I'm not saying Apple isn't adding another GB of DRAM because of the power draw from the DRAM. That's peanuts. 10s of milliwatts.
I am saying that by having another GB of DRAM, users will end up running more background processes resulting in more usage of the CPU and wireless radios. 100s of milliwatts. The benefit of running all those extra background processes is questionable for Apple's mass market customers versus having the system last longer.
More RAM is an inevitable thing. Not in this years iPhones, but 2015, the more pressure on Apple to add more and more RAM both because system software improvements, larger memory footprint software being used on smartphones more and more, and user workloads.
But it's interesting that Apple has been adding to the background processes for years. This year I believe it will be the biggest expansion to multitasking yet. That will consume more RAM, SoC time, and battery life.
I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other. Fortunately, I WAS the boss.
But did you really read my post? I'm talking in reference to the fact that for two years running, Apple doubled performance of their SoC, and the year before that, it was a 50% improvement for the CPU. When compared to those very significant improvements, yes, 25% is measly.
We have to look at this in reference to what they wanted to do this year. In the past, they kept the power draw about the same, even increasing it a bit YOY. Performance was the parameter they were going for. This year, they went for efficiency as well, for the first time. That prevented more performance increases.
knock on wood, maybe next year we can look forward to an architectural change & better performance increases.....and a boost in RAM
But it's interesting that Apple has been adding to the background processes for years. This year I believe it will be the biggest expansion to multitasking yet. That will consume more RAM, SoC time, and battery life.
Absolutely, which is why I would have liked to have seen Apple at least start to update their memory with the iPhone 6 Plus. Doesn't matter, I have no interest in the iPhone anyway, the iPad however, now that I hope finally get's a 2GB upgrade, more so than a new CPU.
Thank you for your opinion and specifics on why you feel it may be a bad idea to only have 1GB system RAM.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
This is what forums are supposed to be about - the exchange of ideas and in doing so educate/point to different avenues of thought, etc.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
I think that you have "hit it on the head" on a good point - that Pro users (users that require extra power) are generally NOT the target audience for mobile devices and that sucks if you are a Pro user.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
But lets look at this from a different view point:
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
Why put more hardware into a device if 1-2% (my guesstimate for Pro uses in the overall general market for mobile devices - we can agree to disagree on the number) are the only ones that truly need it?
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
The company can reduce material costs, perhaps ensure a steady and large supply of a part, make the device thinner, make better decisions what emphasizes they want, etc. if they focus on what 98% need versus 2%.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
Again - no argument that this sometimes makes it suck for the 2%.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
But for a company looking to make a profit, meet investor expectations, etc. - does it make sense to place your emphasis
on 98% of the users - OR - 2% of the users and possibly delay shipping a device because of additional testing, procurement of parts, etc.?
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
Emphasizing 2% of your users to the possible detriment of the other 98% does not make good business sense.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
And lets be honest here - Apple is not in the business of pleasing each and every person as that is an impossible goal.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
And Apple seems to be doing something right because people keep buying and buying Apple products.
<p style="min-height:19px;"> </p>
I do not recall any other mobile device manufacturer being able to sell as many devices as they can make in huge numbers (1M is not a huge number), maintain industry leading profit margins, maintain industry leading cash on hand, etc. that is focusing on Pro users ahead of “normal” consumers.
I'm with you and fully agree with the need for more RAM vs. whatever obstacles Apple has found, and reasons why, they haven't added more.
[@]Relic[/@] - I do NOT agree with your assessment that it is a financial matter or one of "control" over multi-tasking. It's something else, or number of reasons... but not any that you posted.
With that out of the way... 98%... no 100% of the users... definitely (copy that [@]Relic[/@] ) NEED a better Safari browser experience, especially on the iPad. I would have no problem betting that it is by far the #1 most used App on an iPad.
Safari:
I'm not a developer and I can only guess by seeing what the page refreshes look like, against how other far more power hungry apps react after switching back and forth and experiencing no refresh.
1) I doubt it... but could it be something so simple as not allowing a page to refresh for ads, Javascript, or DOM elements that require "live" updating. Something that we don't see on the desktop because it's in milliseconds and only portions of the DOM and header scripts, rather than an entire page top to bottom?
2) is there a way to create in software a "static yet interactive PDF" (as an example) of a webpage, and not allow it to refresh until you specifically tap or choose something?
3) are contentious extensions like AdBlock and Ghostery something that should be allowed to interact with Safari?
4) could client-side GZIP and/or "minimizing and stripping" javascript and CSS at load time be feasible?
5) last but not least... and also contentious: I have often found with assorted websites on a desktop, that disabling Google analytics and other assorted trackers, can increase a website's speed and responsiveness immensely. Should/could this be the answer to unwanted refresh?
I was under the impression that iOS had execution states - Not running, Inactive, Active, Background, and Suspended.
IRC iOS moves an app that the user is not actively using to the Background state. Unless the app is performing background work that improves the overall user experience it is then moved to Suspended. When Suspended the app remains in memory. If there is a low memory condition, then iOS purges Suspended apps without notice.
Also IRC Apple is telling Developers to reduce the memory footprint as practical when they enter the Background state. Apps that consume large amounts of memory while in the Background state are the first apps to be terminated.
If your app is purged then it needs to reload possibly leading to the consumer to think that your app is slow and unresponsive.
Apps that follow the guidelines will appear to be quick and responsive and Apple gains the added benefit of extended battery life, the need for less system RAM, etc.
The above leads to the following question:
Does your “adding to background processes” means Apple is managing memory in iOS rather closely?
If so, then I would think that this is another item/point that supports the use of 1GB system RAM in the iPhone 6 by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But it's interesting that Apple has been adding to the background processes for years. This year I believe it will be the biggest expansion to multitasking yet. That will consume more RAM, SoC time, and battery life.
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
I'm with you and fully agree. Otning ith the need for more RAM vs. whatever obstacles Apple has found, and reasons why, they haven't added more.
@Relic - I do NOT agree with your assessment that it is a financial matter or one of "control" over multi-tasking. It's something else, or number of reasons... but not any that you posted.
With that out of the way... 98%... no 100% of the users... definitely (copy that @Relic ) NEED a better Safari browser experience, especially on the iPad. I would have no problem betting that it is by far the #1 most used App on an iPad.
Safari:
I'm not a developer and I can only guess by seeing what the page refreshes look like, against how other far more power hungry apps react after switching back and forth and experiencing no refresh.
1) I doubt it... but could it be something so simple as not allowing a page to refresh for ads, Javascript, or DOM elements that require "live" updating. Something that we don't see on the desktop because it's in milliseconds and only portions of the DOM and header scripts, rather than an entire page top to bottom?
2) is there a way to create in software a "static yet interactive PDF" (as an example) of a webpage, and not allow it to refresh until you specifically tap or choose something?
3) are contentious extensions like AdBlock and Ghostery something that should be allowed to interact with Safari?
4) could client-side GZIP and/or "minimizing and stripping" javascript and CSS at load time be feasible?
5) last but not least... and also contentious: I have often found with assorted websites on a desktop, that disabling Google analytics and other assorted trackers, can increase a website's speed and responsiveness immensely. Should/could this be the answer to unwanted refresh?
Just some thoughts and discussion points.
What ever the reason for not increasing the memory size it defiantly has nothing to do with battery life either, which was really my point. I own and use three different mobile phones all running separate mobile OS's and all three have 2GB of memory, their battery times are more then adequate. All this talk about memory sucking battery life I decided to test them yesterday and today, what else am I going to do, I'm just lying here. Anyway, my BlackBerry Porsche has a 1800 mAh battery and I got about 6hr 15m from continues use, my husbands iPhone 5s has a 1558 mAh and when I tested it a few months ago for another forum thread (I don't have an Phone of my one to run the test again), I got 3m past the 5hr mark before it shut down. My Nexus 5 has a 2300 mAh and I only got 4hr 40m with Android 4.4.4, which sucks, however after I installed the new L preview I got 5 minutes shy of the 6 hr mark, still on the sucky side when you consider how big the battery is but still a big improvement. Android 5 is looking pretty good so far, hopefully Google can squeeze another 30 minutes out of the battery before the final version is released and finally my Nokia 1020 which has a 2000 mAh battery got an impressive 7hr 20m and was just a few minutes shy of 9hr when I attached the camera grip before it shut down.
The test consisted of a fully charged phone, brightness at 50%, VLC connected via the Internet to my NAS drive at home streaming 5 movies I put in a playlist, with periodic surfing as well. I used OneDrive to stream my movies to my Nokia 1020 because there is no VLC for Windows Mobile yet. Stupid test, I know and probably proves nothing but I had fun doing it. I'm going to do a new test, a torture test, which consists of streaming movies from OneDrive, while converting a media file from Divx to MP4, while downloading a 20GB file over 4G, with brightness at 100 and I'll see what happens. Unfortunately I wont be able to do this test on an iPhone do to the multi-tasking constraints but it will still be a fun test none the less. I already ran this scenario on my Nexus 10, 2hr 4m until shutdown, not bad actually, I thought for sure it wouldn't last longer than 40 minutes, thing was hot though, real hot.
What ever the reason for not increasing the memory size it defiantly has nothing to do with battery life either, which was really my point. I own and use three different mobile phones all running separate mobile OS's and all three have 2GB of memory, their battery times are more then adequate. All this talk about memory sucking battery life I decided to test them yesterday and today, what else am I going to do, I'm just lying here. Anyway, my BlackBerry Porsche has a 1800 mAh battery and I got about 6hr 15m from continues use, my husbands iPhone 5s has a 1558 mAh and when I tested it a few months ago for another forum thread (I don't have an Phone of my one to run the test again), I got 3m past the 5hr mark before it shut down. My Nexus 5 has a 2300 mAh and I only got 4hr 40m with Android 4.4.4, which sucks, however after I installed the new L preview I got 5 minutes shy of the 6 hr mark, still on the sucky side when you consider how big the battery is but still a big improvement. Android 5 is looking pretty good so far, hopefully Google can squeeze another 30 minutes out of the battery before the final version is released and finally my Nokia 1020 which has a 2000 mAh battery got an impressive 7hr 20m and was just a few minutes shy of 9hr when I attached the camera grip before it shut down.
The test consisted of a fully charged phone, brightness at 50%, VLC connected via the Internet to my NAS drive at home streaming 5 movies I put in a playlist, with periodic surfing as well. I used OneDrive to stream my movies to my Nokia 1020 because there is no VLC for Windows Mobile yet. Stupid test, I know and probably proves nothing but I had fun doing it. I'm going to do a new test, a torture test, which consists of streaming movies from OneDrive, while converting a media file from Divx to MP4, while downloading a 20GB file over 4G, with brightness at 100 and I'll see what happens. Unfortunately I wont be able to do this test on an iPhone do to the multi-tasking constraints but it will still be a fun test none the less. I already ran this scenario on my Nexus 10, 2hr 4m until shutdown, not bad actually, I thought for sure it wouldn't last longer than 40 minutes, thing was hot though, real hot.
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
So besides marketing and spec-whoring Android manufacturers have a good reason to pack their phones with RAM. They need 2gb or more to get the kind of performance people expect, while an iPhone runs excellent on 1gb.
I'm sure that they have prototypes at Infinite Loop with all sorts of RAM combinations. And apparently, in their estimates, an upgrade to 1.5 or 2gb ram isn't worth it.
We can only guess at their thinking, but it's possible that while the benefits of doubling the RAM might be marginal, the drawbacks aren't.
Besides increased power usage, increasing the RAM would lead to increased fragmentation. It would also encourage developers to write less efficient code, and be more sloppy with system resources. Which again means, that many new apps wouldn't be compatible with popular models like iphone4/4s and ipad2.
That's the major issue I believe: The benefits are marginal, but the drawbacks are increased fragmentation. Apple always puts the customer and customer experience first, and will go far to avoid the kind of fragmentation and quick obsolescence you see on Android.
Here's a thought I haven't heard bantered about.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory. Perhaps Apple is doing some tricks to use both word sizes within RAM? Many things the GPU does won't require 64-bit addressing any way one looks at it. Furthermore, as more apps require 64-bit memory addressing, the ratio of shorter words in memory will lessen. By then Apple could move to a longer word CPU, increase the mixed word-length storage and complete one more transition to more powerful hardware without leaving anyone behind, except, of course, various Luddites who are proud of what they can accomplish with an original iPhone and a paper clip - when the humidity is especially high.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory.
No. If it's a certain size then it's that size. It's not "a times 32-bits" vs. "b times 64-bits". It's the certain number of bits, bytes or whatever - regardless of the width.
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
What is the difference in what Apple was allowing to happen in the background since iOS 4?
Apps have been allowed to run certain tasks in the background since iOS 4.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory.
No. If it's a certain size then it's that size. It's not "a times 32-bits" vs. "b times 64-bits". It's the certain number of bits, bytes or whatever - regardless of the width.
While I agree with you, I also remember back when memory was very dear to buy, more then one short word was stored in a word. While I have no reason to believe Apple is doing this now, they did in fact double the number of transistors in their RAM while not also doubling the addressable (RAM) memory. Doing so, did increase their production costs, power drain, and die landscape.
People who would castigate Apple for being the cheap bastards they are, seem to give Apple no credit for this upgrade to RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmsfo
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
What is the difference in what Apple was allowing to happen in the background since iOS 4?
Apps have been allowed to run certain tasks in the background since iOS 4.
Melgross, is pointing to non-Apple apps now being able to run in the background (with Apple's blessing) now... there was a time they were not allowed to do so. I find that Apple's suspending of apps that are still open, but not needing to run, is a good way of conserving energy and clock cycles. So while my weather app doesn't update the weather map while it is open in the background and suspended, I will still get an alarm if a dangerous storm is close. A great example of an app with suspend and remain active, foreground and background active as needed.
Maybe Android has cleaned up their act by now, but for a while it was anything goes; let the user be damned.
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
RAM is highly different from mass storage memory, just to keep that clear. However, when any brand X phone says they have 2 Gb of RAM, that is 32-bit RAM. Only Apple currently uses 64-bit RAM. Those longer words require the same number of transistors in operation as if the iPhone were to be running on 2 Gb of (32-bit) RAM. Roughly the same energy draw, and real estate as a brand X phone.
A lot of factors will affect battery draw, even the number of ports on the device has a small effect. By adding a barometer Apple has affected the draw. Apple uses a very dense SoC and does not suffer from thermal throttling when taxed to full specs of CPU and GPU performance - an iPhone will run full speed until the battery runs dry. Android phones with the 2 Gb of Rah Rah and high clock speeds can only go all out for minutes before needing to throttle back due to thermal constraints. Now, of course, at a mild loping speed (due to thermal constraints) the battery can last a shit-ton longer.
Regarding iPads; the larger physical size may allow enough thermal sink to handle more RAM in the SoC. Apple has used the iPad in the past to "field test" a higher performance SoC... they always could do that again.
Like you, I feel Apple is more conservative with their leading design than I'd wish they were... However, if Apple were to over reach their design and put out a bad product, it may never be forgotten by the unforgiving press, pundits and purchasers.
RAM is highly different from mass storage memory, just to keep that clear. However, when any brand X phone says they have 2 Gb of RAM, that is 32-bit RAM. Only Apple currently uses 64-bit RAM. Those longer words require the same number of transistors in operation as if the iPhone were to be running on 2 Gb of (32-bit) RAM. Roughly the same energy draw, and real estate as a brand X phone.
A lot of factors will affect battery draw, even the number of ports on the device has a small effect. By adding a barometer Apple has affected the draw. Apple uses a very dense SoC and does not suffer from thermal throttling when taxed to full specs of CPU and GPU performance - an iPhone will run full speed until the battery runs dry. Android phones with the 2 Gb of Rah Rah and high clock speeds can only go all out for minutes before needing to throttle back due to thermal constraints. Now, of course, at a mild loping speed (due to thermal constraints) the battery can last a shit-ton longer.
Regarding iPads; the larger physical size may allow enough thermal sink to handle more RAM in the SoC. Apple has used the iPad in the past to "field test" a higher performance SoC... they always could do that again.
Like you, I feel Apple is more conservative with their leading design than I'd wish they were... However, if Apple were to over reach their design and put out a bad product, it may never be forgotten by the unforgiving press, pundits and purchasers.
Corrected the spelling of a couple words.
The memory used in the iphone 5s and 6 is 1GB LPDDR3 RAM, there is absolutely nothing special about it. What is special is that the A8 can address that memory using a 64-bit wide memory interface, however I still don't believe 2GB would have taxed the battery with any substantial differences, maybe if 4 to 8GB was used. At least not until I see some more data come out on the A8 itself, specifically on power consumption. If the extra 1GB was admitted because of power issues and Apple didn't bother to address this problem, then what this show us is that Apple has no immediate plans to improve multitasking in iOS beyond what it already is, so no side by side app viewing and the continued restrictions on running multiple apps in the background. Which doesn't give me much hope with the iPad but you're right about using the iPad as a Guinea Pig of sorts so maybe there is hope. The reason why I'm being so tough on this is that I would finally like to see the iPad get pushed up to that next level, specifically being able to use it as an everyday machine. My immediate needs however are that I would like to use more than one music production app at one time. I guess I need to start treating the iPad like any other instrument and buy one for each music app that I need to use at the same time, which is three, I guess that isn't too expensive.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory. Perhaps Apple is doing some tricks to use both word sizes within RAM? Many things the GPU does won't require 64-bit addressing any way one looks at it. Furthermore, as more apps require 64-bit memory addressing, the ratio of shorter words in memory will lessen. By then Apple could move to a longer word CPU, increase the mixed word-length storage and complete one more transition to more powerful hardware without leaving anyone behind, except, of course, various Luddites who are proud of what they can accomplish with an original iPhone and a paper clip - when the humidity is especially high.
A GB is a GB regardless of the memory width, because that capital "B" stands for byte, which is 8 bits. All memory is called out in bytes. If it's Gb, with the lower case "b", then it stands for bit, which is one eights byte (eight bits in a byte). So you may read about a 128Gb chip, which is a 16GB chip.
If you read about a 32 bit memory path, or lane, that doesn't mean more memory, just how it's organized. The same thing is true of 64 bit memory path.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible <span style="line-height:1.4em;">amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;</span>
To clear this up, let me explain how DRAM works. Most people should know this, but apparently the lesson has been forgotten.
Dynamic RAM needs to be refreshed every few milliseconds. That uses power. It's not like NAND used for storage. Even if there is nothing in DRAM, it still needs to be refreshed. DRAM can need heatsinks because it can get hot, in high performance modules. This uses power. Where does power come from in mobile devices? Yes, batteries. How much power gets used depends on how much RAM there is, and what kind of RAM. It doesn't use a huge amount of power at once, but it's always drawing power.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
I have not seen any response on pricing, availability, yields, quantities in stock available, etc. between a 1GB module and a 2GB module.
It seems that everyone, including you, is not taking into consideration that a 2GB module might be significantly higher in cost, not available in the quantities that Apple needs, the production yields are very low thereby restricting the number of iPhone 6 units that can be built, there were small quantities available in stock, etc. and would not have allowed Apple to ship the number of units that Apple anticipated it would need for the launch of the iPhone 6.
If that is the case and Apple was to use a 2GB module and iPhone 6 was delayed or shipped in small quantities - what would your response be? Apple should have waited to get it right - Apple is waiting too long to release a new phone, Apple does not know what it is doing ...
It seems that you are not open to the possibility that there may have been a issue with procuring 2GB modules for the amount of iPhone 6 units that Apple anticipated it needs at launch and as such Apple did not use a 2GB module.
Comments
But it's interesting that Apple has been adding to the background processes for years. This year I believe it will be the biggest expansion to multitasking yet. That will consume more RAM, SoC time, and battery life.
I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other. Fortunately, I WAS the boss.
But did you really read my post? I'm talking in reference to the fact that for two years running, Apple doubled performance of their SoC, and the year before that, it was a 50% improvement for the CPU. When compared to those very significant improvements, yes, 25% is measly.
We have to look at this in reference to what they wanted to do this year. In the past, they kept the power draw about the same, even increasing it a bit YOY. Performance was the parameter they were going for. This year, they went for efficiency as well, for the first time. That prevented more performance increases.
knock on wood, maybe next year we can look forward to an architectural change & better performance increases.....and a boost in RAM
Absolutely, which is why I would have liked to have seen Apple at least start to update their memory with the iPhone 6 Plus. Doesn't matter, I have no interest in the iPhone anyway, the iPad however, now that I hope finally get's a 2GB upgrade, more so than a new CPU.
I'm with you and fully agree with the need for more RAM vs. whatever obstacles Apple has found, and reasons why, they haven't added more.
[@]Relic[/@] - I do NOT agree with your assessment that it is a financial matter or one of "control" over multi-tasking. It's something else, or number of reasons... but not any that you posted.
With that out of the way...
98%... no 100% of the users... definitely (copy that [@]Relic[/@]Safari:
I'm not a developer and I can only guess by seeing what the page refreshes look like, against how other far more power hungry apps react after switching back and forth and experiencing no refresh.
1) I doubt it... but could it be something so simple as not allowing a page to refresh for ads, Javascript, or DOM elements that require "live" updating. Something that we don't see on the desktop because it's in milliseconds and only portions of the DOM and header scripts, rather than an entire page top to bottom?
2) is there a way to create in software a "static yet interactive PDF" (as an example) of a webpage, and not allow it to refresh until you specifically tap or choose something?
3) are contentious extensions like AdBlock and Ghostery something that should be allowed to interact with Safari?
4) could client-side GZIP and/or "minimizing and stripping" javascript and CSS at load time be feasible?
5) last but not least... and also contentious: I have often found with assorted websites on a desktop, that disabling Google analytics and other assorted trackers, can increase a website's speed and responsiveness immensely. Should/could this be the answer to unwanted refresh?
Just some thoughts and discussion points.
Seeking clarity …
First my train of thought …
I was under the impression that iOS had execution states - Not running, Inactive, Active, Background, and Suspended.
IRC iOS moves an app that the user is not actively using to the Background state. Unless the app is performing background work that improves the overall user experience it is then moved to Suspended. When Suspended the app remains in memory. If there is a low memory condition, then iOS purges Suspended apps without notice.
Also IRC Apple is telling Developers to reduce the memory footprint as practical when they enter the Background state. Apps that consume large amounts of memory while in the Background state are the first apps to be terminated.
If your app is purged then it needs to reload possibly leading to the consumer to think that your app is slow and unresponsive.
Apps that follow the guidelines will appear to be quick and responsive and Apple gains the added benefit of extended battery life, the need for less system RAM, etc.
The above leads to the following question:
Does your “adding to background processes” means Apple is managing memory in iOS rather closely?
If so, then I would think that this is another item/point that supports the use of 1GB system RAM in the iPhone 6 by Apple.
Quote:But it's interesting that Apple has been adding to the background processes for years. This year I believe it will be the biggest expansion to multitasking yet. That will consume more RAM, SoC time, and battery life.
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
I'm with you and fully agree. Otning ith the need for more RAM vs. whatever obstacles Apple has found, and reasons why, they haven't added more.
@Relic - I do NOT agree with your assessment that it is a financial matter or one of "control" over multi-tasking. It's something else, or number of reasons... but not any that you posted.
With that out of the way... 98%... no 100% of the users... definitely (copy that @Relic
Safari:
I'm not a developer and I can only guess by seeing what the page refreshes look like, against how other far more power hungry apps react after switching back and forth and experiencing no refresh.
1) I doubt it... but could it be something so simple as not allowing a page to refresh for ads, Javascript, or DOM elements that require "live" updating. Something that we don't see on the desktop because it's in milliseconds and only portions of the DOM and header scripts, rather than an entire page top to bottom?
2) is there a way to create in software a "static yet interactive PDF" (as an example) of a webpage, and not allow it to refresh until you specifically tap or choose something?
3) are contentious extensions like AdBlock and Ghostery something that should be allowed to interact with Safari?
4) could client-side GZIP and/or "minimizing and stripping" javascript and CSS at load time be feasible?
5) last but not least... and also contentious: I have often found with assorted websites on a desktop, that disabling Google analytics and other assorted trackers, can increase a website's speed and responsiveness immensely. Should/could this be the answer to unwanted refresh?
Just some thoughts and discussion points.
What ever the reason for not increasing the memory size it defiantly has nothing to do with battery life either, which was really my point. I own and use three different mobile phones all running separate mobile OS's and all three have 2GB of memory, their battery times are more then adequate. All this talk about memory sucking battery life I decided to test them yesterday and today, what else am I going to do, I'm just lying here. Anyway, my BlackBerry Porsche has a 1800 mAh battery and I got about 6hr 15m from continues use, my husbands iPhone 5s has a 1558 mAh and when I tested it a few months ago for another forum thread (I don't have an Phone of my one to run the test again), I got 3m past the 5hr mark before it shut down. My Nexus 5 has a 2300 mAh and I only got 4hr 40m with Android 4.4.4, which sucks, however after I installed the new L preview I got 5 minutes shy of the 6 hr mark, still on the sucky side when you consider how big the battery is but still a big improvement. Android 5 is looking pretty good so far, hopefully Google can squeeze another 30 minutes out of the battery before the final version is released and finally my Nokia 1020 which has a 2000 mAh battery got an impressive 7hr 20m and was just a few minutes shy of 9hr when I attached the camera grip before it shut down.
The test consisted of a fully charged phone, brightness at 50%, VLC connected via the Internet to my NAS drive at home streaming 5 movies I put in a playlist, with periodic surfing as well. I used OneDrive to stream my movies to my Nokia 1020 because there is no VLC for Windows Mobile yet. Stupid test, I know and probably proves nothing but I had fun doing it. I'm going to do a new test, a torture test, which consists of streaming movies from OneDrive, while converting a media file from Divx to MP4, while downloading a 20GB file over 4G, with brightness at 100 and I'll see what happens. Unfortunately I wont be able to do this test on an iPhone do to the multi-tasking constraints but it will still be a fun test none the less. I already ran this scenario on my Nexus 10, 2hr 4m until shutdown, not bad actually, I thought for sure it wouldn't last longer than 40 minutes, thing was hot though, real hot.
What ever the reason for not increasing the memory size it defiantly has nothing to do with battery life either, which was really my point. I own and use three different mobile phones all running separate mobile OS's and all three have 2GB of memory, their battery times are more then adequate. All this talk about memory sucking battery life I decided to test them yesterday and today, what else am I going to do, I'm just lying here. Anyway, my BlackBerry Porsche has a 1800 mAh battery and I got about 6hr 15m from continues use, my husbands iPhone 5s has a 1558 mAh and when I tested it a few months ago for another forum thread (I don't have an Phone of my one to run the test again), I got 3m past the 5hr mark before it shut down. My Nexus 5 has a 2300 mAh and I only got 4hr 40m with Android 4.4.4, which sucks, however after I installed the new L preview I got 5 minutes shy of the 6 hr mark, still on the sucky side when you consider how big the battery is but still a big improvement. Android 5 is looking pretty good so far, hopefully Google can squeeze another 30 minutes out of the battery before the final version is released and finally my Nokia 1020 which has a 2000 mAh battery got an impressive 7hr 20m and was just a few minutes shy of 9hr when I attached the camera grip before it shut down.
The test consisted of a fully charged phone, brightness at 50%, VLC connected via the Internet to my NAS drive at home streaming 5 movies I put in a playlist, with periodic surfing as well. I used OneDrive to stream my movies to my Nokia 1020 because there is no VLC for Windows Mobile yet. Stupid test, I know and probably proves nothing but I had fun doing it. I'm going to do a new test, a torture test, which consists of streaming movies from OneDrive, while converting a media file from Divx to MP4, while downloading a 20GB file over 4G, with brightness at 100 and I'll see what happens. Unfortunately I wont be able to do this test on an iPhone do to the multi-tasking constraints but it will still be a fun test none the less. I already ran this scenario on my Nexus 10, 2hr 4m until shutdown, not bad actually, I thought for sure it wouldn't last longer than 40 minutes, thing was hot though, real hot.
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
So besides marketing and spec-whoring Android manufacturers have a good reason to pack their phones with RAM. They need 2gb or more to get the kind of performance people expect, while an iPhone runs excellent on 1gb.
I'm sure that they have prototypes at Infinite Loop with all sorts of RAM combinations. And apparently, in their estimates, an upgrade to 1.5 or 2gb ram isn't worth it.
We can only guess at their thinking, but it's possible that while the benefits of doubling the RAM might be marginal, the drawbacks aren't.
Besides increased power usage, increasing the RAM would lead to increased fragmentation. It would also encourage developers to write less efficient code, and be more sloppy with system resources. Which again means, that many new apps wouldn't be compatible with popular models like iphone4/4s and ipad2.
That's the major issue I believe: The benefits are marginal, but the drawbacks are increased fragmentation. Apple always puts the customer and customer experience first, and will go far to avoid the kind of fragmentation and quick obsolescence you see on Android.
Here's a thought I haven't heard bantered about.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory. Perhaps Apple is doing some tricks to use both word sizes within RAM? Many things the GPU does won't require 64-bit addressing any way one looks at it. Furthermore, as more apps require 64-bit memory addressing, the ratio of shorter words in memory will lessen. By then Apple could move to a longer word CPU, increase the mixed word-length storage and complete one more transition to more powerful hardware without leaving anyone behind, except, of course, various Luddites who are proud of what they can accomplish with an original iPhone and a paper clip - when the humidity is especially high.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory.
No. If it's a certain size then it's that size. It's not "a times 32-bits" vs. "b times 64-bits". It's the certain number of bits, bytes or whatever - regardless of the width.
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
What is the difference in what Apple was allowing to happen in the background since iOS 4?
Apps have been allowed to run certain tasks in the background since iOS 4.
With the iPhone 5s, Apple moved from 1 Gb of 32-bit RAM to 1 Gb of 64-bit RAM. While THIS alone doubled the number of transistors to make up 1 Gb of memory.
No. If it's a certain size then it's that size. It's not "a times 32-bits" vs. "b times 64-bits". It's the certain number of bits, bytes or whatever - regardless of the width.
While I agree with you, I also remember back when memory was very dear to buy, more then one short word was stored in a word. While I have no reason to believe Apple is doing this now, they did in fact double the number of transistors in their RAM while not also doubling the addressable (RAM) memory. Doing so, did increase their production costs, power drain, and die landscape.
People who would castigate Apple for being the cheap bastards they are, seem to give Apple no credit for this upgrade to RAM.
What's happening is that Apple is allowing developers to do work in the background that they weren't allowed to do before. And let's not forget that there are certain test and measurement apps, such as my favorite Audio Tools that can measure in the background. Navigation apps can do so as well. There are a lot of apps that can work in the background now. All this requires RAM.
What is the difference in what Apple was allowing to happen in the background since iOS 4?
Apps have been allowed to run certain tasks in the background since iOS 4.
Melgross, is pointing to non-Apple apps now being able to run in the background (with Apple's blessing) now... there was a time they were not allowed to do so. I find that Apple's suspending of apps that are still open, but not needing to run, is a good way of conserving energy and clock cycles. So while my weather app doesn't update the weather map while it is open in the background and suspended, I will still get an alarm if a dangerous storm is close. A great example of an app with suspend and remain active, foreground and background active as needed.
Maybe Android has cleaned up their act by now, but for a while it was anything goes; let the user be damned.
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
1.) http://electronicdesign.com/ed-europe/what-drains-smart-phone-battery
2.)
So you are saying that all mobile OSs are the same and as such how one mobile OS handles memory is the same as the rest.
Again I ask for written documentation/statement/interview from Apple (not some third party - either Tim C or an Apple SVP) that states the choice of how much system RAM on the iPhone has nothing to do with battery life.
If not then this is just your belief - definitely means "without doubt" and I will continue to have doubt until you can provide proof from Apple as I believe that the choice of how much system RAM is related to battery life.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
1.) http://electronicdesign.com/ed-europe/what-drains-smart-phone-battery
2.)
RAM is highly different from mass storage memory, just to keep that clear. However, when any brand X phone says they have 2 Gb of RAM, that is 32-bit RAM. Only Apple currently uses 64-bit RAM. Those longer words require the same number of transistors in operation as if the iPhone were to be running on 2 Gb of (32-bit) RAM. Roughly the same energy draw, and real estate as a brand X phone.
A lot of factors will affect battery draw, even the number of ports on the device has a small effect. By adding a barometer Apple has affected the draw. Apple uses a very dense SoC and does not suffer from thermal throttling when taxed to full specs of CPU and GPU performance - an iPhone will run full speed until the battery runs dry. Android phones with the 2 Gb of Rah Rah and high clock speeds can only go all out for minutes before needing to throttle back due to thermal constraints. Now, of course, at a mild loping speed (due to thermal constraints) the battery can last a shit-ton longer.
Regarding iPads; the larger physical size may allow enough thermal sink to handle more RAM in the SoC. Apple has used the iPad in the past to "field test" a higher performance SoC... they always could do that again.
Like you, I feel Apple is more conservative with their leading design than I'd wish they were... However, if Apple were to over reach their design and put out a bad product, it may never be forgotten by the unforgiving press, pundits and purchasers.
Corrected the spelling of a couple words.
RAM is highly different from mass storage memory, just to keep that clear. However, when any brand X phone says they have 2 Gb of RAM, that is 32-bit RAM. Only Apple currently uses 64-bit RAM. Those longer words require the same number of transistors in operation as if the iPhone were to be running on 2 Gb of (32-bit) RAM. Roughly the same energy draw, and real estate as a brand X phone.
A lot of factors will affect battery draw, even the number of ports on the device has a small effect. By adding a barometer Apple has affected the draw. Apple uses a very dense SoC and does not suffer from thermal throttling when taxed to full specs of CPU and GPU performance - an iPhone will run full speed until the battery runs dry. Android phones with the 2 Gb of Rah Rah and high clock speeds can only go all out for minutes before needing to throttle back due to thermal constraints. Now, of course, at a mild loping speed (due to thermal constraints) the battery can last a shit-ton longer.
Regarding iPads; the larger physical size may allow enough thermal sink to handle more RAM in the SoC. Apple has used the iPad in the past to "field test" a higher performance SoC... they always could do that again.
Like you, I feel Apple is more conservative with their leading design than I'd wish they were... However, if Apple were to over reach their design and put out a bad product, it may never be forgotten by the unforgiving press, pundits and purchasers.
Corrected the spelling of a couple words.
The memory used in the iphone 5s and 6 is 1GB LPDDR3 RAM, there is absolutely nothing special about it. What is special is that the A8 can address that memory using a 64-bit wide memory interface, however I still don't believe 2GB would have taxed the battery with any substantial differences, maybe if 4 to 8GB was used. At least not until I see some more data come out on the A8 itself, specifically on power consumption. If the extra 1GB was admitted because of power issues and Apple didn't bother to address this problem, then what this show us is that Apple has no immediate plans to improve multitasking in iOS beyond what it already is, so no side by side app viewing and the continued restrictions on running multiple apps in the background. Which doesn't give me much hope with the iPad but you're right about using the iPad as a Guinea Pig of sorts so maybe there is hope. The reason why I'm being so tough on this is that I would finally like to see the iPad get pushed up to that next level, specifically being able to use it as an everyday machine. My immediate needs however are that I would like to use more than one music production app at one time. I guess I need to start treating the iPad like any other instrument and buy one for each music app that I need to use at the same time, which is three, I guess that isn't too expensive.
Yes, the great Apple illiteracy training program has no limits.
A GB is a GB regardless of the memory width, because that capital "B" stands for byte, which is 8 bits. All memory is called out in bytes. If it's Gb, with the lower case "b", then it stands for bit, which is one eights byte (eight bits in a byte). So you may read about a 128Gb chip, which is a 16GB chip.
If you read about a 32 bit memory path, or lane, that doesn't mean more memory, just how it's organized. The same thing is true of 64 bit memory path.
Now more apps can run more tasks, different tasks.
To clear this up, let me explain how DRAM works. Most people should know this, but apparently the lesson has been forgotten.
Dynamic RAM needs to be refreshed every few milliseconds. That uses power. It's not like NAND used for storage. Even if there is nothing in DRAM, it still needs to be refreshed. DRAM can need heatsinks because it can get hot, in high performance modules. This uses power. Where does power come from in mobile devices? Yes, batteries. How much power gets used depends on how much RAM there is, and what kind of RAM. It doesn't use a huge amount of power at once, but it's always drawing power.
That article is decent, but woefully incomplete.
That of course is your prerogative, but I just can't believe that Apple's engineers were unable to come up with an elegant solution to accommodate 2GB of memory because of power drain. That would suggest bad design, inadequate battery size, heck even a lack of knowledge on the matter and there is no way Apple is incompetent, what, that's really what you're suggesting here. Antagonist, "Oh man, not again, Apple couldn't figure out how to install 2GB of memory in their new iPhone this time around either, oh well, maybe next year". Anyway, would love to see any technical literature stating that having 2GB of RAM in your phone would cause anything but a negligible amount of power loss. As it just doesn't seem like a valid excuse to me, especially when I have phones with 2GB of memory that seem to be unaffected in any real manner because of it. In fact in every single article I've read in the last three days, which has now surpassed 30, about what affects battery life in a modern smartphone, not a single one mentioned that memory was a big factor, heck none even mentioned memory. Yes of course everything with a current in the phone will cause the battery to drain but memory size is not a major factor. I honest don't care about the iPhone but I was greatly anticipating that the iPad would have 2GB of memory, unfortunately the new iPhone took away a lot of that hope.
I'm going to start posting every good article I can find about battery usage here;
1.) http://electronicdesign.com/ed-europe/what-drains-smart-phone-battery
2.)
I have not seen any response on pricing, availability, yields, quantities in stock available, etc. between a 1GB module and a 2GB module.
It seems that everyone, including you, is not taking into consideration that a 2GB module might be significantly higher in cost, not available in the quantities that Apple needs, the production yields are very low thereby restricting the number of iPhone 6 units that can be built, there were small quantities available in stock, etc. and would not have allowed Apple to ship the number of units that Apple anticipated it would need for the launch of the iPhone 6.
If that is the case and Apple was to use a 2GB module and iPhone 6 was delayed or shipped in small quantities - what would your response be? Apple should have waited to get it right - Apple is waiting too long to release a new phone, Apple does not know what it is doing ...
It seems that you are not open to the possibility that there may have been a issue with procuring 2GB modules for the amount of iPhone 6 units that Apple anticipated it needs at launch and as such Apple did not use a 2GB module.