives even a bigger head start on the process.
So I'll happily grant your main points (and appreciate the good feedback), but as an old cynic who's watched his homeland lose so many once "unassailable" positions in the business arena over decades, just hoping they're not "famous last words" from a cutthroat real-world perspective.
By the time the iPad 3 and iPhone 6 hit, if there isn't at least one other company tightly integrating hardware AND software like Apple, no one will be able to catch them.
The only one I can see is HP with WebOS. HP has also ran custom chip architectures in the past - whether they still have that expertise or not I'm not sure.
MS could do it if they wanted. Will wait until it's too late like the Zune or will they just "Zune" their WP7 partners now and get it over with? I'm banking on timidity until it's too late - unfortunately
This is prescient!
I agree that HP could do it -- but they lack the blood lust!
MS could do it but -- they lack the vision and focus.
I believe that the MS will use percussive sublimation to "up-Schmidt" Balmer to "Executive Chairman for Really Big Deals".
Then, some Gates-mentored shark will take control of MS and say "screw the world". MS will enter the Tablet Hardware/Software marketplace big time.
MS can leave the Windows relationship with HW mfgrs intact -- exploit it as long as it lasts.
But, make no mistake -- MS's survival depends on having the 1 or 2 position in the Tablet market.
So you think Apple would make custom hardware for their own devices and not take advantage of that customization in their system software?
Please read that again! If not clear I was expressing the point that optimization only buys Apple so much. After optimization; CPU, GPU and specialized circuitry needs better performance for the platform to advance. This is pretty easy to understand, after you have gained what you can through optimization your only avenue is to speed up hardware.
Quote:
Okay, but Apple system software does not ignore built-in hardware.
And who said anything about that?
Quote:
The hardware and software are made/optimized for each other.
Processor speed is only one part of the system. It's not simply, " the fastest processor wins".
You gravely underestimate the need for better performance in devices like iPad. IPad comes up short in so many ways that it will be fairly pathetic up against machines that run Android much less something running native code.
The ones I?m referring to are coming as 1GHz Cortex-A8 compared to about 750-850Mhz Apple A4 in the iPhone 4. Despite this inferior number of cycles per second the device feels faster in the UI as the code is more refined from the drivers to the OS to the apps and even the SDK.
That's because until yesterday's beta release of Android 3.0 SDK --- their UI doesn't have hardware accel.
Not really! Human vision simply is optimized for a wider aspect ratios.
Quote:
Movies were originally 4x3. The reason they began producing wider aspect ratios is because of television. Movies needed to offer a bigger experience than television and the most effective way to do that is to make the aspect ratio wider to provide a more expansive experience.
For over 70 years television has been 4x3. The migration to 16x9 has only been in the last 10 years. The reason television is switching to 16x9 is to provide more of an experience like that of the movies.
As the screen gets smaller and you sit closer to it. The expansive field of the wide screen effect is less effective. All you really end up doing is having a smaller picture. That is the reason why HD television uses 1.77 (16x9) and not 1.85 or 2.4 that movies use.
OK if you believe that I'm not going to argue about it.
Business is business.. The major components that Apple uses on the iPhone and iPad, Samsung happens to be the best at building them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
This might have made sense a few years ago when the iPhone was just getting started. But now that Apple is a dominant player I hope they will take steps to protect themselves from mischief.
The relationship between the likes of Apple and Samsung, much like the Apple/Google one, can best be described by the term "Frenemies" - one really can't hurt the other without taking a corresponding "hit" themselves as a consequence. Besides Apple and Samsung's relationship goes back further than the latter, and has been nothing but prosperous for both parties.
Like Google, Samsung will be well aware of the fact that Apple as a corporate entity values its independence above any profitability. Apple in its painstaking and perfectionist way is already seeking alternative (as well as in-house) suppliers to as many of its externally sourced components as can replicate the quality and the supply chain efficiency of their best suppliers, chiefly to "protect themselves from mischief" (from which they suffered so horrendously in the past at the hands of so-called partners. If they had forgotten the lesson of those days in their present comfort, Google would have provided a deadly but timely reminder of that).
Apple is also aware, on the other, balancing hand, that "no Man is an island".
The relationship between the likes of Apple and Samsung, much like the Apple/Google one, can best be described by the term "Frenemies" - one really can't hurt the other without taking a corresponding "hit" themselves as a consequence. Besides Apple and Samsung's relationship goes back further than the latter, and has been nothing but prosperous for both parties.
Like Google, Samsung will be well aware of the fact that Apple as a corporate entity values its independence above any profitability. Apple in its painstaking and perfectionist way is already seeking alternative (as well as in-house) suppliers to as many of its externally sourced components as can replicate the quality and the supply chain efficiency of their best suppliers, chiefly to "protect themselves from mischief" (from which they suffered so horrendously in the past at the hands of so-called partners. If they had forgotten the lesson of those days in their present comfort, Google would have provided a deadly but timely reminder of that).
Apple is also aware, on the other, balancing hand, that "no Man is an island".
You are merely claiming straw man arguments. We are comparing Samsung to Apple here. You are mistaken twice. iOS is compiled to native code, and it has a better OS team. Bada is not going to compete.
non sequiteur and 'straw man' my ass.
You are doing it again! Is your reading comprehension that bad?
I never compared Bada to iOS other than to mention they
are both Unix based.
That's, all I said, end of story. I never said anything about iOS, compilers, or native code. I never said anything about the relative merits or expertise of OS teams either, and I certainly never made any direct claim about Bada competing against iOS.
And don't employ the royal 'we' as if you have some divine right to dictate the topics under discussion, its bad enough you keep trying to put words in my mouth.
If you go back and read the original paragraph I wrote, you might - though it is appearing less and less likely - be able to perceive that I only mentioned Bada in the context of the assertion that only Apple can do HW/Software integration and therefore have a huge advantage because no one else can do that. Since Samsung have their own OS and many times Apple's ability to design and specify HW, the assertion I was addressing is obviously fallacious. Since I actually own a product incorporating Samsung's HW/Software integration, I think I can fairly safely say that.
I didn't say Samsung is better than Apple or make any other pointless value judgments. in fact, if you want to strain those comprehension skills to the max and look at the title of my original post, it was 'lockstep'. Guess what I meant by that?
It also means that Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology nor "special" silicon technology that enabled their stuff to vastly outperform Android stuff on battery life.
It also means that Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology nor "special" silicon technology that enabled their stuff to vastly outperform Android stuff on battery life.
That?s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple?s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.
Apparently if a team produces version 1.0 of it's GUI acceleration, no claim can be made about Apple's drivers which have been written for years and can power much more powerful devices.
That?s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple?s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.
If you really believe that you should file a lawsuit for false advertising.
That's like talking about recharging my double A rechargeable batteries with a 15 minute rapid charger --- of course that is going to destroy the battery over time.
But we ain't talking about recharge cycles, we are talking about straight up battery life.
That's like talking about recharging my double A rechargeable batteries with a 15 minute rapid charger --- of course that is going to destroy the battery over time.
But we ain't talking about recharge cycles, we are talking about straight up battery life.
You said ?Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology?. That includes all technology associated with the battery, not a single metric of battery life which can?t be accurately measured when using different capacity batteries, with different HW configurations running disparate OSes.
By your measure of ?battery life? you?re saying a better technology is lasting longer between charges, even if that battery is 10x larger than an Apple product. Do you not see how your idea of better technology makes no sense?
Comments
Phone calls have always seemed to drain my battery.
If so, I based that on a comment I read by a Bada app developer who stated:
iOS is compiled down to native code. It can use C++, and people do. It can use C, and people do. It can use Objective C ( a form of C) and people do. You dont really know much. The iOS team also write their own compiler which is designed to increase the efficiency of the native code being compiled by the native API.
So who wrote Bada?
A team without the experience of writing an OS for more than 3 decades, whether in Next or Apple. They are not an OS team. If they were, where is the BADA desktop OS?[/quote]
I have a Wave myself. For something with a non-existent OS - a result of not being developed by a non-existent OS team - and a bunch of parts just thrown together, it's pretty amazing. You are right, I can't see Samsung taking on OSX, but you are wrong about tablets. I can certainly see a Bada variant on a tablet, though I suspect Samsung will stick to Android for that application.
I am sure it is "amazing" at the level of your technical knowledge - which is close to imaginary. However by an OS team I mean someone who can write an OS from the lower level mobiles, to something running an iMac 27 inch screen, or a xServer, or an Air. I dont think Android can scale either.
[Originally Posted by jason98] Seems like a business perversion or at least a huge conflict of interests when Apple relies on one of its primary mobile competitors to build the key components.
Not at all. Samsung makes a lot of money from building Apple's chips. Why should they give that money to someone else?
That is exactly what the A4 does and is why Apple purchased its own design IP.
Apple can design both the OS and chips to optimally work together. With that advantage Apple does not have to compete in the fastest CPU race.
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
I worry more about what's happened with other industries going down the road of outsourced production. The companies that start out building fairly peripheral parts keep moving up the food chain until they're building the whole product, and then the next stage is they begin marketing their own variants, removing a final outside distributor from the cost chain, and eventually take over the market. Show me a TV still manufactured in the US.
Also, there may be IP and patent laws, but certainly Samsung's sophisticated enough - given that they know Apple's designs so intimately through their manufacture - to reverse engineer any Apple improvements into their own Android phone parts - and suggest to Google how to exploit them through leaner, less generic code if standards could be dictated by Big G.
I at least see some advantages for Samsung here that could over time come back to bite Apple in the ass.
What I mean is that if one looks a little deeper there are a number of interesting things happening with Samsungs microprocessor devision that could be tied with Apple. Some things of note:
If you're as conversant on this as you sound, some verrry interesting notions.
I think the new Fab will work the same way as Foxconn. Where Both company are now building Sites and Plant specially for Apple. This provide greater control and secrecy that apple needs while off setting the cost of actually running production themselves.
Apple will leverages their management expertise, purchasing price on equipment etc.
See my comments on reverse engineering above....
Longer supply chain doesn't matter much for CPUs. The incremental cost of shipping them overnight is insignificant.
Burning jet fuel does matter to the environment, FWIW. Not the biggest greenie around, but always worth considering all the "costs."
iOS is compiled down to native code. It can use C++, and people do. It can use C, and people do. It can use Objective C ( a form of C) and people do. You dont really know much. The iOS team also write their own compiler which is designed to increase the efficiency of the native code being compiled by the native API.
I made a comparison between Bada and Android, so why do you keep banging on about iOS and C? Talk about non sequiteur and 'straw man' all rolled up into one!
A team without the experience of writing an OS for more than 3 decades, whether in Next or Apple. They are not an OS team. If they were, where is the BADA desktop OS?
I am sure it is "amazing" at the level of your technical knowledge - which is close to imaginary. However by an OS team I mean someone who can write an OS from the lower level mobiles, to something running an iMac 27 inch screen, or a xServer, or an Air. I dont think Android can scale either.
Your definition of OS is amazing to the point where just the thought of addressing your little diatribe is mentally exhausting. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...You know that question I asked above? No need to answer it. Carry on. (where's that salute smilie AI?)
I worry more about what's happened with other industries going down the road of outsourced production. The companies that start out building fairly peripheral parts keep moving up the food chain until they're building the whole product, and then the next stage is they begin marketing their own variants, removing a final outside distributor from the cost chain, and eventually take over the market. Show me a TV still manufactured in the US.
I'm not sure what is your concern. Mobile phones already are not manufactured in the US, so there is nothing to loose there.
There is a difference between the company designing the product and the company manufacturing the product. Samsung is simply building the chip to Apple's specifications. Apple owns the designs and the intellectual property.
Also, there may be IP and patent laws, but certainly Samsung's sophisticated enough - given that they know Apple's designs so intimately through their manufacture - to reverse engineer any Apple improvements into their own Android phone parts - and suggest to Google how to exploit them through leaner, less generic code if standards could be dictated by Big G.
No Apple would not allow that.
You know how these large companies work. Samsung's engineering department and manufacturing department don't have full access to each others information. I seriously doubt Samsung's chip engineers have access to Apple's chip designs.
Why would Samsung risk a lawsuit, risk its contracts and good standing with Apple, as well as good standing with anyone else who may want to use its manufacturing facilities? Stealing Apple's IP would not be worth it for many reasons.
I made a comparison between Bada and Android, so why do you keep banging on about iOS and C? Talk about non sequiteur and 'straw man' all rolled up into one!
Your definition of OS is amazing to the point where just the thought of addressing your little diatribe is mentally exhausting. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...You know that question I asked above? No need to answer it. Carry on. (where's that salute smilie AI?)
You are merely claiming straw man arguments. We are comparing Samsung to Apple here. You are mistaken twice. iOS is compiled to native code, and it has a better OS team. Bada is not going to compete.
non sequiteur and 'straw man' my ass.
I'm not sure what is your concern. Mobile phones already are not manufactured in the US, so there is nothing to loose there.
There is a difference between the company designing the product and the company manufacturing the product. Samsung is simply building the chip to Apple's specifications. Apple owns the designs and the intellectual property.
No Apple would not allow that.
You know how these large companies work. Samsung's engineering department and manufacturing department don't have full access to each others information. I seriously doubt Samsung's chip engineers have access to Apple's chip designs.
Why would Samsung risk a lawsuit, risk its contracts and good standing with Apple, as well as good standing with anyone else who may want to use its manufacturing facilities? Stealing Apple's IP would not be worth it for many reasons.
I'll just point out legal reverse engineering isn't about stealing patents, it's about figuring out how something works and then figuring a non-infringing (similar or dissimalar) way to do the same thing.
Endgadget (?) posts its new Apple product tear downs ASAP, but dollars to donuts, every other competitor has them torn apart and under analysis just as quickly. Being a contract manufacturer gives even a bigger head start on the process.
So I'll happily grant your main points (and appreciate the good feedback), but as an old cynic who's watched his homeland lose so many once "unassailable" positions in the business arena over decades, just hoping they're not "famous last words" from a cutthroat real-world perspective.
By the time the iPad 3 and iPhone 6 hit, if there isn't at least one other company tightly integrating hardware AND software like Apple, no one will be able to catch them.
The only one I can see is HP with WebOS. HP has also ran custom chip architectures in the past - whether they still have that expertise or not I'm not sure.
MS could do it if they wanted. Will wait until it's too late like the Zune or will they just "Zune" their WP7 partners now and get it over with? I'm banking on timidity until it's too late - unfortunately
This is prescient!
I agree that HP could do it -- but they lack the blood lust!
MS could do it but -- they lack the vision and focus.
I believe that the MS will use percussive sublimation to "up-Schmidt" Balmer to "Executive Chairman for Really Big Deals".
Then, some Gates-mentored shark will take control of MS and say "screw the world". MS will enter the Tablet Hardware/Software marketplace big time.
MS can leave the Windows relationship with HW mfgrs intact -- exploit it as long as it lasts.
But, make no mistake -- MS's survival depends on having the 1 or 2 position in the Tablet market.
So you think Apple would make custom hardware for their own devices and not take advantage of that customization in their system software?
Please read that again! If not clear I was expressing the point that optimization only buys Apple so much. After optimization; CPU, GPU and specialized circuitry needs better performance for the platform to advance. This is pretty easy to understand, after you have gained what you can through optimization your only avenue is to speed up hardware.
Okay, but Apple system software does not ignore built-in hardware.
And who said anything about that?
The hardware and software are made/optimized for each other.
Processor speed is only one part of the system. It's not simply, " the fastest processor wins".
You gravely underestimate the need for better performance in devices like iPad. IPad comes up short in so many ways that it will be fairly pathetic up against machines that run Android much less something running native code.
The ones I?m referring to are coming as 1GHz Cortex-A8 compared to about 750-850Mhz Apple A4 in the iPhone 4. Despite this inferior number of cycles per second the device feels faster in the UI as the code is more refined from the drivers to the OS to the apps and even the SDK.
That's because until yesterday's beta release of Android 3.0 SDK --- their UI doesn't have hardware accel.
You are making a lot of sweeping assumptions.
Not really! Human vision simply is optimized for a wider aspect ratios.
Movies were originally 4x3. The reason they began producing wider aspect ratios is because of television. Movies needed to offer a bigger experience than television and the most effective way to do that is to make the aspect ratio wider to provide a more expansive experience.
For over 70 years television has been 4x3. The migration to 16x9 has only been in the last 10 years. The reason television is switching to 16x9 is to provide more of an experience like that of the movies.
As the screen gets smaller and you sit closer to it. The expansive field of the wide screen effect is less effective. All you really end up doing is having a smaller picture. That is the reason why HD television uses 1.77 (16x9) and not 1.85 or 2.4 that movies use.
OK if you believe that I'm not going to argue about it.
That's because until yesterday's beta release of Android 3.0 SDK --- their UI doesn't have hardware accel.
That?s 4 years behind Apple!!!
Business is business.. The major components that Apple uses on the iPhone and iPad, Samsung happens to be the best at building them.
Yeah, but it still seems like a major risk for Apple to be putting such a critical element of its success in the hands of someone who trying their darnedest to compete with them. It's not like Apple doesn't have the volume to justify, or couldn't afford to set up its own manufacture.
This might have made sense a few years ago when the iPhone was just getting started. But now that Apple is a dominant player I hope they will take steps to protect themselves from mischief.
The relationship between the likes of Apple and Samsung, much like the Apple/Google one, can best be described by the term "Frenemies" - one really can't hurt the other without taking a corresponding "hit" themselves as a consequence. Besides Apple and Samsung's relationship goes back further than the latter, and has been nothing but prosperous for both parties.
Like Google, Samsung will be well aware of the fact that Apple as a corporate entity values its independence above any profitability. Apple in its painstaking and perfectionist way is already seeking alternative (as well as in-house) suppliers to as many of its externally sourced components as can replicate the quality and the supply chain efficiency of their best suppliers, chiefly to "protect themselves from mischief" (from which they suffered so horrendously in the past at the hands of so-called partners. If they had forgotten the lesson of those days in their present comfort, Google would have provided a deadly but timely reminder of that).
Apple is also aware, on the other, balancing hand, that "no Man is an island".
The relationship between the likes of Apple and Samsung, much like the Apple/Google one, can best be described by the term "Frenemies" - one really can't hurt the other without taking a corresponding "hit" themselves as a consequence. Besides Apple and Samsung's relationship goes back further than the latter, and has been nothing but prosperous for both parties.
Like Google, Samsung will be well aware of the fact that Apple as a corporate entity values its independence above any profitability. Apple in its painstaking and perfectionist way is already seeking alternative (as well as in-house) suppliers to as many of its externally sourced components as can replicate the quality and the supply chain efficiency of their best suppliers, chiefly to "protect themselves from mischief" (from which they suffered so horrendously in the past at the hands of so-called partners. If they had forgotten the lesson of those days in their present comfort, Google would have provided a deadly but timely reminder of that).
Apple is also aware, on the other, balancing hand, that "no Man is an island".
I thought that was: "no man is an Ireland"
You are merely claiming straw man arguments. We are comparing Samsung to Apple here. You are mistaken twice. iOS is compiled to native code, and it has a better OS team. Bada is not going to compete.
non sequiteur and 'straw man' my ass.
You are doing it again! Is your reading comprehension that bad?
I never compared Bada to iOS other than to mention they
are both Unix based.
That's, all I said, end of story. I never said anything about iOS, compilers, or native code. I never said anything about the relative merits or expertise of OS teams either, and I certainly never made any direct claim about Bada competing against iOS.
And don't employ the royal 'we' as if you have some divine right to dictate the topics under discussion, its bad enough you keep trying to put words in my mouth.
If you go back and read the original paragraph I wrote, you might - though it is appearing less and less likely - be able to perceive that I only mentioned Bada in the context of the assertion that only Apple can do HW/Software integration and therefore have a huge advantage because no one else can do that. Since Samsung have their own OS and many times Apple's ability to design and specify HW, the assertion I was addressing is obviously fallacious. Since I actually own a product incorporating Samsung's HW/Software integration, I think I can fairly safely say that.
I didn't say Samsung is better than Apple or make any other pointless value judgments. in fact, if you want to strain those comprehension skills to the max and look at the title of my original post, it was 'lockstep'. Guess what I meant by that?
That?s 4 years behind Apple!!!
It also means that Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology nor "special" silicon technology that enabled their stuff to vastly outperform Android stuff on battery life.
It also means that Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology nor "special" silicon technology that enabled their stuff to vastly outperform Android stuff on battery life.
That?s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple?s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.If you really believe that you should file a lawsuit for false advertising.
That?s an absurd conclusion. What proof do you have that Apple?s page on batteries showcasing their adaptive charging or their 1000 cycles instead of 300 are false.If you really believe that you should file a lawsuit for false advertising.
That's like talking about recharging my double A rechargeable batteries with a 15 minute rapid charger --- of course that is going to destroy the battery over time.
But we ain't talking about recharge cycles, we are talking about straight up battery life.
That's like talking about recharging my double A rechargeable batteries with a 15 minute rapid charger --- of course that is going to destroy the battery over time.
But we ain't talking about recharge cycles, we are talking about straight up battery life.
You said ?Apple doesn't have "special" battery technology?. That includes all technology associated with the battery, not a single metric of battery life which can?t be accurately measured when using different capacity batteries, with different HW configurations running disparate OSes.
By your measure of ?battery life? you?re saying a better technology is lasting longer between charges, even if that battery is 10x larger than an Apple product. Do you not see how your idea of better technology makes no sense?