If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
Quote:
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
Quote:
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
Quote:
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
Quote:
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
You wish, but no.
Quote:
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.
You really must look at the proper products when making these comparisons. You take the cheapest Flash, and assume that that's what's being used. Why don't you look at fast products instead of slow ones?
I've pointed out that my SanDisk 4GB Extreme IV card is $95, and that doesn't include the ATA controller chips or the physical interfacing for it. Try scaling that up to 32 Gb, or 64 GB. The 8 GB version is $190, twice as much.
Quote:
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
You're failing to understand that an SSD is NOT a Flash USB drive. It's a different beast altogether. It uses different protocols, etc.
Just do the right thing, and look up the various SSD's on the market, and figure how Apple could use them,and look up the prices. That's all you can do.
Don't try to invent your own technology. If what you want was the correct way to do it, it would be done that way, but it's not, and so it isn't.
Quote:
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
iPods have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all. They are a totally different device, with different needs. So is the ASUS.
Quote:
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
I don't care about these lawsuits. In this country, sadly, anyone can sue anyone. The filing of a lawsuit doesn't mean that the case is a valid one. Sometimes, even the verdict isn't valid. I never agreed that the woman who put a paper cup of hot coffee between her knees and started to drive her car when she crushed the cup and was burned by the coffee deserved to be given money from McDonalds, do you?
Quote:
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Dave
I would call you a cynic, but you're beyond that. Apple makes, at most, a net profit of 15%, that's pretty good, but is by no means excessive.
I would just love to be on the opposite side of the table from you negotiating a business deal. You'd get killed.
The other day, a friend told me of a conversation her two kids had in the back seat of her car (she owns a business, and that's how the conversations took place).
Her daughter said that she would buy crayons for $0.99, and sell them for $1.99. Her son said that she was crazy, and that was no good.
He said that he would buy them for $0.99 AND sell them for $0.99, and that he would sell a lot more than she would, and he would make much more money.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
Again you miss the whole point, I'm not talking about the heat produced by a failing battery but rather the heat generated from normal use.
Quote:
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
Wasn't that taken care of a year or so ago.
Quote:
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
I'm not at all excited about fuel cells. It is acknowledged that batteries are a problem but on the other hand electronics is improving with respect to power usage. It is not just Intel that has 45nm products as an ARM licensee has indicated that they have a 45nm cell phone platform working. It is still possible to get useful performance increases out of battery powered devices and at the same time lower power input to the device. It is not the end of the world yet with respect to scaling performance and lowering energy usage at the same time.
Quote:
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
While I will agree that it is a ways from what I'm looking for it is a good example of taking out what is not needed. Apple at the same time has the advantage that every body and their brother wants to sell to Apple and thus gets access to the latest technology. It is very possible for Apple to build a better product with todays technology.
Quote:
You wish, but no.
You really must look at the proper products when making these comparisons. You take the cheapest Flash, and assume that that's what's being used. Why don't you look at fast products instead of slow ones?
Wouldn't make any difference.
Quote:
I've pointed out that my SanDisk 4GB Extreme IV card is $95, and that doesn't include the ATA controller chips or the physical interfacing for it. Try scaling that up to 32 Gb, or 64 GB. The 8 GB version is $190, twice as much.
Yeah yeah yeah we've all heard this before, and frankly I don't care what you paid for your SanDisk.
Quote:
You're failing to understand that an SSD is NOT a Flash USB drive. It's a different beast altogether. It uses different protocols, etc.
And where did I mention USB? I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to pick an argument or are just a bit dense. The whole point of that paragraph is that the old model of secondary storage coming in a module (a disk drive) is no longer valid with respect to flash. It is not needed and frankly adds much in the way of costs you can easily avoid. Flash when used as secondary storage should be soldered right on the motherboard.
Quote:
Just do the right thing, and look up the various SSD's on the market, and figure how Apple could use them,and look up the prices. That's all you can do.
No actually that serves no purpose at all. Look up the price of the raw materials instead.
Quote:
Don't try to invent your own technology. If what you want was the correct way to do it, it would be done that way, but it's not, and so it isn't.
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
Quote:
iPods have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all. They are a totally different device, with different needs. So is the ASUS.
Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.
Quote:
I don't care about these lawsuits. In this country, sadly, anyone can sue anyone. The filing of a lawsuit doesn't mean that the case is a valid one.
I never said the suit was valid only to point out that the cost of an incremental increase in flash storage has nothing to do with the price point an item is marketed at. If Apple can charge 10 times or more of the cost of a component in a product don't you think others do also?
Quote:
Sometimes, even the verdict isn't valid. I never agreed that the woman who put a paper cup of hot coffee between her knees and started to drive her car when she crushed the cup and was burned by the coffee deserved to be given money from McDonalds, do you?
Nope. On the other hand it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Quote:
I would call you a cynic, but you're beyond that. Apple makes, at most, a net profit of 15%, that's pretty good, but is by no means excessive.
OK. I will point out that you are the only one that believes that.
I'm firmly convinced that Apple Flash based devices are some of the most profitable in its line up.
Quote:
I would just love to be on the opposite side of the table from you negotiating a business deal. You'd get killed.
I doubt it very much because I'd walk out if I heard this sort of crap with respect ot a business deal.
Quote:
The other day, a friend told me of a conversation her two kids had in the back seat of her car (she owns a business, and that's how the conversations took place).
Her daughter said that she would buy crayons for $0.99, and sell them for $1.99. Her son said that she was crazy, and that was no good.
He said that he would buy them for $0.99 AND sell them for $0.99, and that he would sell a lot more than she would, and he would make much more money.
Ok. but he's 8.
In the case of Apple they are making damn good money on the hardware they sell.
Again you miss the whole point, I'm not talking about the heat produced by a failing battery but rather the heat generated from normal use.
I'm not missing the point at all. I'm talking about the concern industry is having with these things, and why recommendations are for LOWER power density, because that's one of the causes of failure, and very thin batteries already have lower power density. The failure mode of very thin lithium cells is much higher than thick batteries, so this is all important, and must be taken into account when designing a battery, and the device that uses it.
Quote:
Wasn't that taken care of a year or so ago.
The only "care" taken, was the recall of several million batteries, defective or not.
The steps I just outlined above are the recommendations to the industry to "solve" the problem.
Quote:
I'm not at all excited about fuel cells. It is acknowledged that batteries are a problem but on the other hand electronics is improving with respect to power usage. It is not just Intel that has 45nm products as an ARM licensee has indicated that they have a 45nm cell phone platform working. It is still possible to get useful performance increases out of battery powered devices and at the same time lower power input to the device. It is not the end of the world yet with respect to scaling performance and lowering energy usage at the same time.
Whatever the future will bring, is what we will be using. Right now, batteries are the biggest ball and chain the mobile industry has. Fix that, and a whole world opens up.
Quote:
While I will agree that it is a ways from what I'm looking for it is a good example of taking out what is not needed. Apple at the same time has the advantage that every body and their brother wants to sell to Apple and thus gets access to the latest technology. It is very possible for Apple to build a better product with todays technology.
We've had these discussions here many times over the years. Apple won't remove anything that will harm their concept of the proper user experience, that's pretty clear. Apple can get good pricing for their needs when they buy massive quantities, as when they spent $1 billion dollars with several Flash manufacturers. But if they can't rationalize a massive purchase, their pricing won't be any different than anyone elses.
Quote:
Wouldn't make any difference.
Yeah yeah yeah we've all heard this before, and frankly I don't care what you paid for your SanDisk.
You are being deliberately ignorant about this, and there really isn't much point to discuss this area any more because of it.
[quote]
And where did I mention USB? I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to pick an argument or are just a bit dense. The whole point of that paragraph is that the old model of secondary storage coming in a module (a disk drive) is no longer valid with respect to flash. It is not needed and frankly adds much in the way of costs you can easily avoid. Flash when used as secondary storage should be soldered right on the motherboard.[quote]
You have a fixation. That's the problem. I memtioned USB, because that's where the cheap Flash "drive" idea is coming from. That slow memory that isn't used in SSD's.
You keep insisting things that aren't true, and that we all know aren't true. If what you said was correct, there wouldn't be a new industry of SSD's. But there is. You're just making things up.
Quote:
No actually that serves no purpose at all. Look up the price of the raw materials instead.
You really know nothing about manufacturing, do you?
[quote]
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
Quote:
Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.
I never said the suit was valid only to point out that the cost of an incremental increase in flash storage has nothing to do with the price point an item is marketed at. If Apple can charge 10 times or more of the cost of a component in a product don't you think others do also?
Nope. On the other hand it has nothing to do with this discussion.
OK. I will point out that you are the only one that believes that.
I'm firmly convinced that Apple Flash based devices are some of the most profitable in its line up.
I doubt it very much because I'd walk out if I heard this sort of crap with respect ot a business deal.
In the case of Apple they are making damn good money on the hardware they sell.
Dave
There's no point in continuing this, you live in a fantasy world.
The only "care" taken, was the recall of several million batteries, defective or not.
A lot more has happened than that otherwise we would still be seeing batteries catching on fire all over the place. In the case of SONY it appears that they just took some shortcuts with respect to their batteries.
Quote:
Whatever the future will bring, is what we will be using. Right now, batteries are the biggest ball and chain the mobile industry has. Fix that, and a whole world opens up.
Sure batteries or maybe more broadly power supplies are a big issue with respect to portable devices. But better batteries are not the only way to solve the problem of advancing what is possilbe on a portable device. Lowering the power of all components in a device should be just as much a goal as higher energy density in batteries.
Quote:
We've had these discussions here many times over the years. Apple won't remove anything that will harm their concept of the proper user experience, that's pretty clear. Apple can get good pricing for their needs when they buy massive quantities, as when they spent $1 billion dollars with several Flash manufacturers. But if they can't rationalize a massive purchase, their pricing won't be any different than anyone elses.
Ahh but we are not talking about traditional Apple products targeted at traditional users. This is key in realizing that Apple can do what ever it wants because the products are focused differently. For example the iPhone is very much a PC in its capabilities but it is not built with the same wide array of hardware that the desktop or laptop world requires.
Quote:
You are being deliberately ignorant about this, and there really isn't much point to discuss this area any more because of it.
No not really you are just insisting on a position that doesn't reflect reality. It seems that the idea that the price on an item always reflects the cost of the underlying hardware is something you believe in, it just isn't the case.
Quote:
You have a fixation. That's the problem. I memtioned USB, because that's where the cheap Flash "drive" idea is coming from. That slow memory that isn't used in SSD's.
I'm not sure why you think the idea of a cheap USB drive is coming from the USB drive world. In any event they are an example of devices selling for much more than the price of the underlying hardware. It can be seen in the rather fast drops in prices for said devices over relatively short periods of time. Eventually the price drops to reflect only the manufacturing costs and a little profit, where as the initial price mostly covers profits for the manufacture. This has been the way the electronics industry has operated for years.
Quote:
You keep insisting things that aren't true, and that we all know aren't true. If what you said was correct, there wouldn't be a new industry of SSD's. But there is. You're just making things up.
Just what am I making up here. I'm pretty much describing the way the electronics industry has operated for years. Product A is introduced at high prices that certainly don't reflect the cost to manufacture. Eventually the price on A drops over time until there is marginal profit in the device for the company in question.
Quote:
You really know nothing about manufacturing, do you?
Have and am working in manufacturing that is why I've repeated stated that the cost of manufacture does not have much of an impact on pricing. Ideally a company would like its products manufactured at zero cost. That can't happen of course but manufacturing is always striving to lower costs.
[quote]
Quote:
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
There's no point in continuing this, you live in a fantasy world.
Fantasy world? Yeah right try responding to any of my points. Or simply answer thsi question do you believe the extra 8GB of Flash in a 16GB iPod Touch is really worth $100 as a component?
Comments
If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
You wish, but no.
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.
You really must look at the proper products when making these comparisons. You take the cheapest Flash, and assume that that's what's being used. Why don't you look at fast products instead of slow ones?
I've pointed out that my SanDisk 4GB Extreme IV card is $95, and that doesn't include the ATA controller chips or the physical interfacing for it. Try scaling that up to 32 Gb, or 64 GB. The 8 GB version is $190, twice as much.
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
You're failing to understand that an SSD is NOT a Flash USB drive. It's a different beast altogether. It uses different protocols, etc.
Just do the right thing, and look up the various SSD's on the market, and figure how Apple could use them,and look up the prices. That's all you can do.
Don't try to invent your own technology. If what you want was the correct way to do it, it would be done that way, but it's not, and so it isn't.
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
iPods have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all. They are a totally different device, with different needs. So is the ASUS.
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
I don't care about these lawsuits. In this country, sadly, anyone can sue anyone. The filing of a lawsuit doesn't mean that the case is a valid one. Sometimes, even the verdict isn't valid. I never agreed that the woman who put a paper cup of hot coffee between her knees and started to drive her car when she crushed the cup and was burned by the coffee deserved to be given money from McDonalds, do you?
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Dave
I would call you a cynic, but you're beyond that. Apple makes, at most, a net profit of 15%, that's pretty good, but is by no means excessive.
I would just love to be on the opposite side of the table from you negotiating a business deal. You'd get killed.
The other day, a friend told me of a conversation her two kids had in the back seat of her car (she owns a business, and that's how the conversations took place).
Her daughter said that she would buy crayons for $0.99, and sell them for $1.99. Her son said that she was crazy, and that was no good.
He said that he would buy them for $0.99 AND sell them for $0.99, and that he would sell a lot more than she would, and he would make much more money.
Ok. but he's 8.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
Again you miss the whole point, I'm not talking about the heat produced by a failing battery but rather the heat generated from normal use.
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
Wasn't that taken care of a year or so ago.
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
I'm not at all excited about fuel cells. It is acknowledged that batteries are a problem but on the other hand electronics is improving with respect to power usage. It is not just Intel that has 45nm products as an ARM licensee has indicated that they have a 45nm cell phone platform working. It is still possible to get useful performance increases out of battery powered devices and at the same time lower power input to the device. It is not the end of the world yet with respect to scaling performance and lowering energy usage at the same time.
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
While I will agree that it is a ways from what I'm looking for it is a good example of taking out what is not needed. Apple at the same time has the advantage that every body and their brother wants to sell to Apple and thus gets access to the latest technology. It is very possible for Apple to build a better product with todays technology.
You wish, but no.
You really must look at the proper products when making these comparisons. You take the cheapest Flash, and assume that that's what's being used. Why don't you look at fast products instead of slow ones?
Wouldn't make any difference.
I've pointed out that my SanDisk 4GB Extreme IV card is $95, and that doesn't include the ATA controller chips or the physical interfacing for it. Try scaling that up to 32 Gb, or 64 GB. The 8 GB version is $190, twice as much.
Yeah yeah yeah we've all heard this before, and frankly I don't care what you paid for your SanDisk.
You're failing to understand that an SSD is NOT a Flash USB drive. It's a different beast altogether. It uses different protocols, etc.
And where did I mention USB? I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to pick an argument or are just a bit dense. The whole point of that paragraph is that the old model of secondary storage coming in a module (a disk drive) is no longer valid with respect to flash. It is not needed and frankly adds much in the way of costs you can easily avoid. Flash when used as secondary storage should be soldered right on the motherboard.
Just do the right thing, and look up the various SSD's on the market, and figure how Apple could use them,and look up the prices. That's all you can do.
No actually that serves no purpose at all. Look up the price of the raw materials instead.
Don't try to invent your own technology. If what you want was the correct way to do it, it would be done that way, but it's not, and so it isn't.
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
iPods have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all. They are a totally different device, with different needs. So is the ASUS.
Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.
I don't care about these lawsuits. In this country, sadly, anyone can sue anyone. The filing of a lawsuit doesn't mean that the case is a valid one.
I never said the suit was valid only to point out that the cost of an incremental increase in flash storage has nothing to do with the price point an item is marketed at. If Apple can charge 10 times or more of the cost of a component in a product don't you think others do also?
Sometimes, even the verdict isn't valid. I never agreed that the woman who put a paper cup of hot coffee between her knees and started to drive her car when she crushed the cup and was burned by the coffee deserved to be given money from McDonalds, do you?
Nope. On the other hand it has nothing to do with this discussion.
I would call you a cynic, but you're beyond that. Apple makes, at most, a net profit of 15%, that's pretty good, but is by no means excessive.
OK. I will point out that you are the only one that believes that.
I'm firmly convinced that Apple Flash based devices are some of the most profitable in its line up.
I would just love to be on the opposite side of the table from you negotiating a business deal. You'd get killed.
I doubt it very much because I'd walk out if I heard this sort of crap with respect ot a business deal.
The other day, a friend told me of a conversation her two kids had in the back seat of her car (she owns a business, and that's how the conversations took place).
Her daughter said that she would buy crayons for $0.99, and sell them for $1.99. Her son said that she was crazy, and that was no good.
He said that he would buy them for $0.99 AND sell them for $0.99, and that he would sell a lot more than she would, and he would make much more money.
Ok. but he's 8.
In the case of Apple they are making damn good money on the hardware they sell.
Dave
Again you miss the whole point, I'm not talking about the heat produced by a failing battery but rather the heat generated from normal use.
I'm not missing the point at all. I'm talking about the concern industry is having with these things, and why recommendations are for LOWER power density, because that's one of the causes of failure, and very thin batteries already have lower power density. The failure mode of very thin lithium cells is much higher than thick batteries, so this is all important, and must be taken into account when designing a battery, and the device that uses it.
Wasn't that taken care of a year or so ago.
The only "care" taken, was the recall of several million batteries, defective or not.
The steps I just outlined above are the recommendations to the industry to "solve" the problem.
I'm not at all excited about fuel cells. It is acknowledged that batteries are a problem but on the other hand electronics is improving with respect to power usage. It is not just Intel that has 45nm products as an ARM licensee has indicated that they have a 45nm cell phone platform working. It is still possible to get useful performance increases out of battery powered devices and at the same time lower power input to the device. It is not the end of the world yet with respect to scaling performance and lowering energy usage at the same time.
Whatever the future will bring, is what we will be using. Right now, batteries are the biggest ball and chain the mobile industry has. Fix that, and a whole world opens up.
While I will agree that it is a ways from what I'm looking for it is a good example of taking out what is not needed. Apple at the same time has the advantage that every body and their brother wants to sell to Apple and thus gets access to the latest technology. It is very possible for Apple to build a better product with todays technology.
We've had these discussions here many times over the years. Apple won't remove anything that will harm their concept of the proper user experience, that's pretty clear. Apple can get good pricing for their needs when they buy massive quantities, as when they spent $1 billion dollars with several Flash manufacturers. But if they can't rationalize a massive purchase, their pricing won't be any different than anyone elses.
Wouldn't make any difference.
Yeah yeah yeah we've all heard this before, and frankly I don't care what you paid for your SanDisk.
You are being deliberately ignorant about this, and there really isn't much point to discuss this area any more because of it.
[quote]
And where did I mention USB? I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to pick an argument or are just a bit dense. The whole point of that paragraph is that the old model of secondary storage coming in a module (a disk drive) is no longer valid with respect to flash. It is not needed and frankly adds much in the way of costs you can easily avoid. Flash when used as secondary storage should be soldered right on the motherboard.[quote]
You have a fixation. That's the problem. I memtioned USB, because that's where the cheap Flash "drive" idea is coming from. That slow memory that isn't used in SSD's.
You keep insisting things that aren't true, and that we all know aren't true. If what you said was correct, there wouldn't be a new industry of SSD's. But there is. You're just making things up.
No actually that serves no purpose at all. Look up the price of the raw materials instead.
You really know nothing about manufacturing, do you?
[quote]
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.
I never said the suit was valid only to point out that the cost of an incremental increase in flash storage has nothing to do with the price point an item is marketed at. If Apple can charge 10 times or more of the cost of a component in a product don't you think others do also?
Nope. On the other hand it has nothing to do with this discussion.
OK. I will point out that you are the only one that believes that.
I'm firmly convinced that Apple Flash based devices are some of the most profitable in its line up.
I doubt it very much because I'd walk out if I heard this sort of crap with respect ot a business deal.
In the case of Apple they are making damn good money on the hardware they sell.
Dave
There's no point in continuing this, you live in a fantasy world.
The only "care" taken, was the recall of several million batteries, defective or not.
A lot more has happened than that otherwise we would still be seeing batteries catching on fire all over the place. In the case of SONY it appears that they just took some shortcuts with respect to their batteries.
Whatever the future will bring, is what we will be using. Right now, batteries are the biggest ball and chain the mobile industry has. Fix that, and a whole world opens up.
Sure batteries or maybe more broadly power supplies are a big issue with respect to portable devices. But better batteries are not the only way to solve the problem of advancing what is possilbe on a portable device. Lowering the power of all components in a device should be just as much a goal as higher energy density in batteries.
We've had these discussions here many times over the years. Apple won't remove anything that will harm their concept of the proper user experience, that's pretty clear. Apple can get good pricing for their needs when they buy massive quantities, as when they spent $1 billion dollars with several Flash manufacturers. But if they can't rationalize a massive purchase, their pricing won't be any different than anyone elses.
Ahh but we are not talking about traditional Apple products targeted at traditional users. This is key in realizing that Apple can do what ever it wants because the products are focused differently. For example the iPhone is very much a PC in its capabilities but it is not built with the same wide array of hardware that the desktop or laptop world requires.
You are being deliberately ignorant about this, and there really isn't much point to discuss this area any more because of it.
No not really you are just insisting on a position that doesn't reflect reality. It seems that the idea that the price on an item always reflects the cost of the underlying hardware is something you believe in, it just isn't the case.
You have a fixation. That's the problem. I memtioned USB, because that's where the cheap Flash "drive" idea is coming from. That slow memory that isn't used in SSD's.
I'm not sure why you think the idea of a cheap USB drive is coming from the USB drive world. In any event they are an example of devices selling for much more than the price of the underlying hardware. It can be seen in the rather fast drops in prices for said devices over relatively short periods of time. Eventually the price drops to reflect only the manufacturing costs and a little profit, where as the initial price mostly covers profits for the manufacture. This has been the way the electronics industry has operated for years.
You keep insisting things that aren't true, and that we all know aren't true. If what you said was correct, there wouldn't be a new industry of SSD's. But there is. You're just making things up.
Just what am I making up here. I'm pretty much describing the way the electronics industry has operated for years. Product A is introduced at high prices that certainly don't reflect the cost to manufacture. Eventually the price on A drops over time until there is marginal profit in the device for the company in question.
You really know nothing about manufacturing, do you?
Have and am working in manufacturing that is why I've repeated stated that the cost of manufacture does not have much of an impact on pricing. Ideally a company would like its products manufactured at zero cost. That can't happen of course but manufacturing is always striving to lower costs.
[quote]
Since when is soldering a component to a motherboard inventing new technology?
There's no point in continuing this, you live in a fantasy world.
Fantasy world? Yeah right try responding to any of my points. Or simply answer thsi question do you believe the extra 8GB of Flash in a 16GB iPod Touch is really worth $100 as a component?
dave