Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.
Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.
I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.
Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.
There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.
OK, if you are a GAMER or Watch BLU-Ray Content....then i could understand your gripes, I don't play games on an X-Box or PS3 nor do i own/have (the desire to watch) Blue-Ray Media it cost too much and I am perfectly HAPPY with 720p- so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too
The type of display has little to do with it. Whether it's front or rear projection has nothing to do with the power used. To get the same size image, you need the same brightness, which means the same size projector bulb.
My rear projector uses three LEDs for illumination. It uses less power than a rear projection plasma, a front projection, or other forms of rear projection. LCd Tvs with LED backlighting also have lower power use. There are a small handful of front projectors out now that use RGB LEDs like my model, but they cost $10,000 and more. Ready to go for one now?
I'm not hellbent on the future of LED projection; it's coming, it's gonna be dirt cheap, and the current 'tank' television will be even cheaper on the resell. Try selling a used flat panel not even a year old. It's worth 40% of it's value; China has pumped these egregious, power-sucking devices into the American I.V. at an alarming rate since 2005.
That said, the point of having an "Apple TV" is specifically to have a TV/DVR/CONVERTOR BOX/INTERNET MEDIA DATABASE--ALL-IN-ONE that stays at home and functions as your entertainment assistant. The current build simply sucks, and does nothing but play as an extra box of electronics in the cabinet. By not including a simple ATSC HD cable option with Apple-engineered DVR software suggests they have no interest in making the living room an optimized experience. Live television, despite how awful it can be at times, is still the most watched by the numbers. Try watching a live sporting event through iTunes, or the news, etc.
Apple appears mainly interested in selling you rentals and movies/shows through iTunes. If they actually wanted to reinvent the living room, they would've included the above mentioned in their hardware--as a start at least.
The obvious solution is a Mac Mini Server + Elgato. iOS4 is great, but it's not needed as a home entertainment system when a Mac Mini will simply serve as a much better option than this $99 joke.
so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too
I don't play video games beyond my computer and I don't own any Blu-ray disks. I have 1080p video content that I would like to view on a television. Having a standalone Apple product dedicated to store/display this content (as well as photos, music, et. al.) on a television designed for 1080p is what I desire. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell me such a device. As such, I'll keep waiting until said device exists to give me a reason to purchase it and a television.
WAIT new Apple TV is only 720p? WTF??? (this was my lil bro's response yesterday..
(so here is my reply....)
The current answer is sort of as follows of the 1080p question in GEEK SPEAK is...
*
(i said?) if your talking about watching cable tv over the air' (cable co's are linear networks) - AINT NOBODY broadcasting TRUE REAL 1080p media it cost them a whole lotto $$$ to upgrade to be able to broadcast 720p and 1080i, i doubt we'll see 1080p for another 5-10 years. By that time, there will be something better out there worth them upgrading to.
we've been sold FOOLS GOLD with all these numbers and specs -
APPLE is not dumb they understand that there is no need for the over kill and if you already have an XBox or PS3 then you will have that plugged in to your Flat Panel thru one of the many HDMI inputs, why waste the extra $$ on the higher 'p' for?? (hence the new low price of $99. vers $229.)
What benefit would there be to the consumer, broadcaster and/or manufacturer to increase resolution beyond what we have today? Even if the bandwidth existed, and if you believe the seating charts BS that at 10' you would have to have a display of about 80" before you would begin to notice the benefit of 1440 (real true HD 1080p). The majority of sets being sold are in the 40-50" range, most viewers (at 10') are not even seeing the benefit of 1080p.
it (APPLE TV) will sell in the millions.. trust me.
Pragmatically and in relation to internet-based streaming I agree with you, but marketing a product also has psychological aspects, something which Apple typically excels at and something I think Apple missed on two counts with yesterday?s announcement.
I don?t think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. It?s the one thing all the other media extender appliances can?t compete with.
It also would have gone a long way to quelling many of the ?why do I need this?? and ?such-and-such device already does this blah blah blah?, even though there is no device that offers all the features, build quality or UI even this $99 AppleTV has.
How long does it even take to start a $70 Blu-ray player movie and what kind of UX and UI is there for accessing Netflix on these cheap devices?
I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Let?s face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming won?t be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.
Just like with 3G v. 4G tech they won?t look the bit rate of Apple?s 720p v. cable?s 1080i, for example, they will just see the higher number and assume more is better (and based on the definition of just the numeric value they would be technically correct, if ultimately incorrect).
If Apple offered a larger AppleTV, say built into the aluminium case of the current Mac Mini, using the same components as the $99 AppleTV but with a 3.5? HDD (note that no iOS-based device has ever support HDDs) for 1 to 2TB of local storage and 1080p they could have had an expensive option for those that are too foolish to know better, those that want the large local data storage and HP 1080p, which is still a viable option on a LAN, on a device with local storage and, let?s face it, from ripped Blu-ray titles.
Sure, most Blu-ray rips will need the MKV container replaced, but that is child?s play and it may help get more of these uploaded rips to stop using this container while selling an AppleTV that is probably double the cost of the old AppleTV.
They could market these two devices for different televisions, which modern homes tend to have several of. You have the $399 AppleTV Pro for your 1080p widescreen TV and the $99 AppleTV Mini for all the other TVs in bedrooms that are probably smaller anyway and likely don?t have 1080p as it is. They could then use Bonjour (Zero-Config Networking) so these multiple AppleTV Minis could access the content from the flagship AppleTV Pro?s HDD, as well all other devices with iTunes connected.
I believe that both of these things are well in reach of Apple?s technical abilities and would have made Apple the industry leader for the living room and turned this hobby into a bona fide leg instantly.
I agree they will sell millions and I also think the old AppleTV isthe most successful media extender appliances to ever hit the market, but I think they could have dominated an excessive number of TVs in a very short time and a long time to come if they had done things just a little differently.
It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
His comments, whether he realizes it or not, only apply to the processor. He ought to realize it, based on links he's posted in the past to "prove" it, but I think he's here to make political points more than anything else.
What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.
Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.
Do you have a Blu ray player Carmissimo? If you do and you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at 14ft then you may want to get your eyes checked. I can see a huge difference on a 46" TV at 11ft. It's not in my imagination. Maybe it's because I had Lasik a few years ago....I don't know...but to me the difference is night and day. You're insulting everyone's intelligence when you are telling people that clearly see a difference that it's all in their head. Could it be that your eyes and brain just aren't that good at processing a video signal?
It will be interesting to see how long it takes someone to hack it to run iOS - big trick will be interaction though. I am sure this is why Apple did not make it run iOS in the first place.
Yeah Divx support may be interesting especially streaming the MKV but ALL of mine is 1080p!
The specs that Apple has in their store for this give everything that it will do as far as codecs are concerned. No, it won't do DivX, etc. I wish that had never been invented. It's inferior, and a pain in the butt. Just another proprietory format we don't need.
Unfortunately they are here and for some people it would be nice to have them supported. Number of DVD/DVR boxes do play DivX/XViD, so I'd guess they are a bit more popular around than you suggest.
Quote:
Nevertheless, Apple is basically supporting formats that are either open, or have been well accepted. That includes H.264, Mpeg 4, and MJpeg. About 95% of all video is in those codecs, or formats. I don't know if it will be able to stream from a NAS. It would depend on how sophisticated the NAS is. What OS it uses. There are NASs that use Windows Home Server. It might work with those as it works with a Windows machine.
No, not Windows Home Server. NAS box like Netgear ReadyNAS NV+.
Quote:
How would you suggest people run media on their computers already? Streaming seems to be a good way to do it. Who would buy this if they didn't already have a computer?
Someone who doesn't want computer to stream media from the Internet..? Like, people with only one computer that don't want their machine to be plugged to TV all the time (or to keep plugging/unplugging on occasion)?
[list=1][*]I don?t think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. It?s the one thing all the other media extender appliances can?t compete with.
[*]I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Let?s face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming won?t be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.
1) Why not? They're going to sell quite a few of these things, and like the iPhone1 before it the AppStore support is just software. It can be upgraded.
2) Too complicated at this point. Maybe if (when?) an AppStore for it happens. Until then do 1 model, keep the price to a rock bottom so that people interested by what they have now will buy what they have now.
When they've sold a few million, open an AppStore and presto! instant market for developers.
While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
I don't know, you would have to ask Apple. The other people who really know the answer are http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ and Samsung
The A4 and Hummingbird SOCs both use the same graphics processor and in the incarnation used in the IP4 and Samsung Wave and Galaxy the amount of RAM included in the package is also the same. The designation for the Samsung part is S5PC110 while the A4 is S5PC110A01
What else would there be to be optimised for Apples 'needs'?
While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.
http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.
Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.
http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.
Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.
Thanks for the link. It proves, however, that you're wrong. Or at least you are being sloppy with your terminology. Current practice is to refer to the whole silicon die as the "processor". Companies typically license components from various design houses and then assemble their SoC processor chip from those. This is what Apple did -- one component is indeed the Samsung ARM core. The article you quote includes whole die photos that very clearly show that aside from the CPU core, the rest of the processor is quite different from the Samsung chip. It isn't clear to me whether this analysis could detect very low level changes to the transistor level substrate, but it is clear that Apple did not rearrange the core's layout and most likely that means Apple was focusing on the rest of the chip. My understanding is that this is the sort of work Intrinsity was doing.
My guess is that PA Semi's efforts for Apple are yet to be seen. Their expertise is in taking a core and changing it to optimize it's performance/watt. I speculate that the next Apple custom silicon will include an A9 core or two that has been significantly optimized uniquely to Apple, along with the next PowerVR GPU (perhaps similarly optimized), and a custom set of on chip components.
[QUOTE=cnocbui;1706813]It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices:]
If you took the time to do a bit more research into the review you quote, you might realize that while the "core" CPU of the A4 may well be identical to the "core" CPU of the Hummingbird, the rest of the die clearly is visually VERY different (ie Hummingbird is NOT the same as A4). Apple never stated that the entire A4 was custom. The report you quote simply states that the CPU core of both dies appear to be the same, NOT that the two application processors (ie CPU along with the rest of the on-die circuitry) are the same. What Apple and Intrincity did with the "other" circuitry on the die of the A4 has a major impact on how the device performs as well as what it actually does in hardwire vs software.
Comments
I rather doubt that.
Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.
Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.
I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.
Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.
There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.
OK, if you are a GAMER or Watch BLU-Ray Content....then i could understand your gripes, I don't play games on an X-Box or PS3 nor do i own/have (the desire to watch) Blue-Ray Media it cost too much and I am perfectly HAPPY with 720p- so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too
The type of display has little to do with it. Whether it's front or rear projection has nothing to do with the power used. To get the same size image, you need the same brightness, which means the same size projector bulb.
My rear projector uses three LEDs for illumination. It uses less power than a rear projection plasma, a front projection, or other forms of rear projection. LCd Tvs with LED backlighting also have lower power use. There are a small handful of front projectors out now that use RGB LEDs like my model, but they cost $10,000 and more. Ready to go for one now?
I'm not hellbent on the future of LED projection; it's coming, it's gonna be dirt cheap, and the current 'tank' television will be even cheaper on the resell. Try selling a used flat panel not even a year old. It's worth 40% of it's value; China has pumped these egregious, power-sucking devices into the American I.V. at an alarming rate since 2005.
That said, the point of having an "Apple TV" is specifically to have a TV/DVR/CONVERTOR BOX/INTERNET MEDIA DATABASE--ALL-IN-ONE that stays at home and functions as your entertainment assistant. The current build simply sucks, and does nothing but play as an extra box of electronics in the cabinet. By not including a simple ATSC HD cable option with Apple-engineered DVR software suggests they have no interest in making the living room an optimized experience. Live television, despite how awful it can be at times, is still the most watched by the numbers. Try watching a live sporting event through iTunes, or the news, etc.
Apple appears mainly interested in selling you rentals and movies/shows through iTunes. If they actually wanted to reinvent the living room, they would've included the above mentioned in their hardware--as a start at least.
The obvious solution is a Mac Mini Server + Elgato. iOS4 is great, but it's not needed as a home entertainment system when a Mac Mini will simply serve as a much better option than this $99 joke.
so if u GAME/Blue Ray just plug in those devices into your very expensively overpriced HD LCD/LED 1080p capable TV screen... i don't need too
I don't play video games beyond my computer and I don't own any Blu-ray disks. I have 1080p video content that I would like to view on a television. Having a standalone Apple product dedicated to store/display this content (as well as photos, music, et. al.) on a television designed for 1080p is what I desire. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell me such a device. As such, I'll keep waiting until said device exists to give me a reason to purchase it and a television.
WAIT new Apple TV is only 720p? WTF??? (this was my lil bro's response yesterday..
(so here is my reply....)
The current answer is sort of as follows of the 1080p question in GEEK SPEAK is...
*
(i said?) if your talking about watching cable tv over the air' (cable co's are linear networks) - AINT NOBODY broadcasting TRUE REAL 1080p media it cost them a whole lotto $$$ to upgrade to be able to broadcast 720p and 1080i, i doubt we'll see 1080p for another 5-10 years. By that time, there will be something better out there worth them upgrading to.
we've been sold FOOLS GOLD with all these numbers and specs -
APPLE is not dumb they understand that there is no need for the over kill and if you already have an XBox or PS3 then you will have that plugged in to your Flat Panel thru one of the many HDMI inputs, why waste the extra $$ on the higher 'p' for?? (hence the new low price of $99. vers $229.)
What benefit would there be to the consumer, broadcaster and/or manufacturer to increase resolution beyond what we have today? Even if the bandwidth existed, and if you believe the seating charts BS that at 10' you would have to have a display of about 80" before you would begin to notice the benefit of 1440 (real true HD 1080p). The majority of sets being sold are in the 40-50" range, most viewers (at 10') are not even seeing the benefit of 1080p.
it (APPLE TV) will sell in the millions.. trust me.
Pragmatically and in relation to internet-based streaming I agree with you, but marketing a product also has psychological aspects, something which Apple typically excels at and something I think Apple missed on two counts with yesterday?s announcement.
- I don?t think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. It?s the one thing all the other media extender appliances can?t compete with.
- I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Let?s face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming won?t be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.
I believe that both of these things are well in reach of Apple?s technical abilities and would have made Apple the industry leader for the living room and turned this hobby into a bona fide leg instantly.It also would have gone a long way to quelling many of the ?why do I need this?? and ?such-and-such device already does this blah blah blah?, even though there is no device that offers all the features, build quality or UI even this $99 AppleTV has.
How long does it even take to start a $70 Blu-ray player movie and what kind of UX and UI is there for accessing Netflix on these cheap devices?
Just like with 3G v. 4G tech they won?t look the bit rate of Apple?s 720p v. cable?s 1080i, for example, they will just see the higher number and assume more is better (and based on the definition of just the numeric value they would be technically correct, if ultimately incorrect).
If Apple offered a larger AppleTV, say built into the aluminium case of the current Mac Mini, using the same components as the $99 AppleTV but with a 3.5? HDD (note that no iOS-based device has ever support HDDs) for 1 to 2TB of local storage and 1080p they could have had an expensive option for those that are too foolish to know better, those that want the large local data storage and HP 1080p, which is still a viable option on a LAN, on a device with local storage and, let?s face it, from ripped Blu-ray titles.
Sure, most Blu-ray rips will need the MKV container replaced, but that is child?s play and it may help get more of these uploaded rips to stop using this container while selling an AppleTV that is probably double the cost of the old AppleTV.
They could market these two devices for different televisions, which modern homes tend to have several of. You have the $399 AppleTV Pro for your 1080p widescreen TV and the $99 AppleTV Mini for all the other TVs in bedrooms that are probably smaller anyway and likely don?t have 1080p as it is. They could then use Bonjour (Zero-Config Networking) so these multiple AppleTV Minis could access the content from the flagship AppleTV Pro?s HDD, as well all other devices with iTunes connected.
I agree they will sell millions and I also think the old AppleTV isthe most successful media extender appliances to ever hit the market, but I think they could have dominated an excessive number of TVs in a very short time and a long time to come if they had done things just a little differently.
It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
His comments, whether he realizes it or not, only apply to the processor. He ought to realize it, based on links he's posted in the past to "prove" it, but I think he's here to make political points more than anything else.
What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.
Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.
Do you have a Blu ray player Carmissimo? If you do and you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at 14ft then you may want to get your eyes checked. I can see a huge difference on a 46" TV at 11ft. It's not in my imagination. Maybe it's because I had Lasik a few years ago....I don't know...but to me the difference is night and day. You're insulting everyone's intelligence when you are telling people that clearly see a difference that it's all in their head. Could it be that your eyes and brain just aren't that good at processing a video signal?
It will be interesting to see how long it takes someone to hack it to run iOS - big trick will be interaction though. I am sure this is why Apple did not make it run iOS in the first place.
Yeah Divx support may be interesting especially streaming the MKV but ALL of mine is 1080p!
The specs that Apple has in their store for this give everything that it will do as far as codecs are concerned. No, it won't do DivX, etc. I wish that had never been invented. It's inferior, and a pain in the butt. Just another proprietory format we don't need.
Unfortunately they are here and for some people it would be nice to have them supported. Number of DVD/DVR boxes do play DivX/XViD, so I'd guess they are a bit more popular around than you suggest.
Nevertheless, Apple is basically supporting formats that are either open, or have been well accepted. That includes H.264, Mpeg 4, and MJpeg. About 95% of all video is in those codecs, or formats. I don't know if it will be able to stream from a NAS. It would depend on how sophisticated the NAS is. What OS it uses. There are NASs that use Windows Home Server. It might work with those as it works with a Windows machine.
No, not Windows Home Server. NAS box like Netgear ReadyNAS NV+.
How would you suggest people run media on their computers already? Streaming seems to be a good way to do it. Who would buy this if they didn't already have a computer?
Someone who doesn't want computer to stream media from the Internet..? Like, people with only one computer that don't want their machine to be plugged to TV all the time (or to keep plugging/unplugging on occasion)?
Ironic.
Cryptic. Why?
[list=1][*]I don?t think this device should have been revealed until they had an SDK available. It?s the one thing all the other media extender appliances can?t compete with.
[*]I think Apple should have offered a 2nd AppleTV as the flagship model for those that want local storage and those that want 1080p. Let?s face it, even if cable, sat, and internet streaming won?t be able to feasibly offer high-profile 1080p comparable to the current Blu-ray titles for many, many years there is still a huge amount of the population that is ignorant of anything but the marketing terminology.
1) Why not? They're going to sell quite a few of these things, and like the iPhone1 before it the AppStore support is just software. It can be upgraded.
2) Too complicated at this point. Maybe if (when?) an AppStore for it happens. Until then do 1 model, keep the price to a rock bottom so that people interested by what they have now will buy what they have now.
When they've sold a few million, open an AppStore and presto! instant market for developers.
It is not 'custom-built' it is an off-the-shelf and re-badged Samsung Hummingbird processor, as has been revealed by x-raying the two devices:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19833...hone_ipad.html
While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.
Does the A4 refer to the entire PoP/SoC or just the Samsung processor because it sounds like you are ignoring the focus to optimize this complete package for Apple?s needs, which includes power efficiency from Intrinsity.
I don't know, you would have to ask Apple. The other people who really know the answer are http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ and Samsung
The A4 and Hummingbird SOCs both use the same graphics processor and in the incarnation used in the IP4 and Samsung Wave and Galaxy the amount of RAM included in the package is also the same. The designation for the Samsung part is S5PC110 while the A4 is S5PC110A01
What else would there be to be optimised for Apples 'needs'?
While I agree with some of your points, the x-ray images don't prove anything except that the core was licensed by Apple for use as a starting point. We can't discern enough detail from the x-rays to tell if they have made any changes, nor what company the people who may have made those hypothesized changes may have joined Apple from. There are lots of things that can be done at the extremely detailed level which would result in identical looking x-rays but which have major impacts on the performance of the chip.
http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.
Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.
http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/ are the people who seem to know, having dissected the respective chips. It is their conclusion that the they are one and the same.
Basically my point is that the ra-ra pom-pom waving about the A4 being an Apple creation does not hold up to any reasonable scrutiny and AI should stop stating it as fact. You can hypothesise the involvement of Aliens from the Galactic core all you want, but it is a long way from being satisfactory contrary evidence.
Thanks for the link. It proves, however, that you're wrong. Or at least you are being sloppy with your terminology. Current practice is to refer to the whole silicon die as the "processor". Companies typically license components from various design houses and then assemble their SoC processor chip from those. This is what Apple did -- one component is indeed the Samsung ARM core. The article you quote includes whole die photos that very clearly show that aside from the CPU core, the rest of the processor is quite different from the Samsung chip. It isn't clear to me whether this analysis could detect very low level changes to the transistor level substrate, but it is clear that Apple did not rearrange the core's layout and most likely that means Apple was focusing on the rest of the chip. My understanding is that this is the sort of work Intrinsity was doing.
My guess is that PA Semi's efforts for Apple are yet to be seen. Their expertise is in taking a core and changing it to optimize it's performance/watt. I speculate that the next Apple custom silicon will include an A9 core or two that has been significantly optimized uniquely to Apple, along with the next PowerVR GPU (perhaps similarly optimized), and a custom set of on chip components.
If you took the time to do a bit more research into the review you quote, you might realize that while the "core" CPU of the A4 may well be identical to the "core" CPU of the Hummingbird, the rest of the die clearly is visually VERY different (ie Hummingbird is NOT the same as A4). Apple never stated that the entire A4 was custom. The report you quote simply states that the CPU core of both dies appear to be the same, NOT that the two application processors (ie CPU along with the rest of the on-die circuitry) are the same. What Apple and Intrincity did with the "other" circuitry on the die of the A4 has a major impact on how the device performs as well as what it actually does in hardwire vs software.
dt