The key size, color and thickness are different, but I do see some similarities there, but hardly exact. HP made almost no variation at all in those design elements of the keyboard. Different keys in the corners is about it.
It's not just the keyboard though, there's a lot of other shapes and design elements that are at best tweaked slightly in the hopes of avoiding litigation, just going by the Engadget gallery that Tallest linked early in this thread.
Mac styled keyboard? It looks exactly like the chicklet keyboard that was on my TRS-80 Color in 1982.
I HATE the new calculator style keyboards.
They look 'exactly' the same yet the Mac keyboard has different color keys, the keys are less spaced out, they are wider but also not as tall and chunky and the TRS-80 keyboard wasn't backlit. You have a strange view of what 'exactly' means. You would have to have pretty poor eyesight to confuse the Macbook keyboard with the TRS-80.
Even assuming this story is true, ....
Aside from that, I can't see it. Swich to AMD? Maybe. But ARM is still far behind the performance of the Core series chips and Apple isn't likely to sacrifice THAT much performance. By the time ARM could provide that much power, the Atom will have caught up - and would be an easier transition since iOS developers wouldn't need to completely rewrite their apps. ...
You seem to have a problem accepting someone's story...
Anyway your statements about ARM are wrong. ARM performance isn't that far behind because it's the GPU that counts - OS X and iOS rely heavily on it - and that's more that fast enough to drive demanding applications. As pointed out by someone else, a 64 bit 4 core ARM with 4 or more GPU cores will do the trick. I expect 64 bit ARMs this year (probably with 8 cores or more). And when the Intel Atom is as energy efficient as ARM, ARM will have caught up with the fastest Intel Core processors.
No one has to rewrite apps, it's a simple recompile via Xcode for OS X applications and OS X can 'emulate' iOS in real time so all games etc run as expected.
You seem to have a problem accepting someone's story...
Anyway your statements about ARM are wrong. ARM performance isn't that far behind because it's the GPU that counts - OS X and iOS rely heavily on it - and that's more that fast enough to drive demanding applications. As pointed out by someone else, a 64 bit 4 core ARM with 4 or more GPU cores will do the trick. I expect 64 bit ARMs this year (probably with 8 cores or more). And when the Intel Atom is as energy efficient as ARM, ARM will have caught up with the fastest Intel Core processors.
No one has to rewrite apps, it's a simple recompile via Xcode for OS X applications and OS X can 'emulate' iOS in real time so all games etc run as expected.
J.
Yeah, right.
Please show any evidence that ARM is anywhere close to the performance of the Intel chips in the MacBook Air. Or, even better, the Ivy Bridge chips that will be out any day.
Not that far behind? A dual-core Cortex-A9 at 1.0 ghz is only 5000 MIPS. Even the dual-core Krait is only 10,000 at 1.5ghz. For perspective a Core i7 2600k is rated at over 128,000 MIPS. That is a huge gap since the CPU is still very much important.
Then some anti-Apple clown comes on and cites that as reason why HP, et. al. aren't copying.
I think SJ pretty much knew that as soon as Apple launched the Air it was a one way street in terms of the form factor. The copying beyond the form factor is as has been pointed out - blatant. It is as shameful as it is shameless. But so far it seems no-one ever gets called on this kind of thing so it has become a valid (if pretty embarrassing, I am sure!) business model - 'copy Apple'. I wonder how anyone can present these two computers and with a straight face make the claim that it is natural technological progression. Its low and everybody knows it. Apple doesn't own silver but that is a very feeble argument.
Yeah, right.
Please show any evidence that ARM is anywhere close to the performance of the Intel chips in the MacBook Air. Or, even better, the Ivy Bridge chips that will be out any day.
Yeah the Geekbench rating of even the iPad 3 is only 756 while the current i5 Airs is 5871.
I think SJ pretty much knew that as soon as Apple launched the Air it was a one way street in terms of the form factor. The copying beyond the form factor is as has been pointed out - blatant. It is as shameful as it is shameless. But so far it seems no-one ever gets called on this kind of thing so it has become a valid (if pretty embarrassing, I am sure!) business model - 'copy Apple'. I wonder how anyone can present these two computers and with a straight face make the claim that it is natural technological progression. Its low and everybody knows it. Apple doesn't own silver but that is a very feeble argument.
The "worms" on the Internet trying to eat holes in Apple certainly are "called on this kind of thing," they simply deny and argue that XXX had such-and-such design before Apple. Obviously those aren't necessarily the employees of Apple's competitors but then again maybe there are since I can't imagine someone being a "fan" of some of Apple's competitors.
Until HP actually moves enough units of "ultrabooks" (they haven't yet) to put their name on the map and cause worry about the state of the Macbook Air, it's all academic.
Not that far behind? A dual-core Cortex-A9 at 1.0 ghz is only 5000 MIPS. Even the dual-core Krait is only 10,000 at 1.5ghz. For perspective a Core i7 2600k is rated at over 128,000 MIPS. That is a huge gap since the CPU is still very much important.
Not necessarily a fair comparison since you are compared a previous generation dual-core CPU to a latest generation quad-core CPU aside from the different usage.
I actually think it is notable that based on your data the dual-core Cortex-A9 1.0 GHz solution is within 5 generations of surpassing the Intel Core i7 2600k. I grant you that is for a static target rather than a real world dynamic target. I think it would be interesting to see what ARM could do with a more performance-based architecture.
As someone who is contracted to HP to do warranty work I will be able to tell you whether or not HP copied Apple by how it looks internally. I can pretty much guarantee HP isn't going to show the care and attention to the inside that Apple does.
HP has this uncanny knack for putting screws everywhere except where it matters. For example, on one model I worked on yesterday there are screws hidden under rubber bungs (how is that sexy?) but there are no screws holding the SATA connectors on the replacement board. You have to remove the screws from the faulty board then put them onto the replacement board otherwise when you put the DVD drive back in it has a tendency to push the SATA connector up and the drive never fits in.
Having seen the insides of MBP and iMac and Mac Pro I can tell you that HP won't be following Apple's lead here.
@[B]paxman[/B]Well said, and it points to the basic problem that at any given time there are very few, like one or two, great industrial designers working at any given time, and one is working at Apple. So what can any other company do but copy, and then be so uncomfortable about it that they resort to obnoxious defensiveness—as in, "Apple may think they own silver . . ."
Not necessarily a fair comparison since you are compared a previous generation dual-core CPU to a latest generation quad-core CPU aside from the different usage.
I actually think it is notable that based on your data the dual-core Cortex-A9 1.0 GHz solution is within 5 generations of surpassing the Intel Core i7 2600k. I grant you that is for a static target rather than a real world dynamic target. I think it would be interesting to see what ARM could do with a more performance-based architecture.
So within 5 generations is now "not far behind"? Amazing.
Fire up your photocopiers, Meg. Apple's releasing new laptops and desktops this year!
Of course, if your copiers work as poorly your printers do these days, you'll have to replace all 12 $50 inkjet cartridges 3 or 4 times before you can get a page to print, and then it'll jam in the feed on the way out...
I disagree with HP. I think that form factor is lead by Apple. Apple is the only company these days that is an early adopter of technology. It may be the next logical step, but everyone else would still be putting out big plastic boxes if not for Apple's pushing the limits and forcing their component suppliers to produce the parts needed to make the next step. The only other company I've seen advance anything might be Amazon for advancing the eInk form factor. It is obvious, but they were the company to mass produce it to take it to the next step. It is easier to follow then to lead.
If I posted the image out of context next to a macbook air, everyone most people on here would say Sony copied. Apple has an incredible amount of power behind their brand in terms of what they can sell people. For some of the other oems, it's likely that the risk is too great. Whenever one of them tries to break off, it's criticized for being too expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey
HP just admitted they follow and don't lead...
That is complete rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Even assuming this story is true, Apple is not likely to switch the MBA to ARM unless Intel forces them to. Apple was perfectly happy with the MBA and had a huge share. There's no reason they would have changed CPUs as long as the status quo was maintained. By increasing the competition in the MBA space, Intel is putting pressure on Apple to change. Someone in their strategy department needs to be fired.
Aside from that, I can't see it. Swich to AMD? Maybe. But ARM is still far behind the performance of the Core series chips and Apple isn't likely to sacrifice THAT much performance. By the time ARM could provide that much power, the Atom will have caught up - and would be an easier transition since iOS developers wouldn't need to completely rewrite their apps.
That said, I could see a MacBook Micro (essentially an iPad with fold-out keyboard. This would be a true netbook replacement and would offer all the iOS apps with a trackpad and keyboard, as well. It might be great for people who largely use their iPads for email or web browsing or Pages or Reports.
The bolded makes more sense than the explanation offered by snova.
This topic comes up frequently. It will most likely be some time before ARM is remotely practical. It hasn't really been tested in a similar power class. Assuming they don't simply want it to run IOS, it would need a lot more computing power given that number crunching needs rarely ever contract in computing. With revisions to older code bases, a lot of applications and suites require increasing amounts of power to run the same actions. The next ARM generation will run as 64 bit. While it's likely Apple will test it (they seem to do a lot of testing), you really push the narrative that Intel has stabbed them in the back.
Yeah, right.
Please show any evidence that ARM is anywhere close to the performance of the Intel chips in the MacBook Air. Or, even better, the Ivy Bridge chips that will be out any day.
Read my post again, and note for example that I mentioned GPU performance.
Not necessarily a fair comparison since you are compared a previous generation dual-core CPU to a latest generation quad-core CPU aside from the different usage.
I actually think it is notable that based on your data the dual-core Cortex-A9 1.0 GHz solution is within 5 generations of surpassing the Intel Core i7 2600k. I grant you that is for a static target rather than a real world dynamic target. I think it would be interesting to see what ARM could do with a more performance-based architecture.
The Krait is based on the Cortex-A15 which is newer than the Intel and it's still 13x slower. And is barely faster than an 8 year old Athlon. The Krait is also well slower than even e lwest model current gen Air.
Read my post again, and note for example that I mentioned GPU performance.
J.
Even that would be axiomatically wrong. We always see ARM paired with a GPU on the SoC but the GPU in the iPad is by Img Tech, a company I think both Apple and Intel have ownership of.
Comments
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/TRS-80_Color_Computer_1_front_right.jpg
The key size, color and thickness are different, but I do see some similarities there, but hardly exact. HP made almost no variation at all in those design elements of the keyboard. Different keys in the corners is about it.
It's not just the keyboard though, there's a lot of other shapes and design elements that are at best tweaked slightly in the hopes of avoiding litigation, just going by the Engadget gallery that Tallest linked early in this thread.
They look 'exactly' the same yet the Mac keyboard has different color keys, the keys are less spaced out, they are wider but also not as tall and chunky and the TRS-80 keyboard wasn't backlit. You have a strange view of what 'exactly' means. You would have to have pretty poor eyesight to confuse the Macbook keyboard with the TRS-80.
You seem to have a problem accepting someone's story...
Anyway your statements about ARM are wrong. ARM performance isn't that far behind because it's the GPU that counts - OS X and iOS rely heavily on it - and that's more that fast enough to drive demanding applications. As pointed out by someone else, a 64 bit 4 core ARM with 4 or more GPU cores will do the trick. I expect 64 bit ARMs this year (probably with 8 cores or more). And when the Intel Atom is as energy efficient as ARM, ARM will have caught up with the fastest Intel Core processors.
No one has to rewrite apps, it's a simple recompile via Xcode for OS X applications and OS X can 'emulate' iOS in real time so all games etc run as expected.
J.
Yeah, right.
Please show any evidence that ARM is anywhere close to the performance of the Intel chips in the MacBook Air. Or, even better, the Ivy Bridge chips that will be out any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then some anti-Apple clown comes on and cites that as reason why HP, et. al. aren't copying.
Yeah the Geekbench rating of even the iPad 3 is only 756 while the current i5 Airs is 5871.
SONY X505 had the wedge design and keyboard long before Apple -
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
The "worms" on the Internet trying to eat holes in Apple certainly are "called on this kind of thing," they simply deny and argue that XXX had such-and-such design before Apple. Obviously those aren't necessarily the employees of Apple's competitors but then again maybe there are since I can't imagine someone being a "fan" of some of Apple's competitors.
None of this really matters.
Until HP actually moves enough units of "ultrabooks" (they haven't yet) to put their name on the map and cause worry about the state of the Macbook Air, it's all academic.
Don't hold your breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Not that far behind? A dual-core Cortex-A9 at 1.0 ghz is only 5000 MIPS. Even the dual-core Krait is only 10,000 at 1.5ghz. For perspective a Core i7 2600k is rated at over 128,000 MIPS. That is a huge gap since the CPU is still very much important.
Not necessarily a fair comparison since you are compared a previous generation dual-core CPU to a latest generation quad-core CPU aside from the different usage.
I actually think it is notable that based on your data the dual-core Cortex-A9 1.0 GHz solution is within 5 generations of surpassing the Intel Core i7 2600k. I grant you that is for a static target rather than a real world dynamic target. I think it would be interesting to see what ARM could do with a more performance-based architecture.
As someone who is contracted to HP to do warranty work I will be able to tell you whether or not HP copied Apple by how it looks internally. I can pretty much guarantee HP isn't going to show the care and attention to the inside that Apple does.
HP has this uncanny knack for putting screws everywhere except where it matters. For example, on one model I worked on yesterday there are screws hidden under rubber bungs (how is that sexy?) but there are no screws holding the SATA connectors on the replacement board. You have to remove the screws from the faulty board then put them onto the replacement board otherwise when you put the DVD drive back in it has a tendency to push the SATA connector up and the drive never fits in.
Having seen the insides of MBP and iMac and Mac Pro I can tell you that HP won't be following Apple's lead here.
So within 5 generations is now "not far behind"? Amazing.
Fire up your photocopiers, Meg. Apple's releasing new laptops and desktops this year!
Of course, if your copiers work as poorly your printers do these days, you'll have to replace all 12 $50 inkjet cartridges 3 or 4 times before you can get a page to print, and then it'll jam in the feed on the way out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
I disagree with HP. I think that form factor is lead by Apple. Apple is the only company these days that is an early adopter of technology. It may be the next logical step, but everyone else would still be putting out big plastic boxes if not for Apple's pushing the limits and forcing their component suppliers to produce the parts needed to make the next step. The only other company I've seen advance anything might be Amazon for advancing the eInk form factor. It is obvious, but they were the company to mass produce it to take it to the next step. It is easier to follow then to lead.
You should take a look at older Sony laptops. Apple isn't typically the first to try these things. They set trends. When Sony did it, no one cared. Look at something like http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/ultraportables/2004/09/02/sony-vaio-x505-39165287/
If I posted the image out of context next to a macbook air, everyone most people on here would say Sony copied. Apple has an incredible amount of power behind their brand in terms of what they can sell people. For some of the other oems, it's likely that the risk is too great. Whenever one of them tries to break off, it's criticized for being too expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey
HP just admitted they follow and don't lead...
That is complete rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Even assuming this story is true, Apple is not likely to switch the MBA to ARM unless Intel forces them to. Apple was perfectly happy with the MBA and had a huge share. There's no reason they would have changed CPUs as long as the status quo was maintained. By increasing the competition in the MBA space, Intel is putting pressure on Apple to change. Someone in their strategy department needs to be fired.
Aside from that, I can't see it. Swich to AMD? Maybe. But ARM is still far behind the performance of the Core series chips and Apple isn't likely to sacrifice THAT much performance. By the time ARM could provide that much power, the Atom will have caught up - and would be an easier transition since iOS developers wouldn't need to completely rewrite their apps.
That said, I could see a MacBook Micro (essentially an iPad with fold-out keyboard. This would be a true netbook replacement and would offer all the iOS apps with a trackpad and keyboard, as well. It might be great for people who largely use their iPads for email or web browsing or Pages or Reports.
The bolded makes more sense than the explanation offered by snova.
This topic comes up frequently. It will most likely be some time before ARM is remotely practical. It hasn't really been tested in a similar power class. Assuming they don't simply want it to run IOS, it would need a lot more computing power given that number crunching needs rarely ever contract in computing. With revisions to older code bases, a lot of applications and suites require increasing amounts of power to run the same actions. The next ARM generation will run as 64 bit. While it's likely Apple will test it (they seem to do a lot of testing), you really push the narrative that Intel has stabbed them in the back.
Read my post again, and note for example that I mentioned GPU performance.
J.
1) Exactly! Which is why HP, Samsung and Meizu have very similar business strategies when it comes to Apple.
2) That's probably HP's beat slogan yet.
The Krait is based on the Cortex-A15 which is newer than the Intel and it's still 13x slower. And is barely faster than an 8 year old Athlon. The Krait is also well slower than even e lwest model current gen Air.