But, every time anyone uses the app they are spending an enormous amount of overhead for the luxury of using XML.
In my prior table datasource example, the data is stored as a string, The string takes 503 characters.
When you encapsulate this single string into an XML packet, the size of the XML packet balloons 996 characters,
The reason to use XML is that it offers maximum flexibility. Your single string example is no good for iterating over multi-dimensional arrays or query results. More complex the data the more inefficient it is to custom create specialized strings for different scenarios. For a proof of concept app, sure a string is very easy but when you are building a complete app with several different functions, employing a standards based communication protocol is much more stable even if perhaps not quite as fast.
I don't see Apple going back to a thicker phone. I can't think of a single Apple product that has gotten thicker from one generation to the next.
I agree with you- but I can think of 1 example. iPad 2 to iPad 3 (with retina display) - got a hairline thicker. Probably the only example that exists in the history of Apple And I'm sure they lost a fuckload of sleep over it.
I've never seen Apple mention the iPhone's RAM in their marketing. How would their non-mention of it help Apple to sell more iPhones?
Not to the normal people, to the diehards. The ones who gladly splurge for the 128GB model. Personally I'm fine with 1GB but I know some people want 2. (To be fair, it's more of an issue on the iPads)
As far as I can tell, it should be an issue to anyone who switches between at least two pages in Safari with any frequency, since Safari has to reload every time with the current 1GB RAM. This is especially an issue on pages with forms that reset when they are reloaded.
Eventually iPhone will become a mature product line and you won't see massive improvements. Once you hit 12 mp for example the pay off for more pixels is minimal for point and shoot users.
The difference between high and low MP on a phone camera is even less important than what you are saying, and even for professional photographers.
Since every lens has a limit of optical resolution, you can only place so many pixels in a small space before you have multiple pixels within the "point spread function" of the lens. Adding more pixels than that only gives you more "blurry pixels" and no additional information.
Here's the point: for a lens as small in diameter as most phones (including iPhone) the point spread function of the lens has been the limiting factor on spatial resolution ever since the sensors went passed 5 MP or so. Apple would be better off working on the qualities of the lens, optical image stabilization, and the low light performance (like this RGBW concept). I do love how Apple is moving with regard to this stuff lately, but moving up to 12 MP from 8 MP will not improve the quality of the image in the least unless the lens gets larger in diameter.
So you want Apple to get in the game of spec whoring? Seriously does the average iOS user even really notice these performance improvements? I'd take more RAM any day over anything else. I'm sure the 6S (or whatever Apple calls it) will be a worthy upgrade for 4S/5/5S owners. Perhaps not so much for 6/6 Plus owners but why people think they need a blow away new phone every year is beyond me.
One reason for getting a phone every year is to hand older phones to other family members. For a family of four, it makes sense.
So you want Apple to get in the game of spec whoring? Seriously does the average iOS user even really notice these performance improvements? I'd take more RAM any day over anything else. I'm sure the 6S (or whatever Apple calls it) will be a worthy upgrade for 4S/5/5S owners. Perhaps not so much for 6/6 Plus owners but why people think they need a blow away new phone every year is beyond me.
One reason for getting a phone every year is to hand older phones to other family members. For a family of four, it makes sense.
I don't see Apple going back to a thicker phone. I can't think of a single Apple product that has gotten thicker from one generation to the next.
I agree with you- but I can think of 1 example. iPad 2 to iPad 3 (with retina display) - got a hairline thicker. Probably the only example that exists in the history of Apple And I'm sure they lost a fuckload of sleep over it.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">But, every time anyone uses the app they are spending an enormous amount of overhead for the</span>
<strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">luxury</strong>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">of using XML.</span>
In my prior table datasource example, the data is stored as a string, The string takes 503 characters.
When you encapsulate this single string into an XML packet, the size of the XML packet balloons 996 characters,
The reason to use XML is that it offers maximum flexibility. Your single string example is no good for iterating over multi-dimensional arrays or query results. More complex the data the more inefficient it is to custom create specialized strings for different scenarios. For a proof of concept app, sure a string is very easy but when you are building a complete app with several different functions, employing a standards based communication protocol is much more stable even if perhaps not quite as fast.
But, the example I gave was a multi-demensional array of n records -- each record had 4 fields.
The difference in XML is that each field of each record would be enclosed within tags like:
But, the example I gave was a multi-demensional array of n records -- each record had 4 fields.
The difference in XML is that each field of each record would be enclosed within tags like:
•quantity>3•/quantity>
•name>Item 1•/name>
•price>3.23•/price>
•special>•/special>
• used in place of < open tag symbol
this record contains 11 characters of actual data and 72 characters of superfluous XML tags.
repeat n times for an array of n records
The point is that the format of the data is known in advance (or can be determined in advance) ...
Why unnecessarily waste precious resources to tell you what you already know about the data?
I suspect, based on my years of experience, that 70% of XML packets (by web volume) could be eliminated in this way. YMMV.
Dick:
Have you looked at any HTML5 JS code lately. Thousands of lines of code to do simple animations. Your concern with another 500 characters means absolutely nothing in the realm of modern code examples. Personally, I would rather do things by best industry practices than to try to trim away excess characters with unconventional methods. Industry standards makes code much more maintainable in the long run.
I've written some undocumented code that was brilliant and elegant and then couldn't even figure out how it worked a year later. Best stick to industry standard practices.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
Edit: typo.
4K capture is what is important here. Whether you view it in 4K (UHD) or downsample it to HD for a tighter image, is up to you.
Obviously there is more that goes into an image than just resolution, but why not 4K? We're already dealing with sensors that can do it. It's just a matter of using the whole sensor versus a cropped area of it like they use now. Add to that H.265 (which Apple is already using for facetime) and storage space won't be as much of a concern either.
The only real benefit to sticking with HD is that they can use those extra pixels around the 2MP center crop they currently use in the 8MP sensor for doing electronic image stabilization. So you lose that unless you go to an even higher megapixel sensor or implement it in the lens like they do on the Plus model.
The way I look at it is this. Most people are using their iphones for family photos and videos. Most aren't buying dedicated video cameras or stills cameras anymore. Which is sad but understandable. Most people value portability and ease of use over quality. Yet these memories are important. I would rather the option to shoot 4K and downsample it to HD myself then be stuck with only being able to record HD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That's not true under every circumstance. For some reason people think 4K alone solves all problems, there is a lot more than goes into it creating an image.
Outside of resolution which isn't always whats most important there is color sampling and quantization, along with color space.
The most important starting point is the quality of the sensor and the quality of the debayering algorithm - how those work to produce an image before being compression an the codec applied.
I'd prefer to see 2K with less compression, higher sampling, and better debayering algorithms.
You have to admit that for a phone, Apple has done a pretty good job so far. Their color science is great. In fact I personally think it's better than what Panasonic and Sony put into their consumer/prosumer interchangable lens cameras.
I took would love to see an overall better image at a lower resolution than a worse image at a higher resolution. If Apple stuck with 8MP and focused on higher dynamic range, less compression, better optics, etc. that would be great. But market forces are at work. I think the best we can hope for is 4K with a solid H.265 implementation that we can then downsample ourselves to HD.
But, the example I gave was a multi-demensional array of n records -- each record had 4 fields.
The difference in XML is that each field of each record would be enclosed within tags like:
•quantity>3•/quantity>
•name>Item 1•/name>
•price>3.23•/price>
•special>•/special>
• used in place of < open tag symbol
this record contains 11 characters of actual data and 72 characters of superfluous XML tags.
repeat n times for an array of n records
The point is that the format of the data is known in advance (or can be determined in advance) ...
Why unnecessarily waste precious resources to tell you what you already know about the data?
I suspect, based on my years of experience, that 70% of XML packets (by web volume) could be eliminated in this way. YMMV.
Dick:
Have you looked at any HTML5 JS code lately. Thousands of lines of code to do simple animations. Your concern with another 500 characters means absolutely nothing in the realm of modern code examples. Personally, I would rather do things by best industry practices than to try to trim away excess characters with unconventional methods. Industry standards makes code much more maintainable in the long run.
I've written some undocumented code that was brilliant and elegant and then couldn't even figure out how it worked a year later. Best stick to industry standard practices.
I don't know how to respond, we are talking past each other ,,, sorry I brought the topic up!
Have you looked at any HTML5 JS code lately. Thousands of lines of code to do simple animations. Your concern with another 500 characters means absolutely nothing in the realm of modern code examples. Personally, I would rather do things by best industry practices than to try to trim away excess characters with unconventional methods. Industry standards makes code much more maintainable in the long run.
I've written some undocumented code that was brilliant and elegant and then couldn't even figure out how it worked a year later. Best stick to industry standard practices.
Web "coding" is outrageous in its inefficiency. When I see Google libs I have to shudder at the hacks who "coded" them!! WTH is that.
I created state machines in the mid 1990s that could handle millions of transactions a day, coordinated with cloned iterations spread across servers and sites, that took less space than those crappy HTML JS code loaded in some god damn page! I don'T know who is responsible for those things, but it can't be a 4 year program software engineer (at least none that graduated when I did).
The rumors are making the 6s sound like the least significant new model yet. The difference between the 5 and 5s was much bigger -- the 5s got touchID and cyclone, along with a better camera. ForceTouch doesn't seem to be nearly as big of a deal as touchID, and I'm guessing the A9 won't offer nearly as large a performance as improvement relative to the A8 as the A7 did relative to the A6.
I bet this will result in more people saying that Apple can't innovate.... but the the iPhone 7 will come out with dual cameras (or whatever), and blow everybody away.
Could be that the best feature of the 6s will be to create a buying opportunity for AAPL investors....
For those of us who will be upgrading from an iPhone 5 it will be appreciated even more. Not all of us upgrade every year or even 2 and I'm looking forward to everything the 6s will offer.
You're talking now. But 6 months from now, if Apple does 4K, we'll see a stampede to it.
I wouldn't mind if the next iPhone could shoot 4K video. As a video enthusiast... I'd actually get some use out of shooting the occasional 4K video.
4K would be nice for some things... but it's complete overkill for most videos.
If the iPhone shoots 4K... will Apple let us choose between HD and 4K? Right now you can only shoot 1080p HD in the default camera app (while some 3rd party apps let you choose resolution, framerate, bitrate, etc)
I'm imagining the average consumer shooting a couple minutes of 4K video and ending up with a 1GB file that they don't know what to do with.
You won't be sending that file up to iCloud, will ya?
So you want Apple to get in the game of spec whoring? Seriously does the average iOS user even really notice these performance improvements? I'd take more RAM any day over anything else. I'm sure the 6S (or whatever Apple calls it) will be a worthy upgrade for 4S/5/5S owners. Perhaps not so much for 6/6 Plus owners but why people think they need a blow away new phone every year is beyond me.
You're arguing with your imagination. I never said that Apple should get in the business of spec whoring, nor did I say they need a blow away new phone every year. I simply made the observation that the 6s sounds like it will *not* be a blow away phone, and that some people will react badly to that, creating a buying opportunity.
Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
I didn't say much at all about what I want, nor did I say there's anything wrong with how the 6s is shaping up. I only made the observation that the 6s is shaping up to be the smallest upgrade yet. From what we know so far, I think that's an accurate statement. And I think it's likely that some people will have a negative reaction to that, which could create a buying opportunity for AAPL investors.
As for what I want in the iPhone 7 --- I want another big improvement in the camera. Whether that's through dual cameras or some other approach, I don't care. But I would love to get to a point where it's extremely hard to tell the difference between pictures taken from an iPhone and pictures taken from a DSLR.
Some of you people are incredibly defensive. You've got your egos too invested in this stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
Actually A9 has huge potential if it makes it to 14 nm. It might not be improved in the way you want but 14 nm could allow Apple to integrate much of the external circuitry now seen on iPhone motherboards. This would lead to lower power usage, increased space for battery and flash and greater performance.
Eventually iPhone will become a mature product line and you won't see massive improvements. Once you hit 12 mp for example the pay off for more pixels is minimal for point and shoot users.
What do you care? Seriously ignore the idiots that say such things.
Comments
But, every time anyone uses the app they are spending an enormous amount of overhead for the luxury of using XML.
In my prior table datasource example, the data is stored as a string, The string takes 503 characters.
When you encapsulate this single string into an XML packet, the size of the XML packet balloons 996 characters,
The reason to use XML is that it offers maximum flexibility. Your single string example is no good for iterating over multi-dimensional arrays or query results. More complex the data the more inefficient it is to custom create specialized strings for different scenarios. For a proof of concept app, sure a string is very easy but when you are building a complete app with several different functions, employing a standards based communication protocol is much more stable even if perhaps not quite as fast.
I don't see Apple going back to a thicker phone. I can't think of a single Apple product that has gotten thicker from one generation to the next.
I agree with you- but I can think of 1 example. iPad 2 to iPad 3 (with retina display) - got a hairline thicker. Probably the only example that exists in the history of Apple
And I'm sure they lost a fuckload of sleep over it.
As far as I can tell, it should be an issue to anyone who switches between at least two pages in Safari with any frequency, since Safari has to reload every time with the current 1GB RAM. This is especially an issue on pages with forms that reset when they are reloaded.
Wanna bet?
So you want Apple to get in the game of spec whoring? Seriously does the average iOS user even really notice these performance improvements? I'd take more RAM any day over anything else. I'm sure the 6S (or whatever Apple calls it) will be a worthy upgrade for 4S/5/5S owners. Perhaps not so much for 6/6 Plus owners but why people think they need a blow away new phone every year is beyond me.
One reason for getting a phone every year is to hand older phones to other family members. For a family of four, it makes sense.
The current specs makes for a good billboard ad... come on!!
Soooo ... who get's the 4S this year??
Jony was nearly inconsolable over it...
But, the example I gave was a multi-demensional array of n records -- each record had 4 fields.
The difference in XML is that each field of each record would be enclosed within tags like:
•quantity>3•/quantity>
•name>Item 1•/name>
•price>3.23•/price>
•special>•/special>
• used in place of < open tag symbol
this record contains 11 characters of actual data and 72 characters of superfluous XML tags.
repeat n times for an array of n records
The point is that the format of the data is known in advance (or can be determined in advance) ...
Why unnecessarily waste precious resources to tell you what you already know about the data?
I suspect, based on my years of experience, that 70% of XML packets (by web volume) could be eliminated in this way. YMMV.
But, the example I gave was a multi-demensional array of n records -- each record had 4 fields.
The difference in XML is that each field of each record would be enclosed within tags like:
•quantity>3•/quantity>
•name>Item 1•/name>
•price>3.23•/price>
•special>•/special>
• used in place of < open tag symbol
this record contains 11 characters of actual data and 72 characters of superfluous XML tags.
repeat n times for an array of n records
The point is that the format of the data is known in advance (or can be determined in advance) ...
Why unnecessarily waste precious resources to tell you what you already know about the data?
I suspect, based on my years of experience, that 70% of XML packets (by web volume) could be eliminated in this way. YMMV.
Dick:
Have you looked at any HTML5 JS code lately. Thousands of lines of code to do simple animations. Your concern with another 500 characters means absolutely nothing in the realm of modern code examples. Personally, I would rather do things by best industry practices than to try to trim away excess characters with unconventional methods. Industry standards makes code much more maintainable in the long run.
I've written some undocumented code that was brilliant and elegant and then couldn't even figure out how it worked a year later. Best stick to industry standard practices.
You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do, but I remain highly skeptical about consumer 4K in general.
For me, a 4K TV seems pointless without a great selection on content to watch on it. Having happily ditched physical media like CDs, DVDs, and BlueRay Discs, the last thing I'm interested in right now is the idea of having to go back. When it comes to streaming/broadcast content, the US does not have anywhere near the level of true broadband coverage to support a switch to 4K without compressing the content to the point where it's not worth it. Shooting and editing home video in 4K also sounds like a nightmare, especially when I think about where I would store all the raw footage.
The last nail in the coffin, though, is that I've stood in front of a gigantic 80" 4K TV at a local Sony store and I've seen nothing that made me want one besides size. I did not perceive a noticeable difference in resolution or color compared to my 55" 1080P Sony at home. My only takeaway was "Hmm, one day I'll get a bigger TV."
Edit: typo.
4K capture is what is important here. Whether you view it in 4K (UHD) or downsample it to HD for a tighter image, is up to you.
Obviously there is more that goes into an image than just resolution, but why not 4K? We're already dealing with sensors that can do it. It's just a matter of using the whole sensor versus a cropped area of it like they use now. Add to that H.265 (which Apple is already using for facetime) and storage space won't be as much of a concern either.
The only real benefit to sticking with HD is that they can use those extra pixels around the 2MP center crop they currently use in the 8MP sensor for doing electronic image stabilization. So you lose that unless you go to an even higher megapixel sensor or implement it in the lens like they do on the Plus model.
The way I look at it is this. Most people are using their iphones for family photos and videos. Most aren't buying dedicated video cameras or stills cameras anymore. Which is sad but understandable. Most people value portability and ease of use over quality. Yet these memories are important. I would rather the option to shoot 4K and downsample it to HD myself then be stuck with only being able to record HD.
That's not true under every circumstance. For some reason people think 4K alone solves all problems, there is a lot more than goes into it creating an image.
Outside of resolution which isn't always whats most important there is color sampling and quantization, along with color space.
The most important starting point is the quality of the sensor and the quality of the debayering algorithm - how those work to produce an image before being compression an the codec applied.
I'd prefer to see 2K with less compression, higher sampling, and better debayering algorithms.
You have to admit that for a phone, Apple has done a pretty good job so far. Their color science is great. In fact I personally think it's better than what Panasonic and Sony put into their consumer/prosumer interchangable lens cameras.
I took would love to see an overall better image at a lower resolution than a worse image at a higher resolution. If Apple stuck with 8MP and focused on higher dynamic range, less compression, better optics, etc. that would be great. But market forces are at work. I think the best we can hope for is 4K with a solid H.265 implementation that we can then downsample ourselves to HD.
I don't know how to respond, we are talking past each other ,,, sorry I brought the topic up!
unnecessary. many consumers have no interest in 4k at this time. we also passed on 3D sets.
Dick:
Have you looked at any HTML5 JS code lately. Thousands of lines of code to do simple animations. Your concern with another 500 characters means absolutely nothing in the realm of modern code examples. Personally, I would rather do things by best industry practices than to try to trim away excess characters with unconventional methods. Industry standards makes code much more maintainable in the long run.
I've written some undocumented code that was brilliant and elegant and then couldn't even figure out how it worked a year later. Best stick to industry standard practices.
Web "coding" is outrageous in its inefficiency. When I see Google libs I have to shudder at the hacks who "coded" them!! WTH is that.
I created state machines in the mid 1990s that could handle millions of transactions a day, coordinated with cloned iterations spread across servers and sites, that took less space than those crappy HTML JS code loaded in some god damn page! I don'T know who is responsible for those things, but it can't be a 4 year program software engineer (at least none that graduated when I did).
For those of us who will be upgrading from an iPhone 5 it will be appreciated even more. Not all of us upgrade every year or even 2 and I'm looking forward to everything the 6s will offer.
The far majority of content you are watching is scaled 1080P, if you are watching broadcast television you are watching scaled 720P.
Speak for yourself. I'll watch 6 feet from my TV for iTunes and blu-ray @1080p.
unnecessary. many consumers have no interest in 4k at this time. we also passed on 3D sets.
You're talking now. But 6 months from now, if Apple does 4K, we'll see a stampede to it.
I wouldn't mind if the next iPhone could shoot 4K video. As a video enthusiast... I'd actually get some use out of shooting the occasional 4K video.
4K would be nice for some things... but it's complete overkill for most videos.
If the iPhone shoots 4K... will Apple let us choose between HD and 4K? Right now you can only shoot 1080p HD in the default camera app (while some 3rd party apps let you choose resolution, framerate, bitrate, etc)
I'm imagining the average consumer shooting a couple minutes of 4K video and ending up with a 1GB file that they don't know what to do with.
You won't be sending that file up to iCloud, will ya?
So you want Apple to get in the game of spec whoring? Seriously does the average iOS user even really notice these performance improvements? I'd take more RAM any day over anything else. I'm sure the 6S (or whatever Apple calls it) will be a worthy upgrade for 4S/5/5S owners. Perhaps not so much for 6/6 Plus owners but why people think they need a blow away new phone every year is beyond me.
You're arguing with your imagination. I never said that Apple should get in the business of spec whoring, nor did I say they need a blow away new phone every year. I simply made the observation that the 6s sounds like it will *not* be a blow away phone, and that some people will react badly to that, creating a buying opportunity.
Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
I didn't say much at all about what I want, nor did I say there's anything wrong with how the 6s is shaping up. I only made the observation that the 6s is shaping up to be the smallest upgrade yet. From what we know so far, I think that's an accurate statement. And I think it's likely that some people will have a negative reaction to that, which could create a buying opportunity for AAPL investors.
As for what I want in the iPhone 7 --- I want another big improvement in the camera. Whether that's through dual cameras or some other approach, I don't care. But I would love to get to a point where it's extremely hard to tell the difference between pictures taken from an iPhone and pictures taken from a DSLR.
Some of you people are incredibly defensive. You've got your egos too invested in this stuff.
Quote:
Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
Actually A9 has huge potential if it makes it to 14 nm. It might not be improved in the way you want but 14 nm could allow Apple to integrate much of the external circuitry now seen on iPhone motherboards. This would lead to lower power usage, increased space for battery and flash and greater performance.
Eventually iPhone will become a mature product line and you won't see massive improvements. Once you hit 12 mp for example the pay off for more pixels is minimal for point and shoot users.
What do you care? Seriously ignore the idiots that say such things.
The best feature would likely be more RAM!