Chip analysis reveals subtle changes to new iPad innards

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 24
    ahmlcoahmlco Posts: 432member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I'm just not seeing it with the Samsung Galaxy board I linked to as noted by all the dead space.



    Apple is famous in that regard. All of the "dead space" in the Samsung Galaxy board design is space that could have been used to support a bigger battery or other hardware.



    People often take Apple to task for their non-removeable battery stance, without realizing just how much difference a few millimeters here and there actually make.



    Take a hypothetical battery of 500*100*20mm in size, or 1,000,000 cubic mm. Now let's say we need to encase it in plastic to make it removable. We also need to make it somewhat durable, add space for the contacts, and so on. That would mean a reduction of about 3mm per side for the housing, and for the added space within the device itself for the battery to reside.



    That gives up 494*94*14, or just 650,104 cubic mm. That's a reduction in total volume of over 65 percent! Fudge a few numbers for the sake of argument, and a 10-hour battery now just gives 4.5 hours of life.



    Make the device bigger to accommodate a battery of the same size, with the new housing? Fine.



    But that also means you could shove a raw battery of 506*106*26 mm into THAT amount of space, giving a total volume of 1,394,536 cubic mm, increasing the battery size by almost 40%, and giving you 14 hours of battery life!



    Every single millimeter you can devote to battery space pays off, if you can have your batteries manufactured to size, and if you're willing to spend the bucks to do so.



    Apple can, and does.
  • Reply 22 of 24
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post


    Apple is famous in that regard. All of the "dead space" in the Samsung Galaxy board design is space that could have been used to support a bigger battery or other hardware.



    People often take Apple to task for their non-removeable battery stance, without realizing just how much difference a few millimeters here and there actually make.



    Take a hypothetical battery of 500*100*20mm in size, or 1,000,000 cubic mm. Now let's say we need to encase it in plastic to make it removable. We also need to make it somewhat durable, add space for the contacts, and so on. That would mean a reduction of about 3mm per side for the housing, and for the added space within the device itself for the battery to reside.



    That gives up 494*94*14, or just 650,104 cubic mm. That's a reduction in total volume of over 65 percent! Fudge a few numbers for the sake of argument, and a 10-hour battery now just gives 4.5 hours of life.



    Make the device bigger to accommodate a battery of the same size, with the new housing? Fine.



    But that also means you could shove a raw battery of 506*106*26 mm into THAT amount of space, giving a total volume of 1,394,536 cubic mm, increasing the battery size by almost 40%, and giving you 14 hours of battery life!



    Every single millimeter you can devote to battery space pays off, if you can have your batteries manufactured to size, and if you're willing to spend the bucks to do so.



    Apple can, and does.



    Speaking of internal sizes AnandTech has some new info on the A5X chip...
  • Reply 23 of 24
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post


    People often take Apple to task for their non-removeable battery stance, without realizing just how much difference a few millimeters here and there actually make.



    Of course, now Apple is practically gluing everything inside the ipad to save space for the bigger battery --- thus the teardown people is rating it at 2 out 10 for repair-ability.
  • Reply 24 of 24
    aiaaia Posts: 179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post


    Apple is famous in that regard. All of the "dead space" in the Samsung Galaxy board design is space that could have been used to support a bigger battery or other hardware.



    People often take Apple to task for their non-removeable battery stance, without realizing just how much difference a few millimeters here and there actually make.



    One thing that amazes me is how they were able to increase the battery capacity by 70% (42.5Wh vs 25 Wh) with so little impact on the overall thickness of the device.



    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_2) the battery in the iPad2 was 2.5mm (1/10") thick, which is actually a lot thinner than what I was expecting. So just by increasing the thickness of the battery by 1mm would make a big difference in the capacity.
Sign In or Register to comment.