But not counting the heaters (for winter), cooling fans (for summer and normal driving), and charging controllers aside, the battery packs in a Tesla are made up of thousands of little 18650 lithium batteries. Not unlike the 18650's found in countless laptops, portable tools, portable battery packs, flashlights, etc.
Point being its not some super-exotic and custom battery pack in a Tesla, like the way apple custom designs its batteries to fit perfectly. Rather they are made of basically off the shelf 18650's, perhaps with slightly better energy density (capacity) than your average cheap 18650 knock off found on ebay or amazon.
Edit: I could be wrong but looking at the Lenovo tablet 2 (any size), I would venture that the cylindrical looking "handle" is full of 18650's as well.
I agree there is nothing exotic, but they have a lot more thermal room than something that is not a car even when having thousands. The Iphone has 3-4mm in an enclosed space with no ventilation. Also, the bigger the battery, the more subcells can exist to distribute the charge/heat evenly. If I had to guess, I'd say the load distribution mechanism in the Tesla is quite complex to keep batteries in tip top long term shape.
BTW, a full Tesla charge takes way way longer than 15 minutes, not sure where that info came from. If your topping off the battery, yes it will be fast just as topping off a Iphone battery would be fast.
This is from the Tesla web site
With:
- A double charger 400 V 32 amps (13000 Watts!) (You'll need something straight from the Panel for this :-), which is not the standard charger certainly btw, it takes 1h to get 110km. PS, It's actually about 15 KW since you've got to have a safety margin, many older houses couldn't even have something like that even if they wanted too and keep the rest of the house functioning.
- A more standard single charger 230 V, 16 amp plug would only give you 32 km for this 1h of charging.
The way the Tesla gets around killing the battery on a faster recharge is simply by distributing the charge to the whole array of sub-batteries. Damages in battery is not linear, there is a relationship with current density and threshold effects. Even in the Tesla, I'm pretty sure that charging faster has an impact on the life of the battery. But, as long as the effect is not large and it is understood, it is OK. If say you loose 10-15% of your battery life because of faster charging, that may be something you (and Tesla) can live with.
BTW, discharging battery fast ALSO introduces damage, but that's obviously harder to do with a load on. But, some uses would be harder on a battery. If you play FPS shooters on your phone all day and recharge it several times a day with the 2.1 amps charger, that's probably the hardest use you can put on a battery.
I myself, am a light to medium phone user and often charge with a USB port connected to a computer every 2 days (I think old ones at 0.5 amps), and my 3GS battery has lasted 5 years. That's probably the ideal use for long term battery survival.
BTW, the Iphone battery can charge in 2h with the 2.1 amp charger.
From a professional standpoint I have to say that windows 8 when used correctly on a tablet is the best experience by far. They are more expensive but they provide more utility then iPads. I work for a large company and they issued all of the supervisors HP revolves. The things are amazingly good for work. The docking system allows us to use them as full desktops as well. While an iPad is by far more fun to use. However windows 8 when used correctly is more useful in work place enviroments.
It depends what kind of work you do. For someone doing sales, inventory management, in the medical field, field work, retail, etc, the Ipad is better. As with everything, there is no single tool for all work. BTW, I'm typing this on a cheap ACER Win 8.1 desktop, so I'm not dogmatic about all of this :-).
It depends what kind of work you do. For someone doing sales, inventory management, in the medical field, field work, retail, etc, the Ipad is better. As with everything, there is no single tool for all work. BTW, I'm typing this on a cheap ACER Win 8.1 desktop, so I'm not dogmatic about all of this :-).
Why the Acer and not say the Dell or the Asus 8" which both have a digitized pens, just asking.
@solipsismy Having used Motorola 68K Macs, IBM PowerPC Macs, and Intel x64 Macs, why exactly is the Mac branding going to fail to encompass Apple/ARM Ax chips?
@solipsismy
Having used Motorola 68K Macs, IBM PowerPC Macs, and Intel x64 Macs, why exactly is the Mac branding going to fail to encompass Apple/ARM Ax chips?
I think once Apple's SOC goes to 16nm, clocked at 2Ghz or higher, 8GB of RAM, no one wil complain if say the MacBook Air starts using them. I would defiantly like to see it, but I have a real thing for ARM. Especially when it's a good chip and is paired with a low memory footprint OS, like Linux, HP just released a new ARM ChromeBook, 4GB RAM, 1080P display that I will defiantly be grabbing for Christmas, not to run Chrome OS as I already have another ChromeBook that runs that very well but Arch Linux. Arch Linux for ARM just runs so well, especially when eveything is stripped out with just what you need.
1. Emphasize the laptop/desktops. As people use more smartphones, they will need more laptops and desktops. Just look at how many more Macs are being sold. Intel can get more sales the same way.
2. Be even more aggressive in developing the Atom and other x86 chips so that they can be competitive with ARM chips. Intel is Chipzilla for one thing. It is a sign of weakness when it can't compete on its own turf.
Well, to be fair, the best time to buy AAPL was the week Jobs died in Oct. 2011. It'll never be that low again, ever.
That would have been a decent time to buy AAPL, but FWIW, it didn't change its trajectory much either slightly before or after Jobs' death. Certainly not like it did after peaking a year or so later, at ~$700/share in Sept '12, followed by an inexplicable (to me, at least) swoon to ~$390/share in April and June of 2013. Either of those two times would have been an even better time to buy AAPL, since that per-share price was actually lower than the day Jobs died (or the day after). I suppose these things happen.
I still don't get it - I suppose 1H 2013 was the time that the market started to get nervous that Cook was not Jobs. They seem to have gotten over that now. ; )
Yes, the A8X iPad chip is causing big problems for Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung and Nvidia. However, there is one notable company missing from that list: Apple. Going with ARM has now created a problem for Apple: there is no way to merge the Mac line with the iPad/iPhone line given the two incompatible processors. Many keep talking about an "iPad Pro" device that will give the form factor of an iPad but be able to process all of our favorite Mac apps. That is what customers ultimately want. Sadly, that can't happen given the two incompatible processors (ARM and Intel).
Some like to think the Apple ARM processor is approaching desktop performance levels but the truth is that it isn't even close. Should Apple switch to Intel's iAtom? It could bring Mac performance to an iPad-like device but it would be a very painful switch. Apple has done painful processor switches in the past (twice!) but I don't think they want to do it again. So, now Apple is stuck in the processor rat-race without being able to deliver the ultimate "iPad Pro."
Fair enough, but note that overcharge protection is not the same as charge current limiting - different problems and different solutions. Anyway - the charging rate (current) allowed by the circuitry is determined based on battery voltage and temperature, and it is certainly possible that in some situations the 6 and 6+ can take a bit more than the 5 W charger delivers. But the point is not whether these batteries could be charged faster (which they certainly could if allowed) - the point is that, contrary to your earlier argument, faster charging causes more anode heating which, in turn, reduces battery life. I have no idea how Motorola have dealt with that issue - found a way to keep the battery cooler, ignored the problem and settled for reduced life, or some combination of the two.
But we are talking about current limitation. That's exactly what the 12 watt charger is doing.
Only a problem if the internal resistance is high. I stated this several times now. The biggest problem in limiting charge times, as well as discharge current, is internal resistance. It's that simple. How to lower that resistance isn't simple, but it is done. Batteries, in general, are getting better over time as manufacturers improve their production processes, and tinker with the materials. I remember when you needed to charge an AA Lithium battery for almost ten hours. Those days are long gone.
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of battery technology.
When we talk of batteries being damaged by fast recharging, we are not talking about melting or burning. We are referring to the irreversible damage to the ability of the battery to hold a charge over the long term.
You seem to think that it's a simple thing for Apple to change to a battery that can be recharged very quickly. It's not; there are a huge number of factors that lead to Apple choosing the type of battery for the iPhone, and it's a flight of fancy to think that this is a relatively straightforward decision.
Oh please Benji, don't start with me. You don't know what you're talking about. "A huge number of factors". I'll give you plenty of time to go on the web and look that up, so you'll know what some of those factors are. You're saying nothing here.
Fair enough, but note that overcharge protection is not the same as charge current limiting - different problems and different solutions. Anyway - the charging rate (current) allowed by the circuitry is determined based on battery voltage and temperature, and it is certainly possible that in some situations the 6 and 6+ can take a bit more than the 5 W charger delivers. But the point is not whether these batteries could be charged faster (which they certainly could if allowed) - the point is that, contrary to your earlier argument, faster charging causes more anode heating which, in turn, reduces battery life. I have no idea how Motorola have dealt with that issue - found a way to keep the battery cooler, ignored the problem and settled for reduced life, or some combination of the two.
But we are talking about current limitation. That's exactly what the 12 watt charger is doing.
Only a problem if the internal resistance is high. I stated this several times now. The biggest problem in limiting charge times, as well as discharge current, is internal resistance. It's that simple. How to lower that resistance isn't simple, but it is done. Batteries, in general, are getting better over time as manufacturers improve their production processes, and tinker with the materials. I remember when you needed to charge an AA Lithium battery for almost ten hours. Those days are long gone.
We certainly were talking about current limitation - you brought up overcharge protection, for no apparent reason. With lithium chemistry the main factor determining battery life is charging temperature, so your fixation on internal resistance is not very helpful because it is only a part of the picture. Joule heating in the battery is proportional to current² and internal resistance (itself temperature dependent), but the cell temperature is also determined by electrode material, cell geometry, thermal boundary conditions and unsteady heat flow, and so there are more effective ways to improve charge rates than by just attempting to lower internal resistance.
In any case - what's your point now? The question was - does increasing the charging rate reduce battery life - and the answer is yes, which is why the charging circuitry in iPhones limits the charging current. It's not the charger that limits the current unless its maximum output is less than the charging circuit current demand - not the case with a 12 W charger and any iPhone. Are you still disagreeing with those statements, or can we finally move on?
Yes, the A8X iPad chip is causing big problems for Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung and Nvidia. However, there is one notable company missing from that list: Apple. Going with ARM has now created a problem for Apple: there is no way to merge the Mac line with the iPad/iPhone line given the two incompatible processors. Many keep talking about an "iPad Pro" device that will give the form factor of an iPad but be able to process all of our favorite Mac apps. That is what customers ultimately want. Sadly, that can't happen given the two incompatible processors (ARM and Intel).
Some like to think the Apple ARM processor is approaching desktop performance levels but the truth is that it isn't even close. Should Apple switch to Intel's iAtom? It could bring Mac performance to an iPad-like device but it would be a very painful switch. Apple has done painful processor switches in the past (twice!) but I don't think they want to do it again. So, now Apple is stuck in the processor rat-race without being able to deliver the ultimate "iPad Pro."
I disagree. Since they control generally the entire OS stack, they could write (and probably already have written) OS X to run on ARM. In addition, they could also make the OS operate on multiple ARM processors concurrently. While it probably wouldn't be as fast as a high clock rate x86 processor, it would be able to handle a lot without lag. With the optimizations Apple has been making to iOS and OS X (Safari performance, Javascript engines, Metal, etc) it wouldn't surprise me if they could achieve "desktop-class" performance from these chips. I think when Phil Schiller referred to the A8 as "desktop-class" it wasn't a mistake. He wanted to communicate that Apple is gunning their silicon development at the "desktop".
That doesn't mean Apple would be abandoning Intel in their "workstation-class" computers. So I think they would be targeting the Air and Mini type of computers, or to pivot into new computing territories that are not dominated by Intel.
It's only a matter of time and Apple has demonstrated the technical ability to switch processor architecture and have seamless or near seamless transitions. Plus, they now control Xcode and the developer community so making iOS apps runnable on OS X and vice versa? Technically I see there being no problem, but UI-wise there would be work involved.
I disagree. Since they control generally the entire OS stack, they could write (and probably already have written) OS X to run on ARM. In addition, they could also make the OS operate on multiple ARM processors concurrently. While it probably wouldn't be as fast as a high clock rate x86 processor, it would be able to handle a lot without lag. With the optimizations Apple has been making to iOS and OS X (Safari performance, Javascript engines, Metal, etc) it wouldn't surprise me if they could achieve "desktop-class" performance from these chips. I think when Phil Schiller referred to the A8 as "desktop-class" it wasn't a mistake. He wanted to communicate that Apple is gunning their silicon development at the "desktop".
That doesn't mean Apple would be abandoning Intel in their "workstation-class" computers. So I think they would be targeting the Air and Mini type of computers, or to pivot into new computing territories that are not dominated by Intel.
It's only a matter of time and Apple has demonstrated the technical ability to switch processor architecture and have seamless or near seamless transitions. Plus, they now control Xcode and the developer community so making iOS apps runnable on OS X and vice versa? Technically I see there being no problem, but UI-wise there would be work involved.
I can get behind that, would love to see a MacBook Air 11" as their first machine for OSX ARM. Though it won't be as fast as the current line, the benefits in battery life will more than make it up. I'm looking for at least a good 14 hours of use, right now I get about 7 with my current MacBook Air, pretty decent but a far cry from the 16 I get when using my Nokia 2520, granted that's utilizing the keyboards built in battery in conjunction with the built in battery of the unit itself but still shows what can be accomplished when using an ARM CPU.
Back in 1996 I decided to invest a wee bit of money into a few tech stocks. I threw most of it at a few companies on which I took a complete beating.
But at the end of the process I had about $100 left over and I said "well, I love my mac, and whatever, it's ten shares...if I lose it all, no big deal." Amelio was in charge and the ship was sinking. It was mostly just a show of brand loyalty.
Now it's the bulk of my stock portfolio, after splitting a few times and shooting through the roof. If I had put more into AAPL, instead of some doomed-to-die .coms and such, I'd probably be retired now. Or at least have my mortgage paid off.
I disagree. Since they control generally the entire OS stack, they could write (and probably already have written) OS X to run on ARM. In addition, they could also make the OS operate on multiple ARM processors concurrently. While it probably wouldn't be as fast as a high clock rate x86 processor, it would be able to handle a lot without lag. With the optimizations Apple has been making to iOS and OS X (Safari performance, Javascript engines, Metal, etc) it wouldn't surprise me if they could achieve "desktop-class" performance from these chips. I think when Phil Schiller referred to the A8 as "desktop-class" it wasn't a mistake. He wanted to communicate that Apple is gunning their silicon development at the "desktop".
That doesn't mean Apple would be abandoning Intel in their "workstation-class" computers. So I think they would be targeting the Air and Mini type of computers, or to pivot into new computing territories that are not dominated by Intel.
It's only a matter of time and Apple has demonstrated the technical ability to switch processor architecture and have seamless or near seamless transitions. Plus, they now control Xcode and the developer community so making iOS apps runnable on OS X and vice versa? Technically I see there being no problem, but UI-wise there would be work involved.
Cross-platform development between OSX & iOS is already fairly easy with a lot of non-UI code porting straight over. The real question would be how to transition.
Apple wouldn't want a Surface RT on their hands so would need an intermediate, hybrid hardware platform as 3rd party apps became universal (again). Conceivably they could add an A8/9 to the existing MacBook Pro line up to offer a low power mode cutting in the x86 co-processor for heavy workload - like switching internal and discrete GPUs. This would add cost which could be swallowed with the Pros whilst the ARM software portfolio builds for an ARM-only MBA release.
Comments
I'm far from a battery expert.
But not counting the heaters (for winter), cooling fans (for summer and normal driving), and charging controllers aside, the battery packs in a Tesla are made up of thousands of little 18650 lithium batteries. Not unlike the 18650's found in countless laptops, portable tools, portable battery packs, flashlights, etc.
Point being its not some super-exotic and custom battery pack in a Tesla, like the way apple custom designs its batteries to fit perfectly. Rather they are made of basically off the shelf 18650's, perhaps with slightly better energy density (capacity) than your average cheap 18650 knock off found on ebay or amazon.
Edit: I could be wrong but looking at the Lenovo tablet 2 (any size), I would venture that the cylindrical looking "handle" is full of 18650's as well.
I agree there is nothing exotic, but they have a lot more thermal room than something that is not a car even when having thousands. The Iphone has 3-4mm in an enclosed space with no ventilation. Also, the bigger the battery, the more subcells can exist to distribute the charge/heat evenly. If I had to guess, I'd say the load distribution mechanism in the Tesla is quite complex to keep batteries in tip top long term shape.
BTW, a full Tesla charge takes way way longer than 15 minutes, not sure where that info came from. If your topping off the battery, yes it will be fast just as topping off a Iphone battery would be fast.
This is from the Tesla web site
With:
- A double charger 400 V 32 amps (13000 Watts!) (You'll need something straight from the Panel for this :-), which is not the standard charger certainly btw, it takes 1h to get 110km. PS, It's actually about 15 KW since you've got to have a safety margin, many older houses couldn't even have something like that even if they wanted too and keep the rest of the house functioning.
- A more standard single charger 230 V, 16 amp plug would only give you 32 km for this 1h of charging.
The way the Tesla gets around killing the battery on a faster recharge is simply by distributing the charge to the whole array of sub-batteries. Damages in battery is not linear, there is a relationship with current density and threshold effects. Even in the Tesla, I'm pretty sure that charging faster has an impact on the life of the battery. But, as long as the effect is not large and it is understood, it is OK. If say you loose 10-15% of your battery life because of faster charging, that may be something you (and Tesla) can live with.
BTW, discharging battery fast ALSO introduces damage, but that's obviously harder to do with a load on. But, some uses would be harder on a battery. If you play FPS shooters on your phone all day and recharge it several times a day with the 2.1 amps charger, that's probably the hardest use you can put on a battery.
I myself, am a light to medium phone user and often charge with a USB port connected to a computer every 2 days (I think old ones at 0.5 amps), and my 3GS battery has lasted 5 years. That's probably the ideal use for long term battery survival.
BTW, the Iphone battery can charge in 2h with the 2.1 amp charger.
From a professional standpoint I have to say that windows 8 when used correctly on a tablet is the best experience by far. They are more expensive but they provide more utility then iPads. I work for a large company and they issued all of the supervisors HP revolves. The things are amazingly good for work. The docking system allows us to use them as full desktops as well. While an iPad is by far more fun to use. However windows 8 when used correctly is more useful in work place enviroments.
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/m/ads/elite-products/elitebook-revolve.html
http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/10459812
It depends what kind of work you do. For someone doing sales, inventory management, in the medical field, field work, retail, etc, the Ipad is better. As with everything, there is no single tool for all work. BTW, I'm typing this on a cheap ACER Win 8.1 desktop, so I'm not dogmatic about all of this :-).
Why the Acer and not say the Dell or the Asus 8" which both have a digitized pens, just asking.
Having used Motorola 68K Macs, IBM PowerPC Macs, and Intel x64 Macs, why exactly is the Mac branding going to fail to encompass Apple/ARM Ax chips?
I think once Apple's SOC goes to 16nm, clocked at 2Ghz or higher, 8GB of RAM, no one wil complain if say the MacBook Air starts using them. I would defiantly like to see it, but I have a real thing for ARM. Especially when it's a good chip and is paired with a low memory footprint OS, like Linux, HP just released a new ARM ChromeBook, 4GB RAM, 1080P display that I will defiantly be grabbing for Christmas, not to run Chrome OS as I already have another ChromeBook that runs that very well but Arch Linux. Arch Linux for ARM just runs so well, especially when eveything is stripped out with just what you need.
Obviously, Intel has some solutions:
1. Emphasize the laptop/desktops. As people use more smartphones, they will need more laptops and desktops. Just look at how many more Macs are being sold. Intel can get more sales the same way.
2. Be even more aggressive in developing the Atom and other x86 chips so that they can be competitive with ARM chips. Intel is Chipzilla for one thing. It is a sign of weakness when it can't compete on its own turf.
Next step: dump Intel chips in iMacs and MBPs in 2015.
Well, to be fair, the best time to buy AAPL was the week Jobs died in Oct. 2011. It'll never be that low again, ever.
That would have been a decent time to buy AAPL, but FWIW, it didn't change its trajectory much either slightly before or after Jobs' death. Certainly not like it did after peaking a year or so later, at ~$700/share in Sept '12, followed by an inexplicable (to me, at least) swoon to ~$390/share in April and June of 2013. Either of those two times would have been an even better time to buy AAPL, since that per-share price was actually lower than the day Jobs died (or the day after). I suppose these things happen.
I still don't get it - I suppose 1H 2013 was the time that the market started to get nervous that Cook was not Jobs. They seem to have gotten over that now. ; )
Some like to think the Apple ARM processor is approaching desktop performance levels but the truth is that it isn't even close. Should Apple switch to Intel's iAtom? It could bring Mac performance to an iPad-like device but it would be a very painful switch. Apple has done painful processor switches in the past (twice!) but I don't think they want to do it again. So, now Apple is stuck in the processor rat-race without being able to deliver the ultimate "iPad Pro."
Nowhere near ready.
But we are talking about current limitation. That's exactly what the 12 watt charger is doing.
Only a problem if the internal resistance is high. I stated this several times now. The biggest problem in limiting charge times, as well as discharge current, is internal resistance. It's that simple. How to lower that resistance isn't simple, but it is done. Batteries, in general, are getting better over time as manufacturers improve their production processes, and tinker with the materials. I remember when you needed to charge an AA Lithium battery for almost ten hours. Those days are long gone.
Oh please Benji, don't start with me. You don't know what you're talking about. "A huge number of factors". I'll give you plenty of time to go on the web and look that up, so you'll know what some of those factors are. You're saying nothing here.
All their chips are based on the old "M" series. Those were just their old mobile line that they went to when abandoning the Netburst series.
Fair enough, but note that overcharge protection is not the same as charge current limiting - different problems and different solutions. Anyway - the charging rate (current) allowed by the circuitry is determined based on battery voltage and temperature, and it is certainly possible that in some situations the 6 and 6+ can take a bit more than the 5 W charger delivers. But the point is not whether these batteries could be charged faster (which they certainly could if allowed) - the point is that, contrary to your earlier argument, faster charging causes more anode heating which, in turn, reduces battery life. I have no idea how Motorola have dealt with that issue - found a way to keep the battery cooler, ignored the problem and settled for reduced life, or some combination of the two.
But we are talking about current limitation. That's exactly what the 12 watt charger is doing.
Only a problem if the internal resistance is high. I stated this several times now. The biggest problem in limiting charge times, as well as discharge current, is internal resistance. It's that simple. How to lower that resistance isn't simple, but it is done. Batteries, in general, are getting better over time as manufacturers improve their production processes, and tinker with the materials. I remember when you needed to charge an AA Lithium battery for almost ten hours. Those days are long gone.
We certainly were talking about current limitation - you brought up overcharge protection, for no apparent reason. With lithium chemistry the main factor determining battery life is charging temperature, so your fixation on internal resistance is not very helpful because it is only a part of the picture. Joule heating in the battery is proportional to current² and internal resistance (itself temperature dependent), but the cell temperature is also determined by electrode material, cell geometry, thermal boundary conditions and unsteady heat flow, and so there are more effective ways to improve charge rates than by just attempting to lower internal resistance.
In any case - what's your point now? The question was - does increasing the charging rate reduce battery life - and the answer is yes, which is why the charging circuitry in iPhones limits the charging current. It's not the charger that limits the current unless its maximum output is less than the charging circuit current demand - not the case with a 12 W charger and any iPhone. Are you still disagreeing with those statements, or can we finally move on?
Yes, the A8X iPad chip is causing big problems for Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung and Nvidia. However, there is one notable company missing from that list: Apple. Going with ARM has now created a problem for Apple: there is no way to merge the Mac line with the iPad/iPhone line given the two incompatible processors. Many keep talking about an "iPad Pro" device that will give the form factor of an iPad but be able to process all of our favorite Mac apps. That is what customers ultimately want. Sadly, that can't happen given the two incompatible processors (ARM and Intel).
Some like to think the Apple ARM processor is approaching desktop performance levels but the truth is that it isn't even close. Should Apple switch to Intel's iAtom? It could bring Mac performance to an iPad-like device but it would be a very painful switch. Apple has done painful processor switches in the past (twice!) but I don't think they want to do it again. So, now Apple is stuck in the processor rat-race without being able to deliver the ultimate "iPad Pro."
I disagree. Since they control generally the entire OS stack, they could write (and probably already have written) OS X to run on ARM. In addition, they could also make the OS operate on multiple ARM processors concurrently. While it probably wouldn't be as fast as a high clock rate x86 processor, it would be able to handle a lot without lag. With the optimizations Apple has been making to iOS and OS X (Safari performance, Javascript engines, Metal, etc) it wouldn't surprise me if they could achieve "desktop-class" performance from these chips. I think when Phil Schiller referred to the A8 as "desktop-class" it wasn't a mistake. He wanted to communicate that Apple is gunning their silicon development at the "desktop".
That doesn't mean Apple would be abandoning Intel in their "workstation-class" computers. So I think they would be targeting the Air and Mini type of computers, or to pivot into new computing territories that are not dominated by Intel.
It's only a matter of time and Apple has demonstrated the technical ability to switch processor architecture and have seamless or near seamless transitions. Plus, they now control Xcode and the developer community so making iOS apps runnable on OS X and vice versa? Technically I see there being no problem, but UI-wise there would be work involved.
I disagree. Since they control generally the entire OS stack, they could write (and probably already have written) OS X to run on ARM. In addition, they could also make the OS operate on multiple ARM processors concurrently. While it probably wouldn't be as fast as a high clock rate x86 processor, it would be able to handle a lot without lag. With the optimizations Apple has been making to iOS and OS X (Safari performance, Javascript engines, Metal, etc) it wouldn't surprise me if they could achieve "desktop-class" performance from these chips. I think when Phil Schiller referred to the A8 as "desktop-class" it wasn't a mistake. He wanted to communicate that Apple is gunning their silicon development at the "desktop".
That doesn't mean Apple would be abandoning Intel in their "workstation-class" computers. So I think they would be targeting the Air and Mini type of computers, or to pivot into new computing territories that are not dominated by Intel.
It's only a matter of time and Apple has demonstrated the technical ability to switch processor architecture and have seamless or near seamless transitions. Plus, they now control Xcode and the developer community so making iOS apps runnable on OS X and vice versa? Technically I see there being no problem, but UI-wise there would be work involved.
I can get behind that, would love to see a MacBook Air 11" as their first machine for OSX ARM. Though it won't be as fast as the current line, the benefits in battery life will more than make it up. I'm looking for at least a good 14 hours of use, right now I get about 7 with my current MacBook Air, pretty decent but a far cry from the 16 I get when using my Nokia 2520, granted that's utilizing the keyboards built in battery in conjunction with the built in battery of the unit itself but still shows what can be accomplished when using an ARM CPU.
That would depend on how it would compare to Intel's Core i14... or whatever Intel has in 8 years time.
Yeah, you and me both.
Back in 1996 I decided to invest a wee bit of money into a few tech stocks. I threw most of it at a few companies on which I took a complete beating.
But at the end of the process I had about $100 left over and I said "well, I love my mac, and whatever, it's ten shares...if I lose it all, no big deal." Amelio was in charge and the ship was sinking. It was mostly just a show of brand loyalty.
Now it's the bulk of my stock portfolio, after splitting a few times and shooting through the roof. If I had put more into AAPL, instead of some doomed-to-die .coms and such, I'd probably be retired now. Or at least have my mortgage paid off.
Cross-platform development between OSX & iOS is already fairly easy with a lot of non-UI code porting straight over. The real question would be how to transition.
Apple wouldn't want a Surface RT on their hands so would need an intermediate, hybrid hardware platform as 3rd party apps became universal (again). Conceivably they could add an A8/9 to the existing MacBook Pro line up to offer a low power mode cutting in the x86 co-processor for heavy workload - like switching internal and discrete GPUs. This would add cost which could be swallowed with the Pros whilst the ARM software portfolio builds for an ARM-only MBA release.