And by using a non-standard OS, non-standard UI and non-standard apps it really prepares the fortunate user to improve his lot in life and society.
They are learning how to learn. Nothing about the OS, the UI or the apps is holding them back. People who grow up using Macs have no trouble switching to Windows when they graduate and get a corporate job. Same should apply to iPads. When the user graduates and discovers that there is such a thing as a file system on other platforms their mind will be blown but somehow they will adapt.
When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
If you're asking that question then you don't understand what anti-trust is. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's all about how you get there and what you do once you get there.
Releasing an iPad Mini and snagging even 100% of the 7-8 inch sales, releasing a 10 inch that destroys everyone else and takes 100% of that market and so on isn't illegal. Setting up exclusive supplier deals isn't illegal. Suing for patent violations, nope not that. Restricting apps to their app store etc, not that either.
Anti-trust comes into play when you use power in one market to try to gain in one that is totally different. Microsoft tried it in the 90s by forcing OEMs to load Internet Explorer and no other web browser as part of their license for Windows. The judge didn't buy the argument that the browser is an intricate part of the OS and can't be separated. A similar move by Apple would have been not releasing iTunes for Windows when the iPod skyrocketed, making having a Mac computer a requirement for using an iPod. Trying to force publishers to only sell ebooks through iBooks, same with studios, labels etc would be another possible one.
ITunes the OSX app is getting a major release at the end of the month. My guess is the front end needs to be cleaned up before the metadata works.
The metadata won't be helped by a cleaner front in because the UI isn't the issue. A lack of authority control and incomplete data is the issue. Ever look at a library catalog record, try it. Notice the wacky ways that author names, subject headings etc are listed. That's to ensure that things are listed the same way every time and there's no confusion between names.
so instead of
JK Rowling
Rowling, JK
J K Rowling
Rowling, J K
J.K. Rowling
and so on all being used depending on who puts in it, you have Rowling, J. K. used all the time for all records as the official listing. iTunes lacks that kind of consistency which is why those author, actor etc links don't pick up all possible items.
And a lack of authority control to properly separate names is why Hart, Christopher (1957-) who writes how to draw books and Hart, Christopher W. L. who write business books come up as the same author in the iBooks store.
iTunes or Finder. Easier to just add the Sizes category in iTunes and then organize by size. If you have a lot of audiobooks that are broken up then you can create a smart playlist to exclude them.
Or better yet, relabel them as books and pull them out of the 'music' part of your library.
Or better yet, relabel them as books and pull them out of the 'music' part of your library.
I wish they'd pull the entire iTunes folder out of Music. ~/iTunes instead of ~/Music/iTunes makes more sense to me.
PS: Also rename Movies to Videos. They shored up a lot of inconsistencies between iOS and Mac OS with Mountain Lion but that one stayed. They're probably not going to do much with the Finder except find more ways to make it invisible.
Ebooks are normally in the range of 500kb to upwards of 4MB. Audiobooks, on the other hand, are different beasts, normally between 150MB to over 1GB in some instances because they are recorded voices in MP3/AAC or other compressed lossy formats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Exactly! The grandkids have several games over 1 GB... our largest app is 1.71 GB... the smallest is 56 KB.
Now, if you can stream the music and movies, load big books by chapters currently needed, and cross-load apps when needed... it looks like an 8 GB iPad Mini is doable... and a $199-$249 price is attractive.
Based on the 5G iPad Touch 32GB price of $299, I would expect the 32GB iPad micro to be $399 at the lowest.
How about $319 for the 16GB iPad Mini ?
Why not the same price or even cheaper than the 5th gen iPod Touch? You have some additional cost for the larger casing and 4.39x battery capacity increase but the 1024x768 display could be cheaper than the 1136x640 display due to the significantly less dense arrangement of pixels and there are many other components that don't have to be shrunk to fit that pocketable device.
Remember: The smaller you go in tech the more it costs. For instance, the 16GB iPhone 5 is $650 but the 16GB iPad (3) is only $629. So it's $21 less? Not a big deal, right? But it's still cheaper and that's without making it nearly 50% smaller with a display pixel density introuced in 2007 on the original iPhone and using the same basic logic board as the 5th gen iPod Touch over all that additional HW needed for that 2048x1536 display.
If so, please go to Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity... and post the number!
This way we can get an idea about how much flash storage iOS 6 uses on a 16 GB iPad... and extrapolate that to an 8 GB iPad.
My grandsons' 16 GB iP5 and iP4 show 13.5 and 13.6 GB -- or iOS 6 takes 2.5 and 2.4 GB out of 16 GB.
That's not quite accurate. Apple counts the capacity of NAND like HDD makers capacity, in BASE10, so your iDevice will have just over 16,000,000,000 bytes or just over 14.90 GB using BASE2.
Now, that should definitely be taken into account when you consider how much usable space you have a specific device capacity but it does not translate evenly when going to different capacity sizes. For instance, my 64GB iPad only shows a 57.2GB capacity but at 64 billion bytes I'm only starting with just over 59.60 GB with BASE2, even before formatting the OS install. The OS isn't 5 GB larger than 8GB of NAND which is only 7.45 GB using BASE2.
edit: Xcode is a litte more forthcoming with info. In BASE2 values for physical storage capacity:
I must be seriously misunderstanding something in this discussion, because I'm confused by your reference to BASE2. By BASE2 are you referring to something other than binary?
16,000,000,000 = 16 x 10?, and is assumed to be a base 10 number. The giga prefix, G, represents a 10? multiplier, so 16,000,000,000 B (bytes) exactly, by definition, equals 16 GB, and both are base 10 representations. 14.90 GB also, because of the presence of the 4 and 9, cannot be base 2 and is, by definition because of the G, a base 10 representation.
Base 2 (binary) represents powers of 2 rather than powers of 10, so in base 2, where 2³³ < 16 x 10? < 2³?, we get a 33 digit base 2 number, and, to be precise, 16 x 10? (base 10) is 1110111001101011001010000000000000 (base 2).
That's obviously not what you were talking about though.
I must be seriously misunderstanding something in this discussion, because I'm confused by your reference to BASE2. By BASE2 are you referring to something other than binary?
16,000,000,000 = 16 x 10?, and is assumed to be a base 10 number. The giga prefix, G, represents a 10? multiplier, so 16,000,000,000 B (bytes) exactly, by definition, equals 16 GB, and both are base 10 representations. 14.90 GB also, because of the presence of the 4 and 9, cannot be base 2 and is, by definition because of the G, a base 10 representation.
Base 2 (binary) represents powers of 2 rather than powers of 10, so in base 2, where 2³³ < 16 x 10? < 2³?, we get a 33 digit base 2 number, and, to be precise, 16 x 10? (base 10) is 1110111001101011001010000000000000 (base 2).
That's obviously not what you were talking about though.
The system represents capacity using 2^30 (BASE2) while the marketed capacity uses 10^9 (BASE10). This is well worn road here. I'm not bringing any new info to the table here.
PS: I have no idea how you can say you can't have the presence of a '4' or '9' using a BASE2 system. You can have just as many values including all values that contain a '4' and '9'.
PPS: 'G' refers to Giga to represent billion, not to '10'. That's either 1024^3 or 2^30 in BASE2 or 10^9 in BASE10.
I must be seriously misunderstanding something in this discussion, because I'm confused by your reference to BASE2. By BASE2 are you referring to something other than binary?
16,000,000,000 = 16 x 10?, and is assumed to be a base 10 number. The giga prefix, G, represents a 10? multiplier, so 16,000,000,000 B (bytes) exactly, by definition, equals 16 GB, and both are base 10 representations. 14.90 GB also, because of the presence of the 4 and 9, cannot be base 2 and is, by definition because of the G, a base 10 representation.
Base 2 (binary) represents powers of 2 rather than powers of 10, so in base 2, where 2³³ < 16 x 10? < 2³?, we get a 33 digit base 2 number, and, to be precise, 16 x 10? (base 10) is 1110111001101011001010000000000000 (base 2).
That's obviously not what you were talking about though.
The system represents capacity using 2^30 (BASE2) while the marketed capacity uses 10^9 (BASE10). This is well worn road here. I'm not bringing any new info to the table here.
PS: I have no idea how you can say you can't have the presence of a '4' or '9' using a BASE2 system. You can have just as many values including all values that contain a '4' and '9'.
PPS: 'G' refers to Giga to represent billion, not to '10'. That's either 1024^3 or 2^30 in BASE2 or 10^9 in BASE10.
OK - 2³? (are those numbers showing up correctly - that should be 2 superscript 30) is approximately 1.074 x 10?, so a little more than 1 GB, so that is consistent with the number of bytes of memory being an integer power of 2. So 16 times that, i.e. 2³? (2^34) would actually be 17.18 GB, not 14.90 GB. So where does the 14.90 GB come from - that is not an integer power of 2? Apologies if I am missing the obvious here.
That does explain what you were referring to though - integer powers of 2 represented in base 10, not in base 2. My comment was that a number represented in base 2 can only contain 0s and 1s.
I agree that giga (G) is one billion, and I wrote 10? (10^9) - which is why I was wondering if you were not seeing the superscript characters. But 2³? (2^30) is 1,073,741,824 rather than exactly 10? (10^9).
OK - 2³? (are those numbers showing up correctly - that should be 2 superscript 30) is approximately 1.074 x 10?, so a little more than 1 GB, so that is consistent with the number of bytes of memory being an integer power of 2. So 16 times that, i.e. 2³? (2^34) would actually be 17.18 GB, not 14.90 GB. So where does the 14.90 GB come from - that is not an integer power of 2? Apologies if I am missing the obvious here.
That does explain what you were referring to though - integer powers of 2 represented in base 10, not in base 2. My comment was that a number represented in base 2 can only contain 0s and 1s.
It's 16,000,000,000 bytes plus a few more for the manufacturing to work with the 2-scale and to ensure it's over the requirement minimum. It's that simple! That's 16 x 10^9. That's how the capacity is recorded. That's what you are guaranteed when you by a 16GB device. It's BASE10!
Now run 16 billion byes using 1024 for "kilo" instead of 1000 and you get 14.90GB. Apple has always told use this.
They clearly and repeatedly state: "1 GB = 1 billion bytes". They don't say: "1 GB = 1,073,741,824"
I agree that giga (G) is one billion, and I wrote 10? (10^9) - which is why I was wondering if you were not seeing the superscript characters. But 2³? (2^30) is 1,073,741,824 rather than exactly 10? (10^9).
I am flummoxed that you et al. aren't aware that marketing calculates using the BASE10 system and systems calculate using BASE2. Note I said calculate, they are then presents those calculations in BASE10 to the user, hence 16,000,000,000 bytes is 14.90GB.
OK - 2³? (are those numbers showing up correctly - that should be 2 superscript 30) is approximately 1.074 x 10?, so a little more than 1 GB, so that is consistent with the number of bytes of memory being an integer power of 2. So 16 times that, i.e. 2³? (2^34) would actually be 17.18 GB, not 14.90 GB. So where does the 14.90 GB come from - that is not an integer power of 2? Apologies if I am missing the obvious here.
That does explain what you were referring to though - integer powers of 2 represented in base 10, not in base 2. My comment was that a number represented in base 2 can only contain 0s and 1s.
It's 16,000,000,000 bytes plus a few more for the manufacturing to work with the 2-scale and to ensure it's over the requirement minimum. It's that simple! That's 16 x 10^9. That's how the capacity is recorded. That's what you are guaranteed when you by a 16GB device. It's BASE10!
Now run 16 billion byes using 1024 for "kilo" instead of 1000 and you get 14.90GB. Apple has always told use this.
They clearly and repeatedly state: "1 GB = 1 billion bytes". They don't say: "1 GB = 1,073,741,824"
Quote:
I agree that giga (G) is one billion, and I wrote 10? (10^9) - which is why I was wondering if you were not seeing the superscript characters. But 2³? (2^30) is 1,073,741,824 rather than exactly 10? (10^9).
I am flummoxed that you and Dick don't know that marketing calculates using the BASE10 system and systems calculate using BASE2. Note I said calculate, they are then representing those calculations in BASE10, hence 16,000,000,000 bytes is 14.90GB.
I see. 16 x 10? / 1024³ is indeed 14.90. I always knew that there were some inconsistencies between the physical and logical memory representations, but I did not realize that was how it worked. Thanks. I always aim to flummox.
I see. 16 x 10? / 1024³ is indeed 14.90. I always knew that there were some inconsistencies between the physical and logical memory representations, but I did not realize that was how it worked. Thanks. I always aim to flummox.
It's a huge pain to have the same terminology used for two different measurements. Imagine if we had yard and meter, and mile and kilometer be the same word but mean different measures.
There is the IEC binary prefixes which use Kibi, Mebi, Gibi, etc. to represent the binary value of a 1024 count as SI already has those terms for decimal notation. I've tried using it in the past and it has caught on as much as my Ethiopian sarcmark (¡). Maybe we should blame JEDEC.
PS: Many, many years ago when drives were much smaller I used to hear "You lose a little when you format." It made some sense and when drives were very small the differences in marketed size and actual size were still very close but as drives grew larger that disparity became increasingly more evident. You buy yourself a brand new 4TB HDD and you'll see you'll have barely over 3.63TiB (4,000,000,000,000 bytes) of capacity to use.
If anyone deserves to be sued, it's the drive manufacturers. Since time immemorial, hard drive capacities had been given in the same way as RAM: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes (2^10). So 1 MB = 2^20, 1 GB = 2^30...by the time you get to TBs, there's a 10% difference.
Then they suddenly started rating their capacities in decimal, so 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, not 1,073,741,824 as it always had. Of course, Apple quoted the drive capacities by what the manufacturer called them—it's part of the name, in most cases! So the user forums were full of foaming diatribes about Apple cheating everybody—"I paid for 160 GB, and it's only 149! Apple are criminals!"
Finally Apple was fatigued into compliance, and with Snow Leopard they started having the OS use decimal values, so a "160 GB" hard drive formatted out to 160. So far so good—but unfortunately they also told people to expect to get a little more free space when they upgraded, because of the leaner code. People saw a much bigger gain than expected because Snow Leopard also started counting in short decimal "Gigabytes". So anybody who said they got a bigger bump than they expected was pounced on by some troll screaming: "That's just because they started shorting you by counting capacity in decimal! Apple is lying to you!"
Everything hardware-related but RAM seems to have switched to the skimpy prefixes now, but most content you might download is still counted in real Kilo-, Mega-, and Gigabytes, and I'm always trying to figure out how many proper Megabytes will fit on my 4- or 8- "Gigabyte" thumb drive, for example. IMO, the FTC should have pounced on the drive manufacturers when they started cheating people—they've gotten pissy about a lot less flagrant misrepresentation than that.
Remember, this is Tim Cook's Apple. The guy is a logistics genius, and the best way for him to show off his logistics skills is to cut price dramatically and STILL retain 30% margins. For the iPad 3, I don't think anyone in their right mind expected Apple to offer a Retina display at the same price point as the iPad 2!
Apple will likely offer a $250 price point for 16GB iPad Mini, but that $250 will include $50 in free apps or music from the iTunes / App store. This is the sort of promotion Apple can offer, where they cement their ecosystem even further, and destroy the competition.
I believe we are seeing a much more ruthless version of Apple, where they will not leave anything on the table for the competition. The older Apple under Steve played a different game - of not caring for Marketshare - but when you appoint a logistics genius as your CEO, you HAVE to play a different game.
This is going to be fun, the way gladiator battles are fun :-)
"Remember: The smaller you go in tech the more it costs."
More to do with artificially high prices. The iPad mini can certainly be knocked up for $50 and surely its the same for smartphones with much less material cost to compensate.
Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.
It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.
Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?
IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.
So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.
I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.
My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.
I generally agree with your points. I want Apple to build excellent, useful, and beautiful products and sell them at a competitive price for people who understand the value.
8GB is just too little. I apologize for skipping the detailed discussion of GB, memory, and data... Schools will want personalized log-in's for different students, and future versions of iOS will offer it. File sizes of photos, music, videos, apps, and textbooks will grow larger. Also, schools invest in products that last for more than 2 years. They don't have the budget to update frequently.
If Apple believes that a cheapo 8-GB device can be beneficial to or is needed by the education sector, they can offer it directly to them.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
And by using a non-standard OS, non-standard UI and non-standard apps it really prepares the fortunate user to improve his lot in life and society.
They are learning how to learn. Nothing about the OS, the UI or the apps is holding them back. People who grow up using Macs have no trouble switching to Windows when they graduate and get a corporate job. Same should apply to iPads. When the user graduates and discovers that there is such a thing as a file system on other platforms their mind will be blown but somehow they will adapt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm
Yes, suck profits from the competition.
When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
If you're asking that question then you don't understand what anti-trust is. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's all about how you get there and what you do once you get there.
Releasing an iPad Mini and snagging even 100% of the 7-8 inch sales, releasing a 10 inch that destroys everyone else and takes 100% of that market and so on isn't illegal. Setting up exclusive supplier deals isn't illegal. Suing for patent violations, nope not that. Restricting apps to their app store etc, not that either.
Anti-trust comes into play when you use power in one market to try to gain in one that is totally different. Microsoft tried it in the 90s by forcing OEMs to load Internet Explorer and no other web browser as part of their license for Windows. The judge didn't buy the argument that the browser is an intricate part of the OS and can't be separated. A similar move by Apple would have been not releasing iTunes for Windows when the iPod skyrocketed, making having a Mac computer a requirement for using an iPod. Trying to force publishers to only sell ebooks through iBooks, same with studios, labels etc would be another possible one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
ITunes the OSX app is getting a major release at the end of the month. My guess is the front end needs to be cleaned up before the metadata works.
The metadata won't be helped by a cleaner front in because the UI isn't the issue. A lack of authority control and incomplete data is the issue. Ever look at a library catalog record, try it. Notice the wacky ways that author names, subject headings etc are listed. That's to ensure that things are listed the same way every time and there's no confusion between names.
so instead of
JK Rowling
Rowling, JK
J K Rowling
Rowling, J K
J.K. Rowling
and so on all being used depending on who puts in it, you have Rowling, J. K. used all the time for all records as the official listing. iTunes lacks that kind of consistency which is why those author, actor etc links don't pick up all possible items.
And a lack of authority control to properly separate names is why Hart, Christopher (1957-) who writes how to draw books and Hart, Christopher W. L. who write business books come up as the same author in the iBooks store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
iTunes or Finder. Easier to just add the Sizes category in iTunes and then organize by size. If you have a lot of audiobooks that are broken up then you can create a smart playlist to exclude them.
Or better yet, relabel them as books and pull them out of the 'music' part of your library.
I wish they'd pull the entire iTunes folder out of Music. ~/iTunes instead of ~/Music/iTunes makes more sense to me.
PS: Also rename Movies to Videos. They shored up a lot of inconsistencies between iOS and Mac OS with Mountain Lion but that one stayed. They're probably not going to do much with the Finder except find more ways to make it invisible.
Ebooks are normally in the range of 500kb to upwards of 4MB. Audiobooks, on the other hand, are different beasts, normally between 150MB to over 1GB in some instances because they are recorded voices in MP3/AAC or other compressed lossy formats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Exactly! The grandkids have several games over 1 GB... our largest app is 1.71 GB... the smallest is 56 KB.
Now, if you can stream the music and movies, load big books by chapters currently needed, and cross-load apps when needed... it looks like an 8 GB iPad Mini is doable... and a $199-$249 price is attractive.
Thanks for the input! How did you get book sizes?
How about $319 for the 16GB iPad Mini ?
Why not the same price or even cheaper than the 5th gen iPod Touch? You have some additional cost for the larger casing and 4.39x battery capacity increase but the 1024x768 display could be cheaper than the 1136x640 display due to the significantly less dense arrangement of pixels and there are many other components that don't have to be shrunk to fit that pocketable device.
Remember: The smaller you go in tech the more it costs. For instance, the 16GB iPhone 5 is $650 but the 16GB iPad (3) is only $629. So it's $21 less? Not a big deal, right? But it's still cheaper and that's without making it nearly 50% smaller with a display pixel density introuced in 2007 on the original iPhone and using the same basic logic board as the 5th gen iPod Touch over all that additional HW needed for that 2048x1536 display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Does anyone have an 16 GB iPad?
If so, please go to Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity... and post the number!
This way we can get an idea about how much flash storage iOS 6 uses on a 16 GB iPad... and extrapolate that to an 8 GB iPad.
My grandsons' 16 GB iP5 and iP4 show 13.5 and 13.6 GB -- or iOS 6 takes 2.5 and 2.4 GB out of 16 GB.
That's not quite accurate. Apple counts the capacity of NAND like HDD makers capacity, in BASE10, so your iDevice will have just over 16,000,000,000 bytes or just over 14.90 GB using BASE2.
Now, that should definitely be taken into account when you consider how much usable space you have a specific device capacity but it does not translate evenly when going to different capacity sizes. For instance, my 64GB iPad only shows a 57.2GB capacity but at 64 billion bytes I'm only starting with just over 59.60 GB with BASE2, even before formatting the OS install. The OS isn't 5 GB larger than 8GB of NAND which is only 7.45 GB using BASE2.
edit: Xcode is a litte more forthcoming with info. In BASE2 values for physical storage capacity:
64 GB iPad = 61.41 GB (Legal minimum 59.6046447753906 GB for 64 GB)
32 GB iPhone 4 = 30.56 GB (Legal minimum 29.8023223876953 GB for 32GB)
16 GB iPhone 5 = 14.46 GB (Legal minimum 14.9011611938477GB for 16 GB)
I must be seriously misunderstanding something in this discussion, because I'm confused by your reference to BASE2. By BASE2 are you referring to something other than binary?
16,000,000,000 = 16 x 10?, and is assumed to be a base 10 number. The giga prefix, G, represents a 10? multiplier, so 16,000,000,000 B (bytes) exactly, by definition, equals 16 GB, and both are base 10 representations. 14.90 GB also, because of the presence of the 4 and 9, cannot be base 2 and is, by definition because of the G, a base 10 representation.
Base 2 (binary) represents powers of 2 rather than powers of 10, so in base 2, where 2³³ < 16 x 10? < 2³?, we get a 33 digit base 2 number, and, to be precise, 16 x 10? (base 10) is 1110111001101011001010000000000000 (base 2).
That's obviously not what you were talking about though.
The system represents capacity using 2^30 (BASE2) while the marketed capacity uses 10^9 (BASE10). This is well worn road here. I'm not bringing any new info to the table here.
PS: I have no idea how you can say you can't have the presence of a '4' or '9' using a BASE2 system. You can have just as many values including all values that contain a '4' and '9'.
PPS: 'G' refers to Giga to represent billion, not to '10'.
These rumors are all over the place in regards to pricing, features and capabilities etc etc. I think I will just wait to see what Apple releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I must be seriously misunderstanding something in this discussion, because I'm confused by your reference to BASE2. By BASE2 are you referring to something other than binary?
16,000,000,000 = 16 x 10?, and is assumed to be a base 10 number. The giga prefix, G, represents a 10? multiplier, so 16,000,000,000 B (bytes) exactly, by definition, equals 16 GB, and both are base 10 representations. 14.90 GB also, because of the presence of the 4 and 9, cannot be base 2 and is, by definition because of the G, a base 10 representation.
Base 2 (binary) represents powers of 2 rather than powers of 10, so in base 2, where 2³³ < 16 x 10? < 2³?, we get a 33 digit base 2 number, and, to be precise, 16 x 10? (base 10) is 1110111001101011001010000000000000 (base 2).
That's obviously not what you were talking about though.
The system represents capacity using 2^30 (BASE2) while the marketed capacity uses 10^9 (BASE10). This is well worn road here. I'm not bringing any new info to the table here.
PS: I have no idea how you can say you can't have the presence of a '4' or '9' using a BASE2 system. You can have just as many values including all values that contain a '4' and '9'.
PPS: 'G' refers to Giga to represent billion, not to '10'.
OK - 2³? (are those numbers showing up correctly - that should be 2 superscript 30) is approximately 1.074 x 10?, so a little more than 1 GB, so that is consistent with the number of bytes of memory being an integer power of 2. So 16 times that, i.e. 2³? (2^34) would actually be 17.18 GB, not 14.90 GB. So where does the 14.90 GB come from - that is not an integer power of 2? Apologies if I am missing the obvious here.
That does explain what you were referring to though - integer powers of 2 represented in base 10, not in base 2. My comment was that a number represented in base 2 can only contain 0s and 1s.
I agree that giga (G) is one billion, and I wrote 10? (10^9) - which is why I was wondering if you were not seeing the superscript characters. But 2³? (2^30) is 1,073,741,824 rather than exactly 10? (10^9).
It's 16,000,000,000 bytes plus a few more for the manufacturing to work with the 2-scale and to ensure it's over the requirement minimum. It's that simple! That's 16 x 10^9. That's how the capacity is recorded. That's what you are guaranteed when you by a 16GB device. It's BASE10!
Now run 16 billion byes using 1024 for "kilo" instead of 1000 and you get 14.90GB. Apple has always told use this.
They clearly and repeatedly state: "1 GB = 1 billion bytes". They don't say: "1 GB = 1,073,741,824"
10^9 bytes = 1,000,000,000 bytes = 1 billion bytes = 1GB
1024^3 bytes = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes = 1GB
I am flummoxed that you et al. aren't aware that marketing calculates using the BASE10 system and systems calculate using BASE2. Note I said calculate, they are then presents those calculations in BASE10 to the user, hence 16,000,000,000 bytes is 14.90GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
OK - 2³? (are those numbers showing up correctly - that should be 2 superscript 30) is approximately 1.074 x 10?, so a little more than 1 GB, so that is consistent with the number of bytes of memory being an integer power of 2. So 16 times that, i.e. 2³? (2^34) would actually be 17.18 GB, not 14.90 GB. So where does the 14.90 GB come from - that is not an integer power of 2? Apologies if I am missing the obvious here.
That does explain what you were referring to though - integer powers of 2 represented in base 10, not in base 2. My comment was that a number represented in base 2 can only contain 0s and 1s.
It's 16,000,000,000 bytes plus a few more for the manufacturing to work with the 2-scale and to ensure it's over the requirement minimum. It's that simple! That's 16 x 10^9. That's how the capacity is recorded. That's what you are guaranteed when you by a 16GB device. It's BASE10!
Now run 16 billion byes using 1024 for "kilo" instead of 1000 and you get 14.90GB. Apple has always told use this.
They clearly and repeatedly state: "1 GB = 1 billion bytes". They don't say: "1 GB = 1,073,741,824"
Quote:
I agree that giga (G) is one billion, and I wrote 10? (10^9) - which is why I was wondering if you were not seeing the superscript characters. But 2³? (2^30) is 1,073,741,824 rather than exactly 10? (10^9).
10^9 bytes = 1,000,000,000 bytes = 1 billion bytes = 1GB
1024^3 bytes = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes = 1GB
I am flummoxed that you and Dick don't know that marketing calculates using the BASE10 system and systems calculate using BASE2. Note I said calculate, they are then representing those calculations in BASE10, hence 16,000,000,000 bytes is 14.90GB.
I see. 16 x 10? / 1024³ is indeed 14.90. I always knew that there were some inconsistencies between the physical and logical memory representations, but I did not realize that was how it worked. Thanks. I always aim to flummox.
It's a huge pain to have the same terminology used for two different measurements. Imagine if we had yard and meter, and mile and kilometer be the same word but mean different measures.
There is the IEC binary prefixes which use Kibi, Mebi, Gibi, etc. to represent the binary value of a 1024 count as SI already has those terms for decimal notation. I've tried using it in the past and it has caught on as much as my Ethiopian sarcmark (¡). Maybe we should blame JEDEC.
PS: Many, many years ago when drives were much smaller I used to hear "You lose a little when you format." It made some sense and when drives were very small the differences in marketed size and actual size were still very close but as drives grew larger that disparity became increasingly more evident. You buy yourself a brand new 4TB HDD and you'll see you'll have barely over 3.63TiB (4,000,000,000,000 bytes) of capacity to use.
If anyone deserves to be sued, it's the drive manufacturers. Since time immemorial, hard drive capacities had been given in the same way as RAM: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes (2^10). So 1 MB = 2^20, 1 GB = 2^30...by the time you get to TBs, there's a 10% difference.
Then they suddenly started rating their capacities in decimal, so 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, not 1,073,741,824 as it always had. Of course, Apple quoted the drive capacities by what the manufacturer called them—it's part of the name, in most cases! So the user forums were full of foaming diatribes about Apple cheating everybody—"I paid for 160 GB, and it's only 149! Apple are criminals!"
Finally Apple was fatigued into compliance, and with Snow Leopard they started having the OS use decimal values, so a "160 GB" hard drive formatted out to 160. So far so good—but unfortunately they also told people to expect to get a little more free space when they upgraded, because of the leaner code. People saw a much bigger gain than expected because Snow Leopard also started counting in short decimal "Gigabytes". So anybody who said they got a bigger bump than they expected was pounced on by some troll screaming: "That's just because they started shorting you by counting capacity in decimal! Apple is lying to you!"
Everything hardware-related but RAM seems to have switched to the skimpy prefixes now, but most content you might download is still counted in real Kilo-, Mega-, and Gigabytes, and I'm always trying to figure out how many proper Megabytes will fit on my 4- or 8- "Gigabyte" thumb drive, for example. IMO, the FTC should have pounced on the drive manufacturers when they started cheating people—they've gotten pissy about a lot less flagrant misrepresentation than that.
Remember, this is Tim Cook's Apple. The guy is a logistics genius, and the best way for him to show off his logistics skills is to cut price dramatically and STILL retain 30% margins. For the iPad 3, I don't think anyone in their right mind expected Apple to offer a Retina display at the same price point as the iPad 2!
Apple will likely offer a $250 price point for 16GB iPad Mini, but that $250 will include $50 in free apps or music from the iTunes / App store. This is the sort of promotion Apple can offer, where they cement their ecosystem even further, and destroy the competition.
I believe we are seeing a much more ruthless version of Apple, where they will not leave anything on the table for the competition. The older Apple under Steve played a different game - of not caring for Marketshare - but when you appoint a logistics genius as your CEO, you HAVE to play a different game.
This is going to be fun, the way gladiator battles are fun :-)
If so I'd guess it at $200 cost.
Without GPS it is certainly looking like the must have xmas toy for the kids.
More to do with artificially high prices.
The iPad mini can certainly be knocked up for $50 and surely its the same for smartphones with much less material cost to compensate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.
It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.
Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?
IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.
So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.
I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.
My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.
I generally agree with your points. I want Apple to build excellent, useful, and beautiful products and sell them at a competitive price for people who understand the value.
8GB is just too little. I apologize for skipping the detailed discussion of GB, memory, and data... Schools will want personalized log-in's for different students, and future versions of iOS will offer it. File sizes of photos, music, videos, apps, and textbooks will grow larger. Also, schools invest in products that last for more than 2 years. They don't have the budget to update frequently.
If Apple believes that a cheapo 8-GB device can be beneficial to or is needed by the education sector, they can offer it directly to them.