So we're either talking about an A6/32nm 7.85" iPad, or a mid-cycle Pad (3) update that uses the A5X/32nm or A6X/32nm for longer battery life and/or a smaller, lighter chassis. I'm going with the iPad mini/iBook.
Why not both -- if only for strategic reasons... Own the market for another year or more.
It says right in the article that this is *not* likely to be the iPad mini. It's a new, "new iPad."
Some people can't read for content.
It makes no sense for a smaller iPad running 1024x768 resolution to use the A6.
Actually it makes all the sense in the world. For one this is apparently a very low power chip which combined with a larger battery should deliver impressive run times. That right there is reason enough to go A6. Volume manufacturing is another big factor. The last thing Apple needs to do is to manage the production of a wide array of similar chips. On top of that an iPad Mini with such a chip would simply deliver outstanding graphics performance.
As a side note I'm still not convinced that Apple would go non retina in the iPad Mini.
For one this is apparently a very low power chip which combined with a larger battery should deliver impressive run times.
Or reasonably impressive run times with a much smaller battery with A6/32nm over an A5/45nm could supply.
I've stated multiple times that I think A5/32nm would be the most likely expectation but have qualified my statements to suggest that A6 could have benefits in reducing cost elsewhere as well as a primary focus on making this device light enough to be used one-handed much like the Kindle eInk readers.
Why would they have an updated "new iPad" (3rd gen.) with an A6? It doesn't make sense, it would be called iPad 4,1 4,2 4,3. When Apple updates the processors they update the name. When the iPhone and iPhone 3G had the same processor they had the iPhone as iPhone 1,1 and iPhone 3G iPhone 1,2. Then when the iPhone 3GS had a different faster processor they called it iPhone 2,1. It just does not go with Apples naming scheme. And honestly we all know the iPad Mini will use the A5 (as the current iPad 2 (updated with a 32 nanometer process) to run everything. The chip cost less and it is very powerful. If anything above an A5 is on the iPad Mini it will be the A5X. The only reason Apple would change the iPad 3rd gen. right now is if they were using the A5X in the iPad Mini, but it would be an iPad 4th gen. to a A6. And honestly for those people that are saying we will see an A7 in the iPad 4th gen., sorry they will use a A6 Dual-Core with Quad-Core graphics, or possibly an A6X that is Quad-Core all around. We will most likely see the A7 in the iPhone 6th gen. with Quad-Core everything, if not, then we will see it in the iPad 5th gen.
Why would they have an updated "new iPad" (3rd gen.) with an A6? It doesn't make sense, it would be called iPad 4,1 4,2 4,3. When Apple updates the processors they update the name. When the iPhone and iPhone 3G had the same processor they had the iPhone as iPhone 1,1 and iPhone 3G iPhone 1,2. Then when the iPhone 3GS had a different faster processor they called it iPhone 2,1. It just does not go with Apples naming scheme. And honestly we all know the iPad Mini will use the A5 (as the current iPad 2 (updated with a 32 nanometer process) to run everything. The chip cost less and it is very powerful. If anything above an A5 is on the iPad Mini it will be the A5X. The only reason Apple would change the iPad 3rd gen. right now is if they were using the A5X in the iPad Mini, but it would be an iPad 4th gen. to a A6. And honestly for those people that are saying we will see an A7 in the iPad 4th gen., sorry they will use a A6 Dual-Core with Quad-Core graphics, or possibly an A6X that is Quad-Core all around. We will most likely see the A7 in the iPhone 6th gen. with Quad-Core everything, if not, then we will see it in the iPad 5th gen.
I agreed with everything you wrote in the first half of your paragraph but you lost me when you suggested the small, low-cost iPad with a 1024x768 display would get the A5X for the quad-core graphics. There is absolutely no reason it would need that for 1/4 the pixels of the iPad (3) and it certainly shouldn't have that for battery usage reasons.
Also, the the iPhone 5 with an A6 ASIC and iOS 6 is the 6th gen iPhone.
It says right in the article that this is *not* likely to be the iPad mini. It's a new, "new iPad."
It makes no sense for a smaller iPad running 1024x768 resolution to use the A6.
Thats fine. I can accept any new name. But for this article its easier for me to call it the iPad mini. Every one will know exactly what I am referring to. When Apple officially names it I will use what ever Apple dubs it to be.
If, in fact we have a double-barrel iPad announcement -- iPad Mini and tweaked iPad 3 (or iPad 3S) then it could be game, set and match for the "tablet" market!
Any iPad Mini is expected to constrain Apple's gross profit margins- a very bad sign. Stockholders should sell before as the stock will dip as the street will see this as a reaction to all other smaller tabs and not [B]innovation.[/B]
Or reasonably impressive run times with a much smaller battery with A6/32nm over an A5/45nm could supply.
I've stated multiple times that I think A5/32nm would be the most likely expectation but have qualified my statements to suggest that A6 could have benefits in reducing cost elsewhere as well as a primary focus on making this device light enough to be used one-handed much like the Kindle eInk readers.
sorry soli.
who gave you the right or knowledge to talk about reducing cost?
where is the evidence to suggest that this isn't a premium device, like apple always does?
apple only makes the best devices on their respective category. They will make the best 7inch they can.
That device supports retina display, a6 and will most likely cost 399- with 4g option of 499.
Unlike your theory, this makes sense and goes well with apple's MO.
Any iPad Mini is expected to constrain Apple's gross profit margins- a very bad sign. Stockholders should sell before as the stock will dip as the street will see this as a reaction to all other smaller tabs and not innovation.
even if you are right about gross profit, wich you aren't, we are talking about additional sales and profit that apple isn't getting. So your post is stupid. Fact.
does the fact that apple is the only company innovating at consumer level since 98 bothers you? Your posts showw a very sad and ignorant person there.
sorry soli.
who gave you the right or knowledge to talk about reducing cost?
where is the evidence to suggest that this isn't a premium device, like apple always does?
apple only makes the best devices on their respective category. They will make the best 7inch they can.
That device supports retina display, a6 and will most likely cost 399- with 4g option of 499.
Unlike your theory, this makes sense and goes well with apple's MO.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an A4 for all last year during the iPhone 4S with the A5.
Then explain why the iPod Touch only has an A5 now with the iPhone 5 has the A6.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an inferior display compared to the 2010 iPhone 4 which introduced the IPS Retina display.
You're correct that Apple typically makes the best device for their respective categories, but you've not considered that category also includes a target price point. If Apple's goal is under $300 or $250 then they are severely limited by what they can put into the device.
Additionally, if they want it to be lightweight so that it's one-handed then they can't make it have a display that requires two backlights, an extra thick battery for 4 or more GPUs, etc. For it to be the best device in it's respective category it has to be lightweight. To me that's paperback book territory, not textbook territory. Here is an equation that seems to work: (L x H x W) / 39 = weight in pounds for paperback books.
Finally, you talk about the making the "best" devices but did you know that the Img Tech GPU they use can scale from 1 to 16 GPU cores. If every spec had to be the best then why aren't they using 16 cores and the fastest clock speed? Your argument implies they would while mine states they wouldn't because it would hurt the usability in many other areas. Bottom line, to be the "best" device for it's class it simply has to the follow one of the many paths I've previously noted.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an A4 for all last year during the iPhone 4S with the A5.
Then explain why the iPod Touch only has an A5 now with the iPhone 5 has the A6.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an inferior display compared to the 2010 iPhone 4 which introduced the IPS Retina display.
You're correct that Apple typically makes the best device for their respective categories, but you've not considered that category also includes a target price point. If Apple's goal is under $300 or $250 then they are severely limited by what they can put into the device.
Additionally, if they want it to be lightweight so that it's one-handed then they can't make it have a display that requires two backlights, an extra thick battery for 4 or more GPUs, etc. For it to be the best device in it's respective category it has to be lightweight. To me that's paperback book territory, not textbook territory. Here is an equation that seems to work: (L x H x W) / 39 = weight in pounds for paperback books.
Finally, you talk about the making the "best" devices but did you know that the Img Tech GPU they use can scale from 1 to 16 GPU cores. If every spec had to be the best then why aren't they using 16 cores and the fastest clock speed? Your argument implies they would while mine states they wouldn't because it would hurt the usability in many other areas. Bottom line, to be the "best" device for it's class it simply has to the follow one of the many paths I've previously noted.
While you are, of course, right about those comments, there's a long way from "best product humanly possible" to "crap". Some people have been suggesting that Apple would produce a 7" tablet that's as crappy as most of the other 7" tablets on the market. I really can't imagine that happening. If Apple can't produce a good product, they won't enter the segment at all. But, as you suggest, a 'good' product does not necessarily require the newest, fastest CPU or the greatest screen possible. I would expect that a 7" tablet will have lower specs than a 10" tablet - but still be a very good product. For comparison, look at the base specs for the 27" iMac vs the 21" iMac. Or the 13" MBP vs the 15" MBP. it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the 7" tablet will not match the 10" iPad in all respects. That does not, however, make it junk - as some people have been proclaiming.
While you are, of course, right about those comments, there's a long way from "best product humanly possible" to "crap". Some people have been suggesting that Apple would produce a 7" tablet that's as crappy as most of the other 7" tablets on the market. I really can't imagine that happening. If Apple can't produce a good product, they won't enter the segment at all. But, as you suggest, a 'good' product does not necessarily require the newest, fastest CPU or the greatest screen possible. I would expect that a 7" tablet will have lower specs than a 10" tablet - but still be a very good product. For comparison, look at the base specs for the 27" iMac vs the 21" iMac. Or the 13" MBP vs the 15" MBP. it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the 7" tablet will not match the 10" iPad in all respects. That does not, however, make it junk - as some people have been proclaiming.
We need to think like Apple. If you want the same specs from a 10" iPad in a 7.85" iPad you actually make it considerably more expensive because of that shrinking. That leaves altering your goals for the device.
I think a $7.85 has two primary focuses for Apple. Price and weight. I bet Apple has had this device in development for years now waiting for the right time to make such a device that falls into these primary (and many secondary) categories. The 32nm lithography is key here. Not only will it use less power it will allow for a shrinking of the battery with will lessen its size and weight. That is how Apple will make it the best in category.
With that goal Apple can't put a quad-core (or 16-core) GPU into this device because that clearly wouldn't make it the best in the proper respects if the device is too heavy or doesn't last long enough on a single charge. I see a dual or tri-core GPU being used but I'm favoring dual-core for the reasons of keeping the price envelop and weight down even further per my previous speculation that these are primary concerns.
Apple has stopped using those 165 PPI panels for all their iPhones now. That means they can still utilize that long-ago paid for investment for those panels in a 7.85" iPad mini/iBook (I doubt it will be called that but I really like the name iBook for this device). The 1024x768 on a 7.85" display only becomes Retina for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision when it's held 26" from the face — 3438 * (1/165 PPI ) = 21" — but that's not even close to only the thing that makes a display a great experience. Apple will have a new App Store for it but apps for both the iPad and iPhone will be usable out of the gate, it will likely have a great sRGB and all that jazz, and simply be a treat to use for its price point with a long battery life and th ability to hold it with one hand for a long time.
edit: Corrected PPI in multiple posts. Made error is saying it was 132 PPI which was the old IPad PPI, not 165 PPI which was the old iPhone PPI.
I agreed with everything you wrote in the first half of your paragraph but you lost me when you suggested the small, low-cost iPad with a 1024x768 display would get the A5X for the quad-core graphics. There is absolutely no reason it would need that for 1/4 the pixels of the iPad (3) and it certainly shouldn't have that for battery usage reasons.
Also, the the iPhone 5 with an A6 ASIC and iOS 6 is the 6th gen iPhone.
Oops i meant to say the iPhone 7th gen., and i said the A5X could be in the iPad Mini for one reason, it has a little more power than the A5, I highly doubt the iPad Mini will be getting an A5X but that would be the only reason for Apple to update the iPad 3rd gen. right now. Also how do you know if Apple didnt made a better A5X chip with a 32nm process that consumes less power than the one in the iPad 3rd gen. And you know how fond Apple is of making 3/4 of the device all battery. Honestly it would be stupid for them to even think about updating the iPad 3rd gen right now, people would get so mad. I waited until Apple used a Retina Display on the iPad, I have the iPad 3rd gen. and honestly i would be really pissed off if they updated it, and honestly it is doing great things for Apple, why fix it when it isnt broken?
Imagine that all products will move to utilize the new lightning connector and they will have to be modified to do this. Also imagine that products will be continue to be tweaked by Apple as rapidly as possible to keep ahead of the curve, such as with faster, but more efficient processors and lighter packaging. Faster, smoother, "shiner", better, easier to use, etc. But the real improvements will come as the products become faster and will be in the form of better and more integrated software - something the other manufacturers don't yet have. But wait . . . there is one more thing and it is the Apple Way which has been and is continuing to be instilled in the employees every working day.
Oops i meant to say the iPhone 7th gen., and i said the A5X could be in the iPad Mini for one reason, it has a little more power than the A5, I highly doubt the iPad Mini will be getting an A5X but that would be the only reason for Apple to update the iPad 3rd gen. right now. Also how do you know if Apple didnt made a better A5X chip with a 32nm process that consumes less power than the one in the iPad 3rd gen. And you know how fond Apple is of making 3/4 of the device all battery. Honestly it would be stupid for them to even think about updating the iPad 3rd gen right now, people would get so mad. I waited until Apple used a Retina Display on the iPad, I have the iPad 3rd gen. and honestly i would be really pissed off if they updated it, and honestly it is doing great things for Apple, why fix it when it isnt broken?
1) I thought that might have just been a simple slip up since your post clearly showed you are well versed in the nomenclature of the ASICs over the years.
2) a 32nm A5X would use considerably less power, but I still contend the A5X was used specifically for additional GPU core and bandwidth to push 4x as many pixels in the iPad 2 and what is presumed to be in the "iBook", 1024x768. To me, that means there is no reason to have the A5X at all. A6, I can see. A5, i can see. Better GPU I can see, but not 4 cores for the GPU which is how I define the X, as in 2x, designation of the A5X.
Comments
Why not both -- if only for strategic reasons... Own the market for another year or more.
Because we're only seeing a single new iPad and it won't use the same ASIC, for at least the GPU requirement differences.
Actually it makes all the sense in the world. For one this is apparently a very low power chip which combined with a larger battery should deliver impressive run times. That right there is reason enough to go A6. Volume manufacturing is another big factor. The last thing Apple needs to do is to manage the production of a wide array of similar chips. On top of that an iPad Mini with such a chip would simply deliver outstanding graphics performance.
As a side note I'm still not convinced that Apple would go non retina in the iPad Mini.
Or reasonably impressive run times with a much smaller battery with A6/32nm over an A5/45nm could supply.
I've stated multiple times that I think A5/32nm would be the most likely expectation but have qualified my statements to suggest that A6 could have benefits in reducing cost elsewhere as well as a primary focus on making this device light enough to be used one-handed much like the Kindle eInk readers.
I agreed with everything you wrote in the first half of your paragraph but you lost me when you suggested the small, low-cost iPad with a 1024x768 display would get the A5X for the quad-core graphics. There is absolutely no reason it would need that for 1/4 the pixels of the iPad (3) and it certainly shouldn't have that for battery usage reasons.
Also, the the iPhone 5 with an A6 ASIC and iOS 6 is the 6th gen iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It says right in the article that this is *not* likely to be the iPad mini. It's a new, "new iPad."
It makes no sense for a smaller iPad running 1024x768 resolution to use the A6.
Thats fine. I can accept any new name. But for this article its easier for me to call it the iPad mini. Every one will know exactly what I am referring to. When Apple officially names it I will use what ever Apple dubs it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I just posted this in another thread:
If, in fact we have a double-barrel iPad announcement -- iPad Mini and tweaked iPad 3 (or iPad 3S) then it could be game, set and match for the "tablet" market!
Not unless it'll sport an SD slot, too. /s
:-/
The new iPad could be a "government" version with no camera and perhaps some additional security built in.
sorry soli.
who gave you the right or knowledge to talk about reducing cost?
where is the evidence to suggest that this isn't a premium device, like apple always does?
apple only makes the best devices on their respective category. They will make the best 7inch they can.
That device supports retina display, a6 and will most likely cost 399- with 4g option of 499.
Unlike your theory, this makes sense and goes well with apple's MO.
even if you are right about gross profit, wich you aren't, we are talking about additional sales and profit that apple isn't getting. So your post is stupid. Fact.
does the fact that apple is the only company innovating at consumer level since 98 bothers you? Your posts showw a very sad and ignorant person there.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an A4 for all last year during the iPhone 4S with the A5.
Then explain why the iPod Touch only has an A5 now with the iPhone 5 has the A6.
Then explain why the iPod Touch had an inferior display compared to the 2010 iPhone 4 which introduced the IPS Retina display.
You're correct that Apple typically makes the best device for their respective categories, but you've not considered that category also includes a target price point. If Apple's goal is under $300 or $250 then they are severely limited by what they can put into the device.
Additionally, if they want it to be lightweight so that it's one-handed then they can't make it have a display that requires two backlights, an extra thick battery for 4 or more GPUs, etc. For it to be the best device in it's respective category it has to be lightweight. To me that's paperback book territory, not textbook territory. Here is an equation that seems to work: (L x H x W) / 39 = weight in pounds for paperback books.
Finally, you talk about the making the "best" devices but did you know that the Img Tech GPU they use can scale from 1 to 16 GPU cores. If every spec had to be the best then why aren't they using 16 cores and the fastest clock speed? Your argument implies they would while mine states they wouldn't because it would hurt the usability in many other areas. Bottom line, to be the "best" device for it's class it simply has to the follow one of the many paths I've previously noted.
While you are, of course, right about those comments, there's a long way from "best product humanly possible" to "crap". Some people have been suggesting that Apple would produce a 7" tablet that's as crappy as most of the other 7" tablets on the market. I really can't imagine that happening. If Apple can't produce a good product, they won't enter the segment at all. But, as you suggest, a 'good' product does not necessarily require the newest, fastest CPU or the greatest screen possible. I would expect that a 7" tablet will have lower specs than a 10" tablet - but still be a very good product. For comparison, look at the base specs for the 27" iMac vs the 21" iMac. Or the 13" MBP vs the 15" MBP. it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the 7" tablet will not match the 10" iPad in all respects. That does not, however, make it junk - as some people have been proclaiming.
We need to think like Apple. If you want the same specs from a 10" iPad in a 7.85" iPad you actually make it considerably more expensive because of that shrinking. That leaves altering your goals for the device.
I think a $7.85 has two primary focuses for Apple. Price and weight. I bet Apple has had this device in development for years now waiting for the right time to make such a device that falls into these primary (and many secondary) categories. The 32nm lithography is key here. Not only will it use less power it will allow for a shrinking of the battery with will lessen its size and weight. That is how Apple will make it the best in category.
With that goal Apple can't put a quad-core (or 16-core) GPU into this device because that clearly wouldn't make it the best in the proper respects if the device is too heavy or doesn't last long enough on a single charge. I see a dual or tri-core GPU being used but I'm favoring dual-core for the reasons of keeping the price envelop and weight down even further per my previous speculation that these are primary concerns.
Apple has stopped using those 165 PPI panels for all their iPhones now. That means they can still utilize that long-ago paid for investment for those panels in a 7.85" iPad mini/iBook (I doubt it will be called that but I really like the name iBook for this device). The 1024x768 on a 7.85" display only becomes Retina for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision when it's held 26" from the face — 3438 * (1/165 PPI ) = 21" — but that's not even close to only the thing that makes a display a great experience. Apple will have a new App Store for it but apps for both the iPad and iPhone will be usable out of the gate, it will likely have a great sRGB and all that jazz, and simply be a treat to use for its price point with a long battery life and th ability to hold it with one hand for a long time.
edit: Corrected PPI in multiple posts. Made error is saying it was 132 PPI which was the old IPad PPI, not 165 PPI which was the old iPhone PPI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I agreed with everything you wrote in the first half of your paragraph but you lost me when you suggested the small, low-cost iPad with a 1024x768 display would get the A5X for the quad-core graphics. There is absolutely no reason it would need that for 1/4 the pixels of the iPad (3) and it certainly shouldn't have that for battery usage reasons.
Also, the the iPhone 5 with an A6 ASIC and iOS 6 is the 6th gen iPhone.
Oops i meant to say the iPhone 7th gen., and i said the A5X could be in the iPad Mini for one reason, it has a little more power than the A5, I highly doubt the iPad Mini will be getting an A5X but that would be the only reason for Apple to update the iPad 3rd gen. right now. Also how do you know if Apple didnt made a better A5X chip with a 32nm process that consumes less power than the one in the iPad 3rd gen. And you know how fond Apple is of making 3/4 of the device all battery. Honestly it would be stupid for them to even think about updating the iPad 3rd gen right now, people would get so mad. I waited until Apple used a Retina Display on the iPad, I have the iPad 3rd gen. and honestly i would be really pissed off if they updated it, and honestly it is doing great things for Apple, why fix it when it isnt broken?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It says right in the article that this is *not* likely to be the iPad mini. It's a new, "new iPad."
It makes no sense for a smaller iPad running 1024x768 resolution to use the A6.
Under-clocked it would make a LOT of sense...
1) I thought that might have just been a simple slip up since your post clearly showed you are well versed in the nomenclature of the ASICs over the years.
2) a 32nm A5X would use considerably less power, but I still contend the A5X was used specifically for additional GPU core and bandwidth to push 4x as many pixels in the iPad 2 and what is presumed to be in the "iBook", 1024x768. To me, that means there is no reason to have the A5X at all. A6, I can see. A5, i can see. Better GPU I can see, but not 4 cores for the GPU which is how I define the X, as in 2x, designation of the A5X.