The prototypes will be machined aluminum to simulate the finished form, as the LiquidMetal molds will be one of the most difficult, most expensive and certainly one of the last components to be finalized.
[N.b. I do not rule out the socket also accepting a new proprietry connector that encapsulates a microUSB plug in its design.]
I will also through another one into the mix, HDMI type D connector, but I'd argue that is not at all likley. Indeed, if apple did go with a new custom design, it would almost certainly be something new called 'microDisplayPort' or something like that (to take this point full cirle), but my money goes for something incorporating microUSB *IF* they move from 30pin dock.
I think you are just reading the article incorrectly. The one link you posted is from 2009 and doesn't actually say what you say it does anyway (that the micro USB has to be on the device end). As Solipsism has already pointed out, it's about the chargers, not the cables and as long as the cable ends in a micro USB at the charger, it's compliant.
Apple was also one of the first out of the gate to use a USB cable to attach to the charger instead of a proprietary hardwired charger.
The prototypes will be machined aluminum to simulate the finished form, as the LiquidMetal molds will be one of the most difficult, most expensive and certainly one of the last components to be finalized.
Just to expand on that.
Once the design is complete, a liquidmetal back won't be horrendously expensive. Given all the machining required to make the part from a solid block of aluminum (as shown in this 'prototype'), all the extra machining required might easily cost more than the added material cost for Liquidmetal, resulting for a lower part cost for LM, even though materials are higher.
The problem is that Liquidmetal components are made by a molding process. You have to produce a very expensive mold in order to make the parts. And not only is the mold expensive, but it often requires multiple iterations to get it just right. The fact that LM doesn't shrink much helps, but there will still likely be multiple iterations of the final mold - and these are very expensive. So you don't want to be designing or producing your mold until the component design is completely finalized - you need to know the location of every screw and every hole in order to do it right.
Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.
There are other reasons to be suspicious, this isn't one of them. I think you're misinterpreting the image, which is understandable if you only go on this sites's images. Linked in the story, see the fourth image:
I don't see any black edges, except around the camera. The rest is just a property of shiny metal, making it look like there is black when the light is away from reflecting angle.
These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.
Answer these honestly-
Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?
I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier. I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think. Some long phone might be worse- we'll see. But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.
Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?
I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier. I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think. Some long phone might be worse- we'll see. But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.
I guess I have trouble understanding the focus on "ugly". Even if there were a universal standard, my phone sits in a belt case all the time except when I'm using it. And when I use it, the only thing I'm looking at is the screen - so the back wouldn't matter, anyway.
Isn't it interesting that the Apple haters accuse Mac fans of caring only about appearance, yet it's the haters who are so focused on the physical appearance of the phone?
Where does that say that Intel has to approve any products using Thunderbolt? It says that Intel will control the trademark, but doesn't say anything about Intel approving products.
Furthermore, Apple is already using the trademark. Where does that article say that Apple's license to the trademark doesn't allow them to release new products? Oh, it doesn't.
Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.
Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?
I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier. I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think. Some long phone might be worse- we'll see. But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.
The plastic backs got scratched too. I haven't seen the original model after it's been used for a couple years, but anodized aluminum is considerably more scratch resistant than most plastics.
Maybe you're thinking of the iPods with the scuff-prone shiny backs? Or did you mean it is a brush finish?
The general assumption I've seen was that the plastic back was done for cost reasons. I don't know if that's true or not. However, plastic parts are usually less expensive to make than metal. My 3G held up pretty well, but the back started looking bad before I upgraded it.
Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.
What makes you think I hadn't read that?
It was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so there was no reason to bring it up.
To recap:
1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.
In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.
1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.
It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.
Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram:
There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.
In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.
Ah, the day wouldn't be complete without an insult from Jr... as usual. Now I can rest easy tonite.
If you have some evidence that Intel is not responsible for certifying Thunderbolt components, since "that's not the way you understand it" please do share. Otherwise perhaps you have some other reason for thinking Intel as the rights holder wouldn't ultimately certify products using their technology and confirm the products meet all the specs? As Marvin mentioned it's common sense, at least for most of us. You can't have two different certification authorities with the possibility of having different views on the specifications. Either you didn't know/remember the rights were held by Intel, or there's something amiss in your reasoning IMO.
Intel certified Thunderbolt motherboard: http://www.techpowerup.com/166399/ASUS-Launches-First-Intel-Thunderbolt-Certified-Motherboard.html
It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.
Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-dock-connector-to-support-displayport-usb-3-0-thunderbolt/
There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.
None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.
More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.
Everyone wants be noticed chanel bags and be an icon of the latest fashion. This is now everyone’s wish to be the centre of attention on any social gathering. This wish is most of the times satisfied with the help of clothing, jewelry and get up. Branding is the prompt and most effective way to accomplish this wish. chanel replicas It is a known fact that only trendy clothes do not make you stand out. So, what is the other accessory which is equally important? Yes, it is a striking watch. It is well known saying that a man is distinguished with his pen and his watch. However, not everyone can afford the high end branded watches and it remains as a dream for most people. It is now not as much difficult for an chanel bag individual to buy a branded watch. Replica watches are now easily available with the same quality and features and one can easily get his favorite branded watch on remarkable price fraction. Not only are they designed attractively, but also are of superior quality. rolex replicas And what's more, they come with reasonable price tags too! What else could anyone have asked for?
None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.
More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.
I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.
Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.
One nice thing that could happen if they use standard mini USB3 is that they wouldn't need a camera kit any more. They might even be able to support USB pens using a cable.
I'd rather have usable battery life. It's already too thin.
Well, why change the 1st gen, 3G/3GS iPhones? As technology improves, better ways can be found to design something. I don't mind the tapered edges at all- Steve Jobs had an obsession with making things small and thin and maintaining functionality and battery life. They can do it.
I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.
Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.
Still waiting for you to show anything that says that Intel has to approve any Thunderbolt devices.
And there's also no evidence that it's impossible to make a Thunderbolt cable without processing chips. That's true for current devices, but there's no reason why they couldn't build the electronics into the device (and that's probably the way they'll go when they get to optical Thunderbolt, anyway). And, of course, the price of TB cables is huge now, but that doesn't mean it can't drop. If Apple were to release a TB-enabled iPhone which would require tens of millions of cables, the price would come down. Adding a $0.10 chip to the cable doesn't have to add a huge cost.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop of Southwark
Ok, we will have to wait and see.
[N.b. I do not rule out the socket also accepting a new proprietry connector that encapsulates a microUSB plug in its design.]
I will also through another one into the mix, HDMI type D connector, but I'd argue that is not at all likley. Indeed, if apple did go with a new custom design, it would almost certainly be something new called 'microDisplayPort' or something like that (to take this point full cirle), but my money goes for something incorporating microUSB *IF* they move from 30pin dock.
I think you are just reading the article incorrectly. The one link you posted is from 2009 and doesn't actually say what you say it does anyway (that the micro USB has to be on the device end). As Solipsism has already pointed out, it's about the chargers, not the cables and as long as the cable ends in a micro USB at the charger, it's compliant.
Apple was also one of the first out of the gate to use a USB cable to attach to the charger instead of a proprietary hardwired charger.
Just to expand on that.
Once the design is complete, a liquidmetal back won't be horrendously expensive. Given all the machining required to make the part from a solid block of aluminum (as shown in this 'prototype'), all the extra machining required might easily cost more than the added material cost for Liquidmetal, resulting for a lower part cost for LM, even though materials are higher.
The problem is that Liquidmetal components are made by a molding process. You have to produce a very expensive mold in order to make the parts. And not only is the mold expensive, but it often requires multiple iterations to get it just right. The fact that LM doesn't shrink much helps, but there will still likely be multiple iterations of the final mold - and these are very expensive. So you don't want to be designing or producing your mold until the component design is completely finalized - you need to know the location of every screw and every hole in order to do it right.
These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorlightfoot
Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.
They used chrome edges around the glass of a black iPhone.
There are other reasons to be suspicious, this isn't one of them. I think you're misinterpreting the image, which is understandable if you only go on this sites's images. Linked in the story, see the fourth image:
http://www.engadget.com/photos/iphone-2012-back-plate-leak/#5051857
I don't see any black edges, except around the camera. The rest is just a property of shiny metal, making it look like there is black when the light is away from reflecting angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.
Answer these honestly-
Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?
Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?
I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier. I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think. Some long phone might be worse- we'll see. But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.
I guess I have trouble understanding the focus on "ugly". Even if there were a universal standard, my phone sits in a belt case all the time except when I'm using it. And when I use it, the only thing I'm looking at is the screen - so the back wouldn't matter, anyway.
Isn't it interesting that the Apple haters accuse Mac fans of caring only about appearance, yet it's the haters who are so focused on the physical appearance of the phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Where does that say that Intel has to approve any products using Thunderbolt? It says that Intel will control the trademark, but doesn't say anything about Intel approving products.
Furthermore, Apple is already using the trademark. Where does that article say that Apple's license to the trademark doesn't allow them to release new products? Oh, it doesn't.
Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.
The plastic backs got scratched too. I haven't seen the original model after it's been used for a couple years, but anodized aluminum is considerably more scratch resistant than most plastics.
Maybe you're thinking of the iPods with the scuff-prone shiny backs? Or did you mean it is a brush finish?
The general assumption I've seen was that the plastic back was done for cost reasons. I don't know if that's true or not. However, plastic parts are usually less expensive to make than metal. My 3G held up pretty well, but the back started looking bad before I upgraded it.
What makes you think I hadn't read that?
It was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so there was no reason to bring it up.
To recap:
1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.
In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.
Intel certified Thunderbolt motherboard:
http://www.techpowerup.com/166399/ASUS-Launches-First-Intel-Thunderbolt-Certified-Motherboard.html
It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.
Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-dock-connector-to-support-displayport-usb-3-0-thunderbolt/
There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.
edit..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.
Ah, the day wouldn't be complete without an insult from Jr... as usual. Now I can rest easy tonite.
If you have some evidence that Intel is not responsible for certifying Thunderbolt components, since "that's not the way you understand it" please do share. Otherwise perhaps you have some other reason for thinking Intel as the rights holder wouldn't ultimately certify products using their technology and confirm the products meet all the specs? As Marvin mentioned it's common sense, at least for most of us. You can't have two different certification authorities with the possibility of having different views on the specifications. Either you didn't know/remember the rights were held by Intel, or there's something amiss in your reasoning IMO.
None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.
More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.
Everyone wants be noticed chanel bags and be an icon of the latest fashion. This is now everyone’s wish to be the centre of attention on any social gathering. This wish is most of the times satisfied with the help of clothing, jewelry and get up. Branding is the prompt and most effective way to accomplish this wish. chanel replicas It is a known fact that only trendy clothes do not make you stand out. So, what is the other accessory which is equally important? Yes, it is a striking watch. It is well known saying that a man is distinguished with his pen and his watch. However, not everyone can afford the high end branded watches and it remains as a dream for most people. It is now not as much difficult for an chanel bag individual to buy a branded watch. Replica watches are now easily available with the same quality and features and one can easily get his favorite branded watch on remarkable price fraction. Not only are they designed attractively, but also are of superior quality. rolex replicas And what's more, they come with reasonable price tags too! What else could anyone have asked for?
I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.
Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.
One nice thing that could happen if they use standard mini USB3 is that they wouldn't need a camera kit any more. They might even be able to support USB pens using a cable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why?
I'd rather have usable battery life. It's already too thin.
Well, why change the 1st gen, 3G/3GS iPhones? As technology improves, better ways can be found to design something. I don't mind the tapered edges at all- Steve Jobs had an obsession with making things small and thin and maintaining functionality and battery life. They can do it.
Still waiting for you to show anything that says that Intel has to approve any Thunderbolt devices.
And there's also no evidence that it's impossible to make a Thunderbolt cable without processing chips. That's true for current devices, but there's no reason why they couldn't build the electronics into the device (and that's probably the way they'll go when they get to optical Thunderbolt, anyway). And, of course, the price of TB cables is huge now, but that doesn't mean it can't drop. If Apple were to release a TB-enabled iPhone which would require tens of millions of cables, the price would come down. Adding a $0.10 chip to the cable doesn't have to add a huge cost.