There are rumours that Apple costumes so much RAM that they simply couldn't afford to put double the RAM in every iPhone. But this might not be an issue since they sell so few iPads than iPhones per quarter. Plus, the larger size of the display with more pixels does mean that it needs more RAM and a more powerful GPU to have the same relative performance as the iPhone.
For those reasons I can see A8X being introduced into the iPad. Plus, with the iPhone being such a powerful product for Apple and the iPad seemingly have hit a plateau in sales after being their fastest growing product in history, it might simply be a marketing tool to bring back the A*X designation, especially now that the iPhone 6 Plus might make people think it's too similar to the iPad mini.
The "X" designation primarily means a wider memory bus. IIRC Anandtech noted that the A7 on the Air had issues with the bus being too narrow, 64-bits rather than 128. I don't think it'll hinder the current model in the future the way the Retina display hinders the third-gen iPad, but it will probably have an effect.
At first I was wondering if your mess where a little too strong today. Then I realized you are right on target with this comment. You really have to wonder about all the idiots posting that don't want Apple to improve their hardware. I honestly thought that England dealt with the Luddites long ago.
My meds are always on the strong side. Though I was just being fascias, I truly never bought the whole 2GB was just to much of a power drain for Apple to have used at this time, I mean it's Apple we're talking about here. I'm sure they could have easily found a solution if such a restriction existed.
What I don't understand is why people feel the need to aggressively defend Apple about this decision, I'm sorry, it's an 800 dollar phone. I don't care how optimized people think the OS is, I know from personal experience that iOS needs more than 1GB of RAM now, it's time, that's it, nothing else can be said that could possibly change my mind on the matter, even if I'm wrong and iOS would never use more than 1GB, what about peace of mind for the customer, future proofing and why does the iPad get it. I'm not touching the iPhone until it's been upgraded, the iPad, no problem, it has 2GB now, though I would be more comfortable with 3 or 4GB, okay, now I'm pushing it. I'll get my 4GB with the Nexus 9 and it's Nvidia Denver K1 to play around with. The iPad is for work.
My guess is that with an A8 , 2Gbs Ram and fingerprint sensor many people will still not upgrade and iPad sales will continue to dissapoint.
Afterall many people only use iPads to read content beit emails, texts, Safari. Magazines and Newspapers and there isn't any need for any speed upgrade when it come to those.
Wrong again!!! I am updating my iPad 3 because the NextIssue magazine uses high definition page images which results in very slow page rendering. I cancelled my subscription a few months ago but will restart it when I get my new iPad.
Wrong again!!! I am updating my iPad 3 because the NextIssue magazine uses high definition page images which results in very slow page rendering. I cancelled my subscription a few months ago but will restart it when I get my new iPad.
Maybe it's Nextissue and not your iPad as Conde Nast magazines which are photo and graphic intensive render just fine on my iPad3 after downloading them.
Apple could design a new feature where a device could have more ram, but when it's not really needed, it could shift everything to one memory module and shutdown the other ram module(s).
Apple could design a new feature where a device could have more ram, but when it's not really needed, it could shift everything to one memory module and shutdown the other ram module(s).
Possibly, and if anyone can do it it's Apple, but there doesn't seem to be too many cases where that works out. Take the MS Surface wanting to be a great desktop and a great tablet, and the whole big.LITTLE attempts to offer fast performance and good power usage. Even on the Macs with the GPU switching between integrated and discrete there are issues that cause an app that doesn't use much GPU performance to force the dGPU to switch on.
Apple could design a new feature where a device could have more ram, but when it's not really needed, it could shift everything to one memory module and shutdown the other ram module(s).
Why, such a feature would probably consume more battery than save it. There is a gross misconception on this board that Apple restricted the memory size of the iPhone do to major loss in battery performance. This over embellished factoid was passed around mostly in Apple forums to find some reasonable explanation as to why the iPhone 6 still only has 1GB of RAM. Though it is true an increase of memory does draw more power, as memory is already one of the least power consuming components in a mobile phone, you will not won’t see any noticeable degradation in battery life, especially going from just 1GB to 2GB. When you start doing research into the matter, which I hope you do, you'll quickly see that it's mostly Apple site, articles, specifically forums such as this that even suggest battery life as a possible reason for such a low memory configuration in an 800 dollar phone. This rumor will hopefully be scrutinized once the new iPads battery can be tested thoroughly against the previous models. As the A8 is supposedly more power efficient it just adds more suspicion to this unsubstantial reason.
iPads should be more powerful than iPhones, so it's good that there's an A8x in there, and it's also good that there is 2 GB of RAM.
I've also always felt that iPads should have no worse cameras than iPhones, and hopefully those would be identical, though I doubt that, based on past history.
I know it's a long shot, but a larger iPad revealed on Thurs. would be amazing!
If not, I'm just going to get an iPad Air 2, especially now that it looks like the CPU is beefed up and so is the RAM.
While I agree with all of that- it's gonna be a hard sell in comparison to the iPhone. Particularly with the new shell game the carriers are playing- people actually see the real value of the iphone- not simply "$199" anymore.
So now, the same camera, with bigger screen, faster processors, more ram- all for $250 less- just sounds weird.
Apply pay in the phones will help elevate that some. Don't get me wrong, I hope they do- it's just unlikely. I feel like we'll get an A8 with 1gb of ram. I'm praying for 2gb long before the A8x (the A7 is fantastic on blth my current air and mini)
Why, such a feature would probably consume more battery than save it. There is a gross misconception on this board that Apple restricted the memory size of the iPhone do to major loss in battery performance. This over embellished factoid was passed around mostly in Apple forums to find some reasonable explanation as to why the iPhone 6 still only has 1GB of RAM. Though it is true an increase of memory does draw more power, as memory is already one of the least power consuming components in a mobile phone, you will not won’t see any noticeable degradation in battery life, especially going from just 1GB to 2GB. When you start doing research into the matter, which I hope you do, you'll quickly see that it's mostly Apple site, articles, specifically forums such as this that even suggest battery life as a possible reason for such a low memory configuration in an 800 dollar phone. This rumor will hopefully be scrutinized once the new iPads battery can be tested thoroughly against the previous models. As the A8 is supposedly more power efficient it just adds more suspicion to this unsubstantial reason.
Less memory , takes less power, that's FOR SURE. But, that doesn't mean that's the reason Apple used less. It is only one part of the equation.
Engineering is about balancing various things. The more important question is how does 1G version 2G impact users of current devices, and previous devices versus all other factors that would make Apple not use it. The most important adverse considerations were probably logistics and supply issues. If Apple is planning to use 25% of the world's supply of chips, wantings to get 50% (doubling the memory) would be a major problem considering they're probably shipping 100M phones with loads of other supply constraints already by the end of the year
So, from Apple's point of view, they had to figure out if the possible issues outweight the possible benefits for those that absolutely need the extra memory. If the answer is 95% are either not affected or don't care about it. Well, then you got your answer. You also have to realize that Apple doesn't live in a vacuum; Android phones with 4G of memory are not exactly smooth as silk in browsing... Let alone in the rest were Apple shines.
In the Ipad, with much less volume. This is much less of an issue. But, if Apple want to use 2G of memory in phones by next year; they'll have to plan to build out manufacturing capacity to meet this demand next year.
Less memory , takes less power, that's FOR SURE. But, that doesn't mean that's the reason Apple used less. It is only one part of the equation.
Engineering is about balancing various things. The more important question is how does 1G version 2G impact users of current devices, and previous devices versus all other factors that would make Apple not use it. The most important adverse considerations were probably logistics and supply issues. If Apple is planning to use 25% of the world's supply of chips, wantings to get 50% (doubling the memory) would be a major problem considering they're probably shipping 100M phones with loads of other supply constraints already by the end of the year
So, from Apple's point of view, they had to figure out if the possible issues outweight the possible benefits for those that absolutely need the extra memory. If the answer is 95% are either not affected or don't care about it. Well, then you got your answer. You also have to realize that Apple doesn't live in a vacuum; Android phones with 4G of memory are not exactly smooth as silk in browsing... Let alone in the rest were Apple shines.
In the Ipad, with much less volume. This is much less of an issue. But, if Apple want to use 2G of memory in phones by next year; they'll have to plan to build out manufacturing capacity to meet this demand next year.
Thanks for the info and I'm sure your correct but all of this has been discussed in great detail already. I was just conveying to the person I commented too that power drain was not a factor in Apples decision and yes less memory uses less power, of course, that amount of power though is minuscule when compared to the other components in a mobile phone. All of this is arbitrary though, the iPhone 6 has 1GB of memory and nothing is going to change until the next revision.
I don't think the new iPad with have a sticking out camera like the iPhone. The iPad is something you lay flat on a surface more often. And the phone needs the better camera on the principle that it's the one you're most likely to have with you. The iPad will have the best camera it can without sticking out.
I don't think the new iPad with have a sticking out camera like the iPhone. The iPad is something you lay flat on a surface more often. And the phone needs the better camera on the principle that it's the one you're most likely to have with you. The iPad will have the best camera it can without sticking out.
Is there an issue of the iPhone being wobbly when lying flat? There's no way to test in the Apple stores. But just looking at the devices it sure seems like this whole camera protrusion is much ado about nothing. And it looks worse in photographs than in real life.
Comments
That cheered me up! Have you had some good news?
There are rumours that Apple costumes so much RAM that they simply couldn't afford to put double the RAM in every iPhone. But this might not be an issue since they sell so few iPads than iPhones per quarter. Plus, the larger size of the display with more pixels does mean that it needs more RAM and a more powerful GPU to have the same relative performance as the iPhone.
For those reasons I can see A8X being introduced into the iPad. Plus, with the iPhone being such a powerful product for Apple and the iPad seemingly have hit a plateau in sales after being their fastest growing product in history, it might simply be a marketing tool to bring back the A*X designation, especially now that the iPhone 6 Plus might make people think it's too similar to the iPad mini.
The "X" designation primarily means a wider memory bus. IIRC Anandtech noted that the A7 on the Air had issues with the bus being too narrow, 64-bits rather than 128. I don't think it'll hinder the current model in the future the way the Retina display hinders the third-gen iPad, but it will probably have an effect.
At first I was wondering if your mess where a little too strong today. Then I realized you are right on target with this comment. You really have to wonder about all the idiots posting that don't want Apple to improve their hardware. I honestly thought that England dealt with the Luddites long ago.
My meds are always on the strong side. Though I was just being fascias, I truly never bought the whole 2GB was just to much of a power drain for Apple to have used at this time, I mean it's Apple we're talking about here. I'm sure they could have easily found a solution if such a restriction existed.
What I don't understand is why people feel the need to aggressively defend Apple about this decision, I'm sorry, it's an 800 dollar phone. I don't care how optimized people think the OS is, I know from personal experience that iOS needs more than 1GB of RAM now, it's time, that's it, nothing else can be said that could possibly change my mind on the matter, even if I'm wrong and iOS would never use more than 1GB, what about peace of mind for the customer, future proofing and why does the iPad get it. I'm not touching the iPhone until it's been upgraded, the iPad, no problem, it has 2GB now, though I would be more comfortable with 3 or 4GB, okay, now I'm pushing it. I'll get my 4GB with the Nexus 9 and it's Nvidia Denver K1 to play around with. The iPad is for work.
That cheered me up! Have you had some good news?
Yeah, 2GB for the iPad, yyyyyaaaaayyyyy!!!!!!
You forgot ebola. Please don't forget that more ram causes ebola to happen.
True story.
That's what the .etc was for, a catch me all of sorts.
Haha! Good to see! I'm looking forward to the new iPad, whatever size it may be.
Haha! Good to see! I'm looking forward to the new iPad, whatever size it may be.
Yep, true dat, the only time that size matters is when it's up you butt.
WTMI
Maybe it's Nextissue and not your iPad as Conde Nast magazines which are photo and graphic intensive render just fine on my iPad3 after downloading them.
Possibly, and if anyone can do it it's Apple, but there doesn't seem to be too many cases where that works out. Take the MS Surface wanting to be a great desktop and a great tablet, and the whole big.LITTLE attempts to offer fast performance and good power usage. Even on the Macs with the GPU switching between integrated and discrete there are issues that cause an app that doesn't use much GPU performance to force the dGPU to switch on.
I assume they'll call it the IPad Air S. /s
Why would they call it the iPad Air S. /s? If anything, they'll call it the iPad Air S.
Apple could design a new feature where a device could have more ram, but when it's not really needed, it could shift everything to one memory module and shutdown the other ram module(s).
Why, such a feature would probably consume more battery than save it. There is a gross misconception on this board that Apple restricted the memory size of the iPhone do to major loss in battery performance. This over embellished factoid was passed around mostly in Apple forums to find some reasonable explanation as to why the iPhone 6 still only has 1GB of RAM. Though it is true an increase of memory does draw more power, as memory is already one of the least power consuming components in a mobile phone, you will not won’t see any noticeable degradation in battery life, especially going from just 1GB to 2GB. When you start doing research into the matter, which I hope you do, you'll quickly see that it's mostly Apple site, articles, specifically forums such as this that even suggest battery life as a possible reason for such a low memory configuration in an 800 dollar phone. This rumor will hopefully be scrutinized once the new iPads battery can be tested thoroughly against the previous models. As the A8 is supposedly more power efficient it just adds more suspicion to this unsubstantial reason.
While I agree with all of that- it's gonna be a hard sell in comparison to the iPhone. Particularly with the new shell game the carriers are playing- people actually see the real value of the iphone- not simply "$199" anymore.
So now, the same camera, with bigger screen, faster processors, more ram- all for $250 less- just sounds weird.
Apply pay in the phones will help elevate that some. Don't get me wrong, I hope they do- it's just unlikely. I feel like we'll get an A8 with 1gb of ram. I'm praying for 2gb long before the A8x (the A7 is fantastic on blth my current air and mini)
Why, such a feature would probably consume more battery than save it. There is a gross misconception on this board that Apple restricted the memory size of the iPhone do to major loss in battery performance. This over embellished factoid was passed around mostly in Apple forums to find some reasonable explanation as to why the iPhone 6 still only has 1GB of RAM. Though it is true an increase of memory does draw more power, as memory is already one of the least power consuming components in a mobile phone, you will not won’t see any noticeable degradation in battery life, especially going from just 1GB to 2GB. When you start doing research into the matter, which I hope you do, you'll quickly see that it's mostly Apple site, articles, specifically forums such as this that even suggest battery life as a possible reason for such a low memory configuration in an 800 dollar phone. This rumor will hopefully be scrutinized once the new iPads battery can be tested thoroughly against the previous models. As the A8 is supposedly more power efficient it just adds more suspicion to this unsubstantial reason.
Less memory , takes less power, that's FOR SURE. But, that doesn't mean that's the reason Apple used less. It is only one part of the equation.
Engineering is about balancing various things. The more important question is how does 1G version 2G impact users of current devices, and previous devices versus all other factors that would make Apple not use it. The most important adverse considerations were probably logistics and supply issues. If Apple is planning to use 25% of the world's supply of chips, wantings to get 50% (doubling the memory) would be a major problem considering they're probably shipping 100M phones with loads of other supply constraints already by the end of the year
So, from Apple's point of view, they had to figure out if the possible issues outweight the possible benefits for those that absolutely need the extra memory. If the answer is 95% are either not affected or don't care about it. Well, then you got your answer. You also have to realize that Apple doesn't live in a vacuum; Android phones with 4G of memory are not exactly smooth as silk in browsing... Let alone in the rest were Apple shines.
In the Ipad, with much less volume. This is much less of an issue. But, if Apple want to use 2G of memory in phones by next year; they'll have to plan to build out manufacturing capacity to meet this demand next year.
Less memory , takes less power, that's FOR SURE. But, that doesn't mean that's the reason Apple used less. It is only one part of the equation.
Engineering is about balancing various things. The more important question is how does 1G version 2G impact users of current devices, and previous devices versus all other factors that would make Apple not use it. The most important adverse considerations were probably logistics and supply issues. If Apple is planning to use 25% of the world's supply of chips, wantings to get 50% (doubling the memory) would be a major problem considering they're probably shipping 100M phones with loads of other supply constraints already by the end of the year
So, from Apple's point of view, they had to figure out if the possible issues outweight the possible benefits for those that absolutely need the extra memory. If the answer is 95% are either not affected or don't care about it. Well, then you got your answer. You also have to realize that Apple doesn't live in a vacuum; Android phones with 4G of memory are not exactly smooth as silk in browsing... Let alone in the rest were Apple shines.
In the Ipad, with much less volume. This is much less of an issue. But, if Apple want to use 2G of memory in phones by next year; they'll have to plan to build out manufacturing capacity to meet this demand next year.
Thanks for the info and I'm sure your correct but all of this has been discussed in great detail already. I was just conveying to the person I commented too that power drain was not a factor in Apples decision and yes less memory uses less power, of course, that amount of power though is minuscule when compared to the other components in a mobile phone. All of this is arbitrary though, the iPhone 6 has 1GB of memory and nothing is going to change until the next revision.
I don't think the new iPad with have a sticking out camera like the iPhone. The iPad is something you lay flat on a surface more often. And the phone needs the better camera on the principle that it's the one you're most likely to have with you. The iPad will have the best camera it can without sticking out.
Is there an issue of the iPhone being wobbly when lying flat? There's no way to test in the Apple stores. But just looking at the devices it sure seems like this whole camera protrusion is much ado about nothing. And it looks worse in photographs than in real life.