But I'm with RIM on this one, Apple fan though I am. 7" will be a compelling form factor. Not better than 10", I trust Jobs on that, just different: in a way that a MacBook Air 11" is from a 17" MacBook Pro. Buyers of one have different needs & preferences to the other. Jobs spouted marketing BS about filing fingers down for a 7" device. If you can use iOS on an 3.5" iPod Touch, you could use it on a 7" device. Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed.
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down too far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does." Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
iPhone is doing well in enterprise, and it seems to be gaining by the day. And enterprise sales are RIM's bread and butter. I'd be surprised if RIM lasts another 5 or 6 years, let alone 10.
5 or 6 years on sounds about right ... and by then I wonder if (and if so, who) will buy them just before they die ..? Microsoft perhaps during its own death thrashes or one of the PC makers during theirs ...
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.
You mean like all the people here who were hoping they would be able to tether the iPad to the iPhones they already owned? Imagine Apple had come up with it. People here would have been calling it a great idea but since it's not Apple, it's clearly a stupid concept.
No the problem with RIM's implementation is that a BB is basically required to get any kind of work or productivity stuff done. People wanted to tether the iPhone because they already had existing data plans for those devices, and didn't want to pay another $30/month for data on the iPad
Don't count RIM out just yet. They recently acquired a UI company called TAT which had a UI replacement for Android but never released it. A tablet with a UI like this might just sell very well.
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.
With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.
Yes 7" is a compromise size.
So is 3.5" iPhone.
So is a 9.7" iPad.
All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.
Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.
All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.
This is completely false. As we all know, the iPad was being developed at least at the same time as the iPhone, if not before. Apple wisely held off until they had all the kinks worked out with the iPhone.
That's one thing that Apple does brilliantly that no one else seems to grasp: they don't release half-baked products or features.
This is what I don't get about Microsoft, Research In Motion and all the others.
Apple only introduced a competing product a few years ago because they took the time to develop what people wanted. And it shows in the sales figures and market percentages.
These other companies were already invested with resources and mindshare in these markets and appear to be scrambling. How did they get so complacent that an "upstart" like Apple wiped the floor with them. If anything, Apple should be the one worried about all the secret projects these companies must have had going on for the last decade that are just waiting to see the light of day.
As a shareholder, I would really hate to think the latest round of products from these companies is catch-up technology that has not matured in the lab as well as Apple's has. But it sure looks like it is.
1. RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis.
2. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
3. In November, RIM posted a comparison video between the iPad and the PlayBook, touting the PlayBook's ability to run Flash.
4. The competition between Apple and RIM has increased as RIM prepares to enter the tablet market, in which Apple has taken a substantial early lead.
1. That's fairly obvious aye?!
2. I thought CEO's that wanted to stay in business would research and take other CEOs words as gold. Jobs has stated that apple designed the OS for a tablet and thought it would also work for a phone.
3. Flash as an ability...more like disability...
4. Substantial is understatement. more like total domination. Where are those incredible sales numbers for the Samsung? waiting...waiting... Playbook come out first and then we will talk about you making a dent in the market..
No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.
With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.
Yes 7" is a compromise size.
So is 3.5" iPhone.
So is a 9.7" iPad.
All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .
Your argument is basically that function ought to follow form. My argument is that form, which includes screen size, ought to follow function. Sure, you can make a UI that is "useable" on almost any screen size, but to what purpose? A 7" screen completely changes what the device is all about, gives you none of the convenience of a phone, and none of the purpose of a 10" tablet. You are basically arguing that there are an infinite number of screen sizes that are optimal, which might be true if we qualify it with, "for particular niche applications," but it isn't true for general purpose devices.
Quote:
Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.
All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.
Is an ebook better on a 7" device? What if you want to read in landscape/2-page mode? Not so much. However, if all you want is an ebook reader, then, quite seriously, you are probably better off with a Kindle. As a general purpose tablet computing device, a larger screen opens the device to a greater range of possible applications and functions, and a smaller screen restricts it. Too large and it becomes unwieldy. Too small and it becomes less generally useful. A 7" tablet still doesn't fit in your jeans pocket, but it's also not very useful for editing a word processing document; yeah, you can do it, but you can't do it with the same ease.
A 7" tablet is going to be an exercise in frustration. Barely more functional than a phone, much less easy to carry around. Everything is a compromise to some extent, but the key to success is to make the right compromises, not assuming that all compromises are equal. The 7" tablet form factor makes all the wrong compromises.
I'm not sure RiM is still in business after 10 years.
Exactly what I thought when I was reading this.
I think they came out with the "All of this is coming together to set up BlackBerry for the next decade." line to try and reassure investors that they are a good investment for the future. Sounds more like "Honest, we'll be here in 10 years! And we'll be the bestest company evah!" The man doth protest too much.
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
This struck me as particularly egregious. Surely everyone at RIM is aware that iOS is a flavor of OS X, and that far from an "upgrade of a mobile phone OS" that the the iPad runs the same OS X underpinnings as every iOS device.
I get that RIM has some catching up to do, but (in so far as I can even make out what Lazaridis is saying) he appears to be trying to claim that their every misstep and slow reaction to date has been part of a very clever master plan, wherein the BB OS remains relatively lackluster because those darn phones just can't handle the awesomeness that they've intended for next gen kit all along, and that QNX is the first true tablet OS (conveniently, because they can't figure out how to get it to work on their phones yet).
And when it does work on their phones then it will be an awesome phone OS, despite having explicitly made noise about purpose built tablet-ness and the phone being another kind of thing different from what tablets need. Or something.
At any rate, RIM was shrewd to hold tight till real soon now, because the hardware is finally catching up with their vision, never mind iOS and Android who apparently are offering half baked non-awesome solutions on not really sufficient hardware.
Did any of you guys (and girls) watch the Lazaridis interview? The guy is completely incomprehensible and never answers any question directly--he is the Donald Rumsfeld of tech.
Amazing how Jobs can directly answer questions about suicides at Foxconn, yet this jackwagon can't directly answer questions about hi-tech toys.
My biggest doubts regarding the Playbook aren't specs, size, cores, OS, etc. I derive the most concern from the people I've seen demonstrating and talking about the Playbook. The people at RIM are the problem.
The demo given at Rogers Tablife was done by a stodgy old intellectual. Undoubtably very smart and successful, but apparently lacking any understanding of the world outside of RIM's traditionally successful niche. And when asked why someone should choose the Playbook his first answer was that it has two cameras. His first answer was a technical specification (not a benefit) that every other tablet will have by the time Playbook is on the market.
Then Mike gets up at D and does the exact same thing (but less coherently). Portrays himself as a stodgy old man who only seems to know RIM's history and is predicting the future based on their isolated history. Poor MIke didn't have a chance to explain why people should choose Playbook because he couldn't get past the basic questions on what it was and how it fit into RIM's product portfolio.
There does not seem to be any outward acknowledgment that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed. There is no acknowledgement that the methods RIM used to achieve success 10 years ago are in need of a revamp over the next 10 years. RIM really needs to show that they have a vision, and a passion for that vision. Right now they have a piece of hardware and an OS (or at least half an OS).
Yes, Apple, who bought PA Semi that designed a low power version of the Power Architecture AND Intrinsity, who designed the Hummingbird core, has no chops to design a dual-core Cortex A9 with Samsung as a partner for the iPhone 5.
Never mind that the A9 is also actually more efficient than the A8 on a per cycle basis, has lower idle power, can idle an unused core and can be clocked for less time (or clocked lower) to do a task than on the A8.
Never mind that Ti is claiming it will be shipping Dual Core A9 OMAP4430s for use in smartphones before the end of 2010 and several dual core A9 phones (LG) are already announced for 2011 launch probably before the iPhone 5.
Wanna bet that Apple already has a dual core A9 design done already?
Another example of you making bald assertions not based remotely on reality.
TI can claim whatever they want --- but if you look at the Playbook demo video from last Friday and freeze frame the video (as Crackberry.com had done), you would have found out that the Playbook demo unit is running on OMAP4430 (not 4440). And the Playbook comes with a huge battery --- which isn't suitable for cell phones.
I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.
I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.
You're not considering that Steve Jobs is a terminator from the future. That has to count for something.
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
"I'll tell you a secret. It actually started with the tablet first."
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
While I think the PlayBook may have some potential, he's going to end up eating his words. First with how it measures up against the iPad 2, then how it measures up against iOS5, and finally 3 or 4 years into this "10 year future" when Apple unleashes Mac OSXI.
Apple likes to add features slowly so they can get them right. iOS will keep tracking towards all the capabilities of a full desktop OS minus any of the garbage that comes with them. Eventually the only difference between the desktop and mobile could be some UI elements.
Comments
Steve Jobs turning the market for tablets into an allegory for enzyte = brilliant. Young men will buy tons of both without any regard to reality.
But I'm with RIM on this one, Apple fan though I am. 7" will be a compelling form factor. Not better than 10", I trust Jobs on that, just different: in a way that a MacBook Air 11" is from a 17" MacBook Pro. Buyers of one have different needs & preferences to the other. Jobs spouted marketing BS about filing fingers down for a 7" device. If you can use iOS on an 3.5" iPod Touch, you could use it on a 7" device. Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed.
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down too far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does." Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
iPhone is doing well in enterprise, and it seems to be gaining by the day. And enterprise sales are RIM's bread and butter. I'd be surprised if RIM lasts another 5 or 6 years, let alone 10.
5 or 6 years on sounds about right ... and by then I wonder if (and if so, who) will buy them just before they die ..? Microsoft perhaps during its own death thrashes or one of the PC makers during theirs ...
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.
With apologies to Prince Andrew:
Oh, The co-CEO of RIM,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they're up, they're up,
And when they're down, they're down,
And when they're only half-way up,
They're all fucked up!
.
You mean like all the people here who were hoping they would be able to tether the iPad to the iPhones they already owned? Imagine Apple had come up with it. People here would have been calling it a great idea but since it's not Apple, it's clearly a stupid concept.
No the problem with RIM's implementation is that a BB is basically required to get any kind of work or productivity stuff done. People wanted to tether the iPhone because they already had existing data plans for those devices, and didn't want to pay another $30/month for data on the iPad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOGmn...e_gdata_player
I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.
With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.
Yes 7" is a compromise size.
So is 3.5" iPhone.
So is a 9.7" iPad.
All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .
I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.
Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.
All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.
This is completely false. As we all know, the iPad was being developed at least at the same time as the iPhone, if not before. Apple wisely held off until they had all the kinks worked out with the iPhone.
That's one thing that Apple does brilliantly that no one else seems to grasp: they don't release half-baked products or features.
This is what I don't get about Microsoft, Research In Motion and all the others.
Apple only introduced a competing product a few years ago because they took the time to develop what people wanted. And it shows in the sales figures and market percentages.
These other companies were already invested with resources and mindshare in these markets and appear to be scrambling. How did they get so complacent that an "upstart" like Apple wiped the floor with them. If anything, Apple should be the one worried about all the secret projects these companies must have had going on for the last decade that are just waiting to see the light of day.
As a shareholder, I would really hate to think the latest round of products from these companies is catch-up technology that has not matured in the lab as well as Apple's has. But it sure looks like it is.
1. RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis.
2. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
3. In November, RIM posted a comparison video between the iPad and the PlayBook, touting the PlayBook's ability to run Flash.
4. The competition between Apple and RIM has increased as RIM prepares to enter the tablet market, in which Apple has taken a substantial early lead.
1. That's fairly obvious aye?!
2. I thought CEO's that wanted to stay in business would research and take other CEOs words as gold. Jobs has stated that apple designed the OS for a tablet and thought it would also work for a phone.
3. Flash as an ability...more like disability...
4. Substantial is understatement. more like total domination. Where are those incredible sales numbers for the Samsung? waiting...waiting... Playbook come out first and then we will talk about you making a dent in the market..
I wouldn't either
No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.
With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.
Yes 7" is a compromise size.
So is 3.5" iPhone.
So is a 9.7" iPad.
All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .
Your argument is basically that function ought to follow form. My argument is that form, which includes screen size, ought to follow function. Sure, you can make a UI that is "useable" on almost any screen size, but to what purpose? A 7" screen completely changes what the device is all about, gives you none of the convenience of a phone, and none of the purpose of a 10" tablet. You are basically arguing that there are an infinite number of screen sizes that are optimal, which might be true if we qualify it with, "for particular niche applications," but it isn't true for general purpose devices.
Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.
All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.
Is an ebook better on a 7" device? What if you want to read in landscape/2-page mode? Not so much. However, if all you want is an ebook reader, then, quite seriously, you are probably better off with a Kindle. As a general purpose tablet computing device, a larger screen opens the device to a greater range of possible applications and functions, and a smaller screen restricts it. Too large and it becomes unwieldy. Too small and it becomes less generally useful. A 7" tablet still doesn't fit in your jeans pocket, but it's also not very useful for editing a word processing document; yeah, you can do it, but you can't do it with the same ease.
A 7" tablet is going to be an exercise in frustration. Barely more functional than a phone, much less easy to carry around. Everything is a compromise to some extent, but the key to success is to make the right compromises, not assuming that all compromises are equal. The 7" tablet form factor makes all the wrong compromises.
I'm not sure RiM is still in business after 10 years.
Exactly what I thought when I was reading this.
I think they came out with the "All of this is coming together to set up BlackBerry for the next decade." line to try and reassure investors that they are a good investment for the future. Sounds more like "Honest, we'll be here in 10 years! And we'll be the bestest company evah!" The man doth protest too much.
I don't think they are a good future investment.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
This struck me as particularly egregious. Surely everyone at RIM is aware that iOS is a flavor of OS X, and that far from an "upgrade of a mobile phone OS" that the the iPad runs the same OS X underpinnings as every iOS device.
I get that RIM has some catching up to do, but (in so far as I can even make out what Lazaridis is saying) he appears to be trying to claim that their every misstep and slow reaction to date has been part of a very clever master plan, wherein the BB OS remains relatively lackluster because those darn phones just can't handle the awesomeness that they've intended for next gen kit all along, and that QNX is the first true tablet OS (conveniently, because they can't figure out how to get it to work on their phones yet).
And when it does work on their phones then it will be an awesome phone OS, despite having explicitly made noise about purpose built tablet-ness and the phone being another kind of thing different from what tablets need. Or something.
At any rate, RIM was shrewd to hold tight till real soon now, because the hardware is finally catching up with their vision, never mind iOS and Android who apparently are offering half baked non-awesome solutions on not really sufficient hardware.
Amazing how Jobs can directly answer questions about suicides at Foxconn, yet this jackwagon can't directly answer questions about hi-tech toys.
The demo given at Rogers Tablife was done by a stodgy old intellectual. Undoubtably very smart and successful, but apparently lacking any understanding of the world outside of RIM's traditionally successful niche. And when asked why someone should choose the Playbook his first answer was that it has two cameras. His first answer was a technical specification (not a benefit) that every other tablet will have by the time Playbook is on the market.
Then Mike gets up at D and does the exact same thing (but less coherently). Portrays himself as a stodgy old man who only seems to know RIM's history and is predicting the future based on their isolated history. Poor MIke didn't have a chance to explain why people should choose Playbook because he couldn't get past the basic questions on what it was and how it fit into RIM's product portfolio.
There does not seem to be any outward acknowledgment that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed. There is no acknowledgement that the methods RIM used to achieve success 10 years ago are in need of a revamp over the next 10 years. RIM really needs to show that they have a vision, and a passion for that vision. Right now they have a piece of hardware and an OS (or at least half an OS).
Yes, Apple, who bought PA Semi that designed a low power version of the Power Architecture AND Intrinsity, who designed the Hummingbird core, has no chops to design a dual-core Cortex A9 with Samsung as a partner for the iPhone 5.
Never mind that the A9 is also actually more efficient than the A8 on a per cycle basis, has lower idle power, can idle an unused core and can be clocked for less time (or clocked lower) to do a task than on the A8.
Never mind that Ti is claiming it will be shipping Dual Core A9 OMAP4430s for use in smartphones before the end of 2010 and several dual core A9 phones (LG) are already announced for 2011 launch probably before the iPhone 5.
Wanna bet that Apple already has a dual core A9 design done already?
Another example of you making bald assertions not based remotely on reality.
TI can claim whatever they want --- but if you look at the Playbook demo video from last Friday and freeze frame the video (as Crackberry.com had done), you would have found out that the Playbook demo unit is running on OMAP4430 (not 4440). And the Playbook comes with a huge battery --- which isn't suitable for cell phones.
http://forums.crackberry.com/f222/pb...64/index2.html
I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.
I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.
You're not considering that Steve Jobs is a terminator from the future. That has to count for something.
"I'll tell you a secret. It actually started with the tablet first."
- Steve Jobs. AllThingsD Conference, July 2010.
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.
While I think the PlayBook may have some potential, he's going to end up eating his words. First with how it measures up against the iPad 2, then how it measures up against iOS5, and finally 3 or 4 years into this "10 year future" when Apple unleashes Mac OSXI.
Apple likes to add features slowly so they can get them right. iOS will keep tracking towards all the capabilities of a full desktop OS minus any of the garbage that comes with them. Eventually the only difference between the desktop and mobile could be some UI elements.