Off topic from this article but it was the nearest iPad thread I could find- I just wanted to update everyone on my dead pixel issue.
Just checking - was it actually possible to spot the dead pixel? On a retina display, where the eye is not supposed to be able to see the pixels? Or did you have to hold it closer to the eye to see it?
I guess what Apple really means is that we can't distinguish between the pixels.
Imagine if we actually have tech where we can't even spot a single bad pixel! Maybe another 4-5 years of Apple innovation!
Not grumpy at all, just wish I could be less lazy and when I 'd welcomed you to my ignore list a week ago, I d actually bothered to go to the user cp and added you. At least the solipsist guy will have a ratio of 50/25/25 - solid tech info/twisting things around so apple comes off in a good light/veiled ad hominems... You on the other hand....I ve yet to read a single sentence that hasn't been a waste of bandwidth and bytes.
However, Samsung's chip is*second-generation 32 nm silicon*as it was the only ARM chipmaker to*reach the node in 2011. *And TSMC is reportedly having serious issues with its 28 nm process, causing it to suspend 28 nm production in mid-February [Source:*Semiaccurate], a delay that sheds some light on the*curious clock-speed drops*in the*latest generation*of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) GPUs (both companies rely on TSMC for their GPU chipmaking).*
In other words Samsung High-K Metal Gate (HKMG) doesn't exactly push the die-shrink envelope, but it's far more proven and lower risk than the TSMC process used by Qualcomm.
(Image removed at the request of Semiaccurate, see Editor's Note in addendum.)
On a CPU core side, Exynos 5, like Snapdragon 4, is*a Cortex-A15 derivative*(in Exynos 5's case a direct core, in Snapdragon 4's case an "Cortex-A15-like"*Krait core). *Cortex-A15 is a licensed design from ARM Holdings plc (LON:ARM), which uses the tried-and-true ARMv7 instruction set. *Like the majority of Qualcomm's lineup, the CPU will be a dual-core design.
Another indication of the stability of Samsung's 32 nm node can be observed in the clock speeds. *While Qualcomm is offering up Snapdragon chips clocked at between 1.5 and 1.7 GHz, Samsung is promising 2 GHz chips. *Of course, Qualcomm recently showed off a quad-core 2.5 GHz Snapdragon 4 (the APQ8064), but this will likely be a lower volume part that relies on special binning.
II. The GPU
The Samsung SoC also packs*a T-604 MP4 "Mali" GPU, an intellectual property (IP) core licensed from ARM Holdings. *The T-604 core-wise is roughly the equivalent of Imagination Technologies plc's (LON:IMG) PowerVR SGX543, so the onboard GPU is comparable to the PowerVR SGX543 MP4 found*in the iPad 3, and expected to be quite powerful.
Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help put the company's IP cores (Cortex-A15, Mali) to working silicon.
Semiaccurate*also snapped a blur-tastic photograph of what it believes to be a Exynos 5 development board. *
(Image removed at the request of Semiaccurate, see Editor's Note in addendum.)
*
Expect Exynos 5 to mostly pop up in PCs due to the high clock speeds and higher power requirements. *The interesting question is whether Samsung -- a computer maker -- will allow third parties to use its chip, given that its first-hand PC sales are quite low. *
An underclocked variant of the chip could, in theory, show up in tablets as well. *Essentially it's quite similar to Apple's 1 GHz A5X (except the A5X using Cortex-A9 CPU cores and has a lower clock), found in the iPad 3. *Of course, putting such a beefy core on board would likely demand an equally beefy battery, such as the 55 watt-hour monster*lurking in the iPad 3.
Of course I am sure you understand Samsung wasn't all that keen to allow apple to have these chips instead, their chips, instead what with apple being such a frenemy and suing their ass off and banning the galaxy tab in Germany and if my memory serves me well in Australia too.
In terms of CR they were accurate in their testing of iPhone 4, and it did prove to be an engineering error corrected in the 4s. As another user pointed out the equipment used and the reflectivity of the material are crucial. I tend to think cr are as honest and accurate as they can in their assessments but I will wait for more reports on this as well as user experiences. Of course I can't take the word of Macworld for the time being...
Not grumpy at all, just wish I could be less lazy and when I 'd welcomed you to my ignore list a week ago, I d actually bothered to go to the user cp and added you. At least the solipsist guy will have a ratio of 50/25/25 - solid tech info/twisting things around so apple comes off in a good light/veiled ad hominems... You on the other hand....I ve yet to read a single sentence that hasn't been a waste of bandwidth and bytes.
Sorry, but I thought addabox summed you up rather well.
Sorry, but I thought addabox summed you up rather well.
You are entitled to your opinion.
After all the claims of me making things up, let alone the ad hominems I did bother to do a bit of googling though to find the article I was referring to by which it becomes obvious that the CPU/gpu that would have avoided much of the heat issues due to the die shrink has been readily available for a while now by Samsung who are of course not going to make it for apple to solve their thermal issues....
Just checking - was it actually possible to spot the dead pixel? On a retina display, where the eye is not supposed to be able to see the pixels? Or did you have to hold it closer to the eye to see it?
I guess what Apple really means is that we can't distinguish between the pixels.
Imagine if we actually have tech where we can't even spot a single bad pixel! Maybe another 4-5 years of Apple innovation!
It was definitely noticeable. It was not just a square but it appeared to bleed outward.
After all the claims of me making things up, let alone the ad hominems I did bother to do a bit of googling though to find the article I was referring to by which it becomes obvious that the CPU/gpu that would have avoided much of the heat issues due to the die shrink has been readily available for a while now by Samsung who are of course not going to make it for apple to solve their thermal issues....
Did you share the link to that article? Maybe I missed it.
I still haven't seen any evidence that Samsung fabs the GPUs for Apple's ASICs, much less proof that Apple could have used a smaller lithography.
Agreed. But then I haven't seen any evidence that this whole issue is anything more than the latest blatant effort to cash in on Apple's success by sensationalizing yet another non-existent problem. Even more bizarre are the painful logical contortions that some people will attempt to to try to promote them. That it has morphed into a silly argument over whether or not Apple could have used smaller chips is a sad reflection of our inability to marvel, yet ignore.
I still wonder what the theory is for why Apple would skip a smaller, cooler, more power efficient chip, had it been available. Just sheer perversity?
No mystery at all. Apple is lazy. And also Samsung wouldn't sell them the chips. Presumably saving them for the upcoming greatest cool-running Android iPad-killer tablet. It also has something to do with Apple refusing to increase storage, but I can't figure out exactly what. Apple's business model sucks, as everyone is aware. I googled a link that proves all of this.
No mystery at all. Apple is lazy. And also Samsung wouldn't sell them the chips. Presumably saving them for the upcoming greatest cool-running Android iPad-killer tablet. It also has something to do with Apple refusing to increase storage, but I can't figure out exactly what. Apple's business model sucks, as everyone is aware. I googled a link that proves all of this.
I find it odd that he jumps between "Samsung can do 28nm fabs for everything so Apple could have easily had it done" to "Samsung wouldn't make them for Apple." His posts sound absolutely insane to me. I don't mean that figuratively. I'm thinking it's Teckstud.
I find it odd that he jumps between "Samsung can do 28nm fabs for everything so Apple could have easily had it done" to "Samsung wouldn't make them for Apple." His posts sound absolutely insane to me. I don't mean that figuratively. I'm thinking it's Teckstud.
Your continued ad hominems speak volumes about you, volumes, and no I am not techstud (who was a bit of nutcase admittedly), but that too speaks volumes about your paranoia. Don't worry no one is out to get apple.
My point has always been that apple could and should have opted for a die shrink to avoid the expected thermal issues of the screen and if they hadn't been too busy suing samsung maybe samsung would have let them have their 32 nm arm + gpu (which reportedly is comparable if not better than imaginations one), or at least allowed them to use their fabs to produce apple's and imaginations designs. I also pointed out that despite its problems 28nm has also been available via tsmc and apple could have sourced. Apple had options and should have expected thermal issues. This gen ipad is, unlike previous gens, less than stellar engineering. Let's see how the thermal problem plays out, if it will be validated and become an issue by both other independent reports and user comments. Let's also wait and see how many people also start reporting the ipad not charging under high load issue.
I 'll just say that you are deluding yourself if you think other people reading this thread are not aware which posters are putting their apologists hat on and "lunatically" misconstruing and offending and who's just passing valid criticism on a product by apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Did you share the link to that article? Maybe I missed it.
if you like to be snarky to others you might as well not embarrass yourself by admitting you can't think as much to search google with a direct quote from the segment I posted and find it yourself in a few seconds. Here's the process, copy (and this is eg.) "Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help ", paste in right top side of safari, click, there you go: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24266 , 2 seconds.
Temperature is a non-linear scale. The amount of heat (in calories/joules) given off would be the same but is unlikely to result in a 20 degree increase in both examples given. That is why ambient temperature is relevant.
That is true...but without a really technical analysis, I tried to keep it general. Your is point is well taken though....thanks
if you like to be snarky to others you might as well not embarrass yourself by admitting you can't think as much to search google with a direct quote from the segment I posted and find it yourself in a few seconds. Here's the process, copy (and this is eg.) "Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help ", paste in right top side of safari, click, there you go: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24266 , 2 seconds.
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion. Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December:
Samsung was the only major ARM chipmaker to get 32 nm chips out in 2011, though it failed to yield devices (you can think of this as akin to Intel's production of Ivy Bridge in 2011, in that it's accumulating stock to storm the market next year). It shipped its first production-line 32 nm stock last year. By contrast, rivals like Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) are just hitting the similar 28 nm node in 2012, courtesy of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Comp., ltd. (TPE:2330) (TSMC).
Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion. Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December:
Samsung was the only major ARM chipmaker to get 32 nm chips out in 2011, though it failed to yield devices (you can think of this as akin to Intel's production of Ivy Bridge in 2011, in that it's accumulating stock to storm the market next year). It shipped its first production-line 32 nm stock last year. By contrast, rivals like Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) are just hitting the similar 28 nm node in 2012, courtesy of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Comp., ltd. (TPE:2330) (TSMC).
Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
You've completely destroyed myapplelove's argument once again. Flawless victory!
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion.
I didn't do it intentionally, I forgot. You think I had already predicted you 'd go snarky on me instead of replying to my points, so I could then pull the card you said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December:
Samsung was the only major ARM chipmaker to get 32 nm chips out in 2011, though it failed to yield devices (you can think of this as akin to Intel's production of Ivy Bridge in 2011, in that it's accumulating stock to storm the market next year). It shipped its first production-line 32 nm stock last year. By contrast, rivals like Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) are just hitting the similar 28 nm node in 2012, courtesy of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Comp., ltd. (TPE:2330) (TSMC).
Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
Of course it was an option, having already shipped a 32nm stock last year.
Qualcomm's 28nm wasn't an option as mentioned in the anandtech article, since the ipad was assembled in Jan February. Apple could have asked samsung to provide them their chip or to manufacture apple's chip at 32nm. Of course apple can't be suing the shit out of samsung and then expect them to manufacture for them the latest and greatest in their tech. They are obliged to play by samsung's rules there, and of course samsung told them last year's nm process for you guys. Apple should have thought of that before attempting and succeeding at banning the galaxy tab in Germany and Australia.
The heating issue has been as much debunked as the antennae issue had been debunked. Turns out after all the press stonewalling and the obligatory press conference they fixed the engineering error with the 4s. The ipad "3" is by many user reports noticeably warmer and we shall see how this plays out by user feedback and more objective reports.
Comments
Off topic from this article but it was the nearest iPad thread I could find- I just wanted to update everyone on my dead pixel issue.
Just checking - was it actually possible to spot the dead pixel? On a retina display, where the eye is not supposed to be able to see the pixels? Or did you have to hold it closer to the eye to see it?
I guess what Apple really means is that we can't distinguish between the pixels.
Imagine if we actually have tech where we can't even spot a single bad pixel! Maybe another 4-5 years of Apple innovation!
Not grumpy at all, just wish I could be less lazy and when I 'd welcomed you to my ignore list a week ago, I d actually bothered to go to the user cp and added you. At least the solipsist guy will have a ratio of 50/25/25 - solid tech info/twisting things around so apple comes off in a good light/veiled ad hominems... You on the other hand....I ve yet to read a single sentence that hasn't been a waste of bandwidth and bytes.
However, Samsung's chip is*second-generation 32 nm silicon*as it was the only ARM chipmaker to*reach the node in 2011. *And TSMC is reportedly having serious issues with its 28 nm process, causing it to suspend 28 nm production in mid-February [Source:*Semiaccurate], a delay that sheds some light on the*curious clock-speed drops*in the*latest generation*of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) GPUs (both companies rely on TSMC for their GPU chipmaking).*
In other words Samsung High-K Metal Gate (HKMG) doesn't exactly push the die-shrink envelope, but it's far more proven and lower risk than the TSMC process used by Qualcomm.
(Image removed at the request of Semiaccurate, see Editor's Note in addendum.)
On a CPU core side, Exynos 5, like Snapdragon 4, is*a Cortex-A15 derivative*(in Exynos 5's case a direct core, in Snapdragon 4's case an "Cortex-A15-like"*Krait core). *Cortex-A15 is a licensed design from ARM Holdings plc (LON:ARM), which uses the tried-and-true ARMv7 instruction set. *Like the majority of Qualcomm's lineup, the CPU will be a dual-core design.
Another indication of the stability of Samsung's 32 nm node can be observed in the clock speeds. *While Qualcomm is offering up Snapdragon chips clocked at between 1.5 and 1.7 GHz, Samsung is promising 2 GHz chips. *Of course, Qualcomm recently showed off a quad-core 2.5 GHz Snapdragon 4 (the APQ8064), but this will likely be a lower volume part that relies on special binning.
II. The GPU
The Samsung SoC also packs*a T-604 MP4 "Mali" GPU, an intellectual property (IP) core licensed from ARM Holdings. *The T-604 core-wise is roughly the equivalent of Imagination Technologies plc's (LON:IMG) PowerVR SGX543, so the onboard GPU is comparable to the PowerVR SGX543 MP4 found*in the iPad 3, and expected to be quite powerful.
Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help put the company's IP cores (Cortex-A15, Mali) to working silicon.
Semiaccurate*also snapped a blur-tastic photograph of what it believes to be a Exynos 5 development board. *
(Image removed at the request of Semiaccurate, see Editor's Note in addendum.)
*
Expect Exynos 5 to mostly pop up in PCs due to the high clock speeds and higher power requirements. *The interesting question is whether Samsung -- a computer maker -- will allow third parties to use its chip, given that its first-hand PC sales are quite low. *
An underclocked variant of the chip could, in theory, show up in tablets as well. *Essentially it's quite similar to Apple's 1 GHz A5X (except the A5X using Cortex-A9 CPU cores and has a lower clock), found in the iPad 3. *Of course, putting such a beefy core on board would likely demand an equally beefy battery, such as the 55 watt-hour monster*lurking in the iPad 3.
Of course I am sure you understand Samsung wasn't all that keen to allow apple to have these chips instead, their chips, instead what with apple being such a frenemy and suing their ass off and banning the galaxy tab in Germany and if my memory serves me well in Australia too.
In terms of CR they were accurate in their testing of iPhone 4, and it did prove to be an engineering error corrected in the 4s. As another user pointed out the equipment used and the reflectivity of the material are crucial. I tend to think cr are as honest and accurate as they can in their assessments but I will wait for more reports on this as well as user experiences. Of course I can't take the word of Macworld for the time being...
@addabox
Not grumpy at all, just wish I could be less lazy and when I 'd welcomed you to my ignore list a week ago, I d actually bothered to go to the user cp and added you. At least the solipsist guy will have a ratio of 50/25/25 - solid tech info/twisting things around so apple comes off in a good light/veiled ad hominems... You on the other hand....I ve yet to read a single sentence that hasn't been a waste of bandwidth and bytes.
Sorry, but I thought addabox summed you up rather well.
Sorry, but I thought addabox summed you up rather well.
You are entitled to your opinion.
After all the claims of me making things up, let alone the ad hominems I did bother to do a bit of googling though to find the article I was referring to by which it becomes obvious that the CPU/gpu that would have avoided much of the heat issues due to the die shrink has been readily available for a while now by Samsung who are of course not going to make it for apple to solve their thermal issues....
Just checking - was it actually possible to spot the dead pixel? On a retina display, where the eye is not supposed to be able to see the pixels? Or did you have to hold it closer to the eye to see it?
I guess what Apple really means is that we can't distinguish between the pixels.
Imagine if we actually have tech where we can't even spot a single bad pixel! Maybe another 4-5 years of Apple innovation!
It was definitely noticeable. It was not just a square but it appeared to bleed outward.
You are entitled to your opinion.
After all the claims of me making things up, let alone the ad hominems I did bother to do a bit of googling though to find the article I was referring to by which it becomes obvious that the CPU/gpu that would have avoided much of the heat issues due to the die shrink has been readily available for a while now by Samsung who are of course not going to make it for apple to solve their thermal issues....
Did you share the link to that article? Maybe I missed it.
Did you share the link to that article? Maybe I missed it.
I still haven't seen any evidence that Samsung fabs the GPUs for Apple's ASICs, much less proof that Apple could have used a smaller lithography.
I still haven't seen any evidence that Samsung fabs the GPUs for Apple's ASICs, much less proof that Apple could have used a smaller lithography.
I still wonder what the theory is for why Apple would skip a smaller, cooler, more power efficient chip, had it been available. Just sheer perversity?
I still haven't seen any evidence that Samsung fabs the GPUs for Apple's ASICs, much less proof that Apple could have used a smaller lithography.
Agreed. But then I haven't seen any evidence that this whole issue is anything more than the latest blatant effort to cash in on Apple's success by sensationalizing yet another non-existent problem. Even more bizarre are the painful logical contortions that some people will attempt to to try to promote them. That it has morphed into a silly argument over whether or not Apple could have used smaller chips is a sad reflection of our inability to marvel, yet ignore.
I still wonder what the theory is for why Apple would skip a smaller, cooler, more power efficient chip, had it been available. Just sheer perversity?
No mystery at all. Apple is lazy. And also Samsung wouldn't sell them the chips. Presumably saving them for the upcoming greatest cool-running Android iPad-killer tablet. It also has something to do with Apple refusing to increase storage, but I can't figure out exactly what. Apple's business model sucks, as everyone is aware. I googled a link that proves all of this.
No mystery at all. Apple is lazy. And also Samsung wouldn't sell them the chips. Presumably saving them for the upcoming greatest cool-running Android iPad-killer tablet. It also has something to do with Apple refusing to increase storage, but I can't figure out exactly what. Apple's business model sucks, as everyone is aware. I googled a link that proves all of this.
I find it odd that he jumps between "Samsung can do 28nm fabs for everything so Apple could have easily had it done" to "Samsung wouldn't make them for Apple." His posts sound absolutely insane to me. I don't mean that figuratively. I'm thinking it's Teckstud.
It's nice to know that it runs hot by design and not because it's faulty.
I find it odd that he jumps between "Samsung can do 28nm fabs for everything so Apple could have easily had it done" to "Samsung wouldn't make them for Apple." His posts sound absolutely insane to me. I don't mean that figuratively. I'm thinking it's Teckstud.
Your continued ad hominems speak volumes about you, volumes, and no I am not techstud (who was a bit of nutcase admittedly), but that too speaks volumes about your paranoia. Don't worry no one is out to get apple.
My point has always been that apple could and should have opted for a die shrink to avoid the expected thermal issues of the screen and if they hadn't been too busy suing samsung maybe samsung would have let them have their 32 nm arm + gpu (which reportedly is comparable if not better than imaginations one), or at least allowed them to use their fabs to produce apple's and imaginations designs. I also pointed out that despite its problems 28nm has also been available via tsmc and apple could have sourced. Apple had options and should have expected thermal issues. This gen ipad is, unlike previous gens, less than stellar engineering. Let's see how the thermal problem plays out, if it will be validated and become an issue by both other independent reports and user comments. Let's also wait and see how many people also start reporting the ipad not charging under high load issue.
I 'll just say that you are deluding yourself if you think other people reading this thread are not aware which posters are putting their apologists hat on and "lunatically" misconstruing and offending and who's just passing valid criticism on a product by apple.
Did you share the link to that article? Maybe I missed it.
if you like to be snarky to others you might as well not embarrass yourself by admitting you can't think as much to search google with a direct quote from the segment I posted and find it yourself in a few seconds. Here's the process, copy (and this is eg.) "Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help ", paste in right top side of safari, click, there you go: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24266 , 2 seconds.
Temperature is a non-linear scale. The amount of heat (in calories/joules) given off would be the same but is unlikely to result in a 20 degree increase in both examples given. That is why ambient temperature is relevant.
That is true...but without a really technical analysis, I tried to keep it general. Your is point is well taken though....thanks
if you like to be snarky to others you might as well not embarrass yourself by admitting you can't think as much to search google with a direct quote from the segment I posted and find it yourself in a few seconds. Here's the process, copy (and this is eg.) "Samsung is licensing ARM Holdings "Artisan" physical IP, process improvements that help ", paste in right top side of safari, click, there you go: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24266 , 2 seconds.
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion. Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December: Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion. Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December: Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
You've completely destroyed myapplelove's argument once again. Flawless victory!
But why not simply include the link in the first place? Unless it is simply to try to leave room to pull the "you must be too stupid to google it" card later in the discussion.
I didn't do it intentionally, I forgot. You think I had already predicted you 'd go snarky on me instead of replying to my points, so I could then pull the card you said?
Anyway - nice article - about the next great improvements in chip fabrication. To quote from another of their articles back in late December: Given the design and production timeline of the latest iPad, none of this technology sounds like it was even remotely an option. And since, in any case, you have predicated the need for smaller chips on a heating problem that has already been debunked, what is the point of all this?
Of course it was an option, having already shipped a 32nm stock last year.
Qualcomm's 28nm wasn't an option as mentioned in the anandtech article, since the ipad was assembled in Jan February. Apple could have asked samsung to provide them their chip or to manufacture apple's chip at 32nm. Of course apple can't be suing the shit out of samsung and then expect them to manufacture for them the latest and greatest in their tech. They are obliged to play by samsung's rules there, and of course samsung told them last year's nm process for you guys. Apple should have thought of that before attempting and succeeding at banning the galaxy tab in Germany and Australia.
The heating issue has been as much debunked as the antennae issue had been debunked. Turns out after all the press stonewalling and the obligatory press conference they fixed the engineering error with the 4s. The ipad "3" is by many user reports noticeably warmer and we shall see how this plays out by user feedback and more objective reports.