Hummm... I thought Canadians were actually smarter than average, generally, but it seems like they actually need the same lessons in PLAYBACK of digital recordings or of ANYTHING that gets posted on computers in one place being available in other places.. amazing how that whole network thing works...
So RIM - HERE - is saying "No worries about battery life - we're fine and even better than everyone else"... Well, take a brief moment to go half-way around the planet (sure better than flying) and get the word - on the SAME SUBJECT - from say, the Australians..
You's see the following headline "BlackBerry PlayBook may be tossed due to poor 'two to four hour' battery life"... curious how that's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE what RIM are saying in this hemisphere... WHO'S LYING???
The playbook is only half-done --- they never show something as basic as portrait mode, universal search, blackberry pairing...
Who is lying? Well, QNX did win an industry award for power management vs. Shaw Wu having zero clue and kept talking about car batteries. Shaw got stuck with the April press release when RIM bought QNX --- and all Shaw can think of is cars, cars and cars.
The playbook is only half-done --- they never show something as basic as portrait mode, universal search, blackberry pairing...
Who is lying? Well, QNX did win an industry award for power management vs. Shaw Wu having zero clue and kept talking about car batteries. Shaw got stuck with the April press release when RIM bought QNX --- and all Shaw can think of is cars, cars and cars.
1) You linked to a “prestigious award” from almost 7 years ago.
2) I don’t care how power friendly QNX is (which has yet to be seen since you won’t list any current handheld devices using QNX), if you have a poor UI, drivers and apps having an efficient kernel isn’t going to work.
3) So far, you are the only one speaking out the side of your mouth. Wu made stated the PlayBook tablet has poor battery life, he then inferred that the reason was QNX. His latter doesn’t have to be correct for the former to be true. They all have to be well managed for power usage or the product may be as big of a dud as the Palm Pre.
4) You can say that it has good power management, but compared to what? Are you saying it’s better than Android or Darwin? Are you saying it’s better than other OSes from 7 years ago? Big fraking deal.
5) The PlayBook is only half done? If it comes out in May that means they only started working on it 6 months ago?. You really think it’s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it’s only “half done”? Really?!
Is RIM becoming the Venezuela of the mobile technology industry ...?
Possibly.
But one thing's for sure. The RIM co-CEOs are blaring, non-stop, about nonexistent products just like all those World Cup fans blowing vuvuzelas. They say they're "way ahead" of iPad, yet they can't even demo the PlayBook.
RIM hasn't even successfully responded to the iPhone, which is rapidly eroding their core smartphone business. And now they're hyping vaporware. Those are two big steps down the same staircase Palm got thrown down.
1) You linked to a “prestigious award” from almost 7 years ago.
2) I don’t care how power friendly QNX is (which has yet to be seen since you won’t list any current handheld devices using QNX), if you have a poor UI, drivers and apps having an efficient kernel isn’t going to work.
3) So far, you are the only one speaking out the side of your mouth. Wu made stated the PlayBook tablet has poor battery life, he then inferred that the reason was QNX. His latter doesn’t have to be correct for the former to be true. They all have to be well managed for power usage or the product may be as big of a dud as the Palm Pre.
4) You can say that it has good power management, but compared to what? Are you saying it’s better than Android or Darwin? Are you saying it’s better than other OSes from 7 years ago? Big fraking deal.
5) The PlayBook is only half done? If it comes out in May that means they only started working on it 6 months ago?. You really think it’s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it’s only “half done”? Really?!
(1) Safety RTOS moves at a much slower pace industry-wise than the general operating system. The space shuttle is still running on a computer built in the 1970's.
Logitech remotes are pretty recent, so as the military radio and so as the harman/becker personal navigation devices. Much more recent that the big cisco router which was launched in 2004.
(2) Sure if you have a poor UI, device drivers and apps then that is going to negate much of the advantage. But it is the same AIR UI that powers car dashboards --- and they only have something like a 200MHz CPU. Device drivers and much of apps shown are done by QNX, the same people who won the power management award.
(3) Sure, Shaw could be right that the current beta Playbook has poor battery life. But what to do with that fact is what is important. Shaw thinks that RIM needs months and months of tinkering with QNX because QNX is supposedly built for the big routers and not for battery life. Well, QNX is embedded in handheld military software defined radios where poor battery life could kill your own soldiers.
(4) Compare to what? QNX won the award at the Embedded World Conference. It is not like the BeOS fans who thinks that their OS is godlike --- but it was only godlike because they were comparing it with Windows 95.
(5) Speed to market --- that's what having a completely certified POSIX operating system is all about. Back 10 years ago, Sony announced their BeOS-based evilla internet appliance --- took 18 months to launch. Later on, 3Com hired some 3rd party QNX consultant to design the Audrey --- took 6 months to launch, sold them for a few months and then discontinued the Audrey before Sony finished their evilla design.
Since all the drivers are outside the kernel, they can kill them whenever they want (and restart them when they are needed). They don't have to just to kill the backlight of the LCD screen to save power, they can kill the whole video driver and turn everything off. You touch the bazel or touch the screen, QNX restarts the video driver.
According to the link you provided, QNX won an award for providing a framework for app developers [to provide power management] -- rather than for power management itself?
Emphasis mine:
Quote:
In contrast to conventional approaches, the QNX power management framework allows the application developer, not the OS, to determine power management policies. As a result, developers can create a highly customized power policy for every system they build and address device-specific problems unanticipated by existing power management standards. Leading telematics suppliers in the automotive industry are already integrating the QNX power management framework into their next-generation devices.
Perhaps the purported problem with PlayBook's battery performance -- there isn't an app for that!
On a secondary note, you continually criticize analysts of unfairly evaluating QNX in the "automotive" environment -- yet you, yourself, use that same environment to tout seeming "power management" advantage.
Which is it, Handheld or Automotive -- there is quite a difference in reserve battery capacity.
Out of interest, does QNX provide software within the OS itself to gracefully terminate running tasks and terminate QNX, itself, when the battery is low. I am asking about a feature implemented within the QNX OS -- not a framework provided so that outside developers can implement it.
For example, assume that:
-- QNX is providing power management for a vehicle
-- when parked, QNX allows major power-using components to be shutdown
-- some QNX shell remains operational with minimal drain on the battery
-- the vehicle is left for several months unattended
-- the battery reaches a level where continued usage will drain the battery below the level needed to start the car and recharge the battery
Can QNX detect this and turn itself off?
We had that exact requirement in the late 1990s. We had a home in Silicon valley and a vacation home in Tucson. We left a, then, new Ford in the garage in Tucson for 2-6 months at a time.
Sometimes after getting off the shuttle from the airport, we would have to call AAA to jump a dead battery.
My dad was an inventor and self-taught electronics wizard. I asked him about a potential solution that would set between the battery and its connection to the cars electronics.
After several months of hard work, lots of study, trial and error -- he had a proven working device. We did a patent search and found that there was a prior solution -- not exactly the same, not as good, but prior.
Anyway, my dad made a few devices that we installed on several cars (his and mine)-- and never experienced the problem again.
You really think it?s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it?s only ?half done?? Really?!
Can't resist...
"Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the battery patch."
That's what I am thinking as well. They haven't done it yet and that's what RIM is saying.
Everything has power management --- hell, even server farms likes to pay less electricity.
I believe that there are 2 general power management scenarios --- one is car, which is you are optimizing when the car is off and the other is handheld, which is you are optimizing when the handheld on.
Since all the drivers are outside the kernel, they can kill them whenever they want (and restart them when they are needed). They don't have to just to kill the backlight of the LCD screen to save power, they can kill the whole video driver and turn everything off. You touch the bazel or touch the screen, QNX restarts the video driver.
Embedded is not necessarily the same as mobile.
Power optimization for a mobile OS goes much much deeper than turning off un-needed resources. It goes all the way down the actual processor instructions chosen to do certain tasks because they consume less power. QNX was probably not written with that level of optimization and retrofitting it may compromise the robustness and reliability that it is famous for.
That's what I am thinking as well. They haven't done it yet and that's what RIM is saying.
Everything has power management --- hell, even server farms likes to pay less electricity.
I believe that there are 2 general power management scenarios --- one is car, which is you are optimizing when the car is off and the other is handheld, which is you are optimizing when the handheld on.
3 states for mobile devices: on; idle; off;
The well-designed mobile solution will go from full on, to idle (minimal power usage) to off when battery threshold is reached. This is an orderly progression so that state is preserved by non-volitle means -- and can be restored upon restoration of power.
This is totally different for mobile electronics!
A key router solution runs with both a continuous and a backup power supply!
An automotive solution runs with a battery continuously charged by an alternate power source (engine powering an alternator/generator) with lots of reserve battery power.
A Mobile solution with a single, finite, battery (and, possibly an auxiliary battery)
I do not consider a remote control as a mobile device -- it is non-critical and resides in the home where it can be easliy recharged or the batteries easily replaced.
Again, you seem to think that QNX has proven capabilities in the area of "mobile power management" -- please share some [current and relevant] links with us so we can validate your assertions.
Again, you seem to think that QNX has proven capabilities in the area of "mobile power management" -- please share some [current and relevant] links with us so we can validate your assertions.
Design win for handheld military software defined radios.
You don't have to agree with me on this, but to support Shaw's point that QNX is a complete nob on power management is entirely different matter. Which side is closer to the truth --- me or Shaw?
I've been wondering that as well. The new 2 core chips are said to use, on average, less power than the single core chips of the current generation. how much of a difference isn't specified, but I don't think it would make much difference. According to jobs, when speaking to Mossberg, the A4 "sips" power. It's mostly in the screen. The 3G takes some too, because that model is rated for 9 hours.
We don't know which, if any of the rumors are true, so it's hard to tell where Apple's going with this. If they do go with a thinner model, as we've read, then bigger batteries are out of the question. They would need a more efficient backlight. It just so happens that Apple recently got a patent on just such a technology, which would also allow for a thinner screen and backlight, but it may be too early to use it. But, who knows?
If Apple somehow got the life to 12 hours, all bets would be off. As it is, Apple has a big advantage over other companies with their owning the Os, and many years of experience working on cpus and chipsets, and then acquiring two companies in that field.
The advantage is that Apple has been working on power management for portable devices for OS X since 1998. They've likely been working on it for handhelds since sometime 2004, as the iPad was a project before the iPhone. As OS X is fairly compartmentalized, it's been easy to pick and choose what parts they need for iOS. Couple that to your own work on the chip, and who else can match that?
That is pretty generalized statement to make about dual core . The reality is slightly different. The A9 has more advanced power management capability so for a task which can be optimized for a multicore you can save power by shutting down a core or moving into a sleep state quicker after completing the task. The A9 instruction pipeline is different then the A8 and allows out of order processing so most tasks will complete faster at the same clock even on the same process node. So if both chips are built at 45NM and run at 1 GHZ the A9 dual core will use less power for a given task then the A8 single core. If both core are running at full usage, power consumption increases, but real world because you can rapidly shutdown unneed circuits, overall power consumption decreases and peak performance increase.
Power optimization for a mobile OS goes much much deeper than turning off un-needed resources. It goes all the way down the actual processor instructions chosen to do certain tasks because they consume less power. QNX was probably not written with that level of optimization and retrofitting it may compromise the robustness and reliability that it is famous for.
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
Design win for handheld military software defined radios.
You don't have to agree with me on this, but to support Shaw's point that QNX is a complete nob on power management is entirely different matter. Which side is closer to the truth --- me or Shaw?
Got a link that shows battery performance on a handheld QNX device?
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
It really doesn't matter what you or I think. You have repeatedly stated that QNX has done "power management".
That's all very nice!
What is germane to this thread (and others like it) is what effect does a QNX power management solution have on the battery performance PlayBook or BlackBerry phones -- e.g. mobile devices..
Realizing that QNX is not, yet, available (and verifiable) on either devices, we can only look to performance on other similar devices.
Shaw Wu states that the PlayBook (QNX) battery performance is poor.
The co-CEO states, vaguely, that the PlayBook (QNX) battery performance is competitive.
You make some vague statements that QNX has done power management and provide obscure references to 4-8 year old products that we cannot evaluate, nor read the specifications.
Reading through the history of your posts, you appear to have reasonable background with, and a vested interest in, the success of QNX and/or RIM -- for reasons that you haven't provided -- that's OK.
The RIM co-CEO has a responsibility to RIMs shareholders to present is corporation and its products in the best possible way -- that's expected!
Shaw Wu -- has a responsibility to his readers, his firm and its customers (investors).
Of the 3, which do you think provides the most objective analysis of QNX/Playbook.
My vote goes with Wu!
For the record, I have a significant position (for me) in AAPL, beginning in 2003 and increasing steadily over the years. Part of this is due to the fact that i have a 32 year relationship with Apple, its products and people.
That said, I would consider investing in RIM -- but I do not believe they are correctly positioned for the future, and they are underperforming in the near term.
Comments
Ya' know...
Ever since the PlayBook was first presented; videos in September; later controlled live demos...
Two capabilities have consistently been touted by RIM representatives as "far advanced":
1) The PlayBooks superior "full" multitasking
2) The Playbooks ability to deliver results without the need to depend on installed custom apps
RIMM has demonstrated a few "system" apps -- AIR, mail, contacts, calendar, and media player -- but every smart device has those.
They appear to say that for other requirements web apps are superior to custom installed apps.
Let's assume that RIM is correct on both points: "full" multitasking and web apps!
Then... What will the PlayBook be running in the background?
.
No name calling please!
Now, don't be a MEL melgross
Hummm... I thought Canadians were actually smarter than average, generally, but it seems like they actually need the same lessons in PLAYBACK of digital recordings or of ANYTHING that gets posted on computers in one place being available in other places.. amazing how that whole network thing works...
So RIM - HERE - is saying "No worries about battery life - we're fine and even better than everyone else"... Well, take a brief moment to go half-way around the planet (sure better than flying) and get the word - on the SAME SUBJECT - from say, the Australians..
You's see the following headline "BlackBerry PlayBook may be tossed due to poor 'two to four hour' battery life"... curious how that's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE what RIM are saying in this hemisphere... WHO'S LYING???
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...230-19ai1.html
The playbook is only half-done --- they never show something as basic as portrait mode, universal search, blackberry pairing...
Who is lying? Well, QNX did win an industry award for power management vs. Shaw Wu having zero clue and kept talking about car batteries. Shaw got stuck with the April press release when RIM bought QNX --- and all Shaw can think of is cars, cars and cars.
The playbook is only half-done --- they never show something as basic as portrait mode, universal search, blackberry pairing...
Who is lying? Well, QNX did win an industry award for power management vs. Shaw Wu having zero clue and kept talking about car batteries. Shaw got stuck with the April press release when RIM bought QNX --- and all Shaw can think of is cars, cars and cars.
1) You linked to a “prestigious award” from almost 7 years ago.
2) I don’t care how power friendly QNX is (which has yet to be seen since you won’t list any current handheld devices using QNX), if you have a poor UI, drivers and apps having an efficient kernel isn’t going to work.
3) So far, you are the only one speaking out the side of your mouth. Wu made stated the PlayBook tablet has poor battery life, he then inferred that the reason was QNX. His latter doesn’t have to be correct for the former to be true. They all have to be well managed for power usage or the product may be as big of a dud as the Palm Pre.
4) You can say that it has good power management, but compared to what? Are you saying it’s better than Android or Darwin? Are you saying it’s better than other OSes from 7 years ago? Big fraking deal.
5) The PlayBook is only half done? If it comes out in May that means they only started working on it 6 months ago?. You really think it’s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it’s only “half done”? Really?!
Is RIM becoming the Venezuela of the mobile technology industry ...?
Possibly.
But one thing's for sure. The RIM co-CEOs are blaring, non-stop, about nonexistent products just like all those World Cup fans blowing vuvuzelas. They say they're "way ahead" of iPad, yet they can't even demo the PlayBook.
RIM hasn't even successfully responded to the iPhone, which is rapidly eroding their core smartphone business. And now they're hyping vaporware. Those are two big steps down the same staircase Palm got thrown down.
1) You linked to a “prestigious award” from almost 7 years ago.
2) I don’t care how power friendly QNX is (which has yet to be seen since you won’t list any current handheld devices using QNX), if you have a poor UI, drivers and apps having an efficient kernel isn’t going to work.
3) So far, you are the only one speaking out the side of your mouth. Wu made stated the PlayBook tablet has poor battery life, he then inferred that the reason was QNX. His latter doesn’t have to be correct for the former to be true. They all have to be well managed for power usage or the product may be as big of a dud as the Palm Pre.
4) You can say that it has good power management, but compared to what? Are you saying it’s better than Android or Darwin? Are you saying it’s better than other OSes from 7 years ago? Big fraking deal.
5) The PlayBook is only half done? If it comes out in May that means they only started working on it 6 months ago?. You really think it’s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it’s only “half done”? Really?!
(1) Safety RTOS moves at a much slower pace industry-wise than the general operating system. The space shuttle is still running on a computer built in the 1970's.
Logitech remotes are pretty recent, so as the military radio and so as the harman/becker personal navigation devices. Much more recent that the big cisco router which was launched in 2004.
(2) Sure if you have a poor UI, device drivers and apps then that is going to negate much of the advantage. But it is the same AIR UI that powers car dashboards --- and they only have something like a 200MHz CPU. Device drivers and much of apps shown are done by QNX, the same people who won the power management award.
(3) Sure, Shaw could be right that the current beta Playbook has poor battery life. But what to do with that fact is what is important. Shaw thinks that RIM needs months and months of tinkering with QNX because QNX is supposedly built for the big routers and not for battery life. Well, QNX is embedded in handheld military software defined radios where poor battery life could kill your own soldiers.
(4) Compare to what? QNX won the award at the Embedded World Conference. It is not like the BeOS fans who thinks that their OS is godlike --- but it was only godlike because they were comparing it with Windows 95.
(5) Speed to market --- that's what having a completely certified POSIX operating system is all about. Back 10 years ago, Sony announced their BeOS-based evilla internet appliance --- took 18 months to launch. Later on, 3Com hired some 3rd party QNX consultant to design the Audrey --- took 6 months to launch, sold them for a few months and then discontinued the Audrey before Sony finished their evilla design.
Actually, QNX did win an award for power management.
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_832_1.html
Since all the drivers are outside the kernel, they can kill them whenever they want (and restart them when they are needed). They don't have to just to kill the backlight of the LCD screen to save power, they can kill the whole video driver and turn everything off. You touch the bazel or touch the screen, QNX restarts the video driver.
According to the link you provided, QNX won an award for providing a framework for app developers [to provide power management] -- rather than for power management itself?
Emphasis mine:
In contrast to conventional approaches, the QNX power management framework allows the application developer, not the OS, to determine power management policies. As a result, developers can create a highly customized power policy for every system they build and address device-specific problems unanticipated by existing power management standards. Leading telematics suppliers in the automotive industry are already integrating the QNX power management framework into their next-generation devices.
Perhaps the purported problem with PlayBook's battery performance -- there isn't an app for that!
On a secondary note, you continually criticize analysts of unfairly evaluating QNX in the "automotive" environment -- yet you, yourself, use that same environment to tout seeming "power management" advantage.
Which is it, Handheld or Automotive -- there is quite a difference in reserve battery capacity.
Out of interest, does QNX provide software within the OS itself to gracefully terminate running tasks and terminate QNX, itself, when the battery is low. I am asking about a feature implemented within the QNX OS -- not a framework provided so that outside developers can implement it.
For example, assume that:
-- QNX is providing power management for a vehicle
-- when parked, QNX allows major power-using components to be shutdown
-- some QNX shell remains operational with minimal drain on the battery
-- the vehicle is left for several months unattended
-- the battery reaches a level where continued usage will drain the battery below the level needed to start the car and recharge the battery
Can QNX detect this and turn itself off?
We had that exact requirement in the late 1990s. We had a home in Silicon valley and a vacation home in Tucson. We left a, then, new Ford in the garage in Tucson for 2-6 months at a time.
Sometimes after getting off the shuttle from the airport, we would have to call AAA to jump a dead battery.
My dad was an inventor and self-taught electronics wizard. I asked him about a potential solution that would set between the battery and its connection to the cars electronics.
After several months of hard work, lots of study, trial and error -- he had a proven working device. We did a patent search and found that there was a prior solution -- not exactly the same, not as good, but prior.
Anyway, my dad made a few devices that we installed on several cars (his and mine)-- and never experienced the problem again.
You really think it?s a sound argument to suggest that the PlayBook has been touted by RiM and raised up by their CEOs as the bestest thing in the whole wide world when it?s only ?half done?? Really?!
Can't resist...
"Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the battery patch."
Everything has power management --- hell, even server farms likes to pay less electricity.
I believe that there are 2 general power management scenarios --- one is car, which is you are optimizing when the car is off and the other is handheld, which is you are optimizing when the handheld on.
Actually, QNX did win an award for power management.
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_832_1.html
Since all the drivers are outside the kernel, they can kill them whenever they want (and restart them when they are needed). They don't have to just to kill the backlight of the LCD screen to save power, they can kill the whole video driver and turn everything off. You touch the bazel or touch the screen, QNX restarts the video driver.
Embedded is not necessarily the same as mobile.
Power optimization for a mobile OS goes much much deeper than turning off un-needed resources. It goes all the way down the actual processor instructions chosen to do certain tasks because they consume less power. QNX was probably not written with that level of optimization and retrofitting it may compromise the robustness and reliability that it is famous for.
Here is an interesting article.
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...spent-rim.aspx
Time will tell.
That's what I am thinking as well. They haven't done it yet and that's what RIM is saying.
Everything has power management --- hell, even server farms likes to pay less electricity.
I believe that there are 2 general power management scenarios --- one is car, which is you are optimizing when the car is off and the other is handheld, which is you are optimizing when the handheld on.
3 states for mobile devices: on; idle; off;
The well-designed mobile solution will go from full on, to idle (minimal power usage) to off when battery threshold is reached. This is an orderly progression so that state is preserved by non-volitle means -- and can be restored upon restoration of power.
This is totally different for mobile electronics!
A key router solution runs with both a continuous and a backup power supply!
An automotive solution runs with a battery continuously charged by an alternate power source (engine powering an alternator/generator) with lots of reserve battery power.
A Mobile solution with a single, finite, battery (and, possibly an auxiliary battery)
I do not consider a remote control as a mobile device -- it is non-critical and resides in the home where it can be easliy recharged or the batteries easily replaced.
Again, you seem to think that QNX has proven capabilities in the area of "mobile power management" -- please share some [current and relevant] links with us so we can validate your assertions.
As the saying goes.. "Promises are meant to be broken".
When not made by Apple?
Again, you seem to think that QNX has proven capabilities in the area of "mobile power management" -- please share some [current and relevant] links with us so we can validate your assertions.
Design win for handheld military software defined radios.
You don't have to agree with me on this, but to support Shaw's point that QNX is a complete nob on power management is entirely different matter. Which side is closer to the truth --- me or Shaw?
I've been wondering that as well. The new 2 core chips are said to use, on average, less power than the single core chips of the current generation. how much of a difference isn't specified, but I don't think it would make much difference. According to jobs, when speaking to Mossberg, the A4 "sips" power. It's mostly in the screen. The 3G takes some too, because that model is rated for 9 hours.
We don't know which, if any of the rumors are true, so it's hard to tell where Apple's going with this. If they do go with a thinner model, as we've read, then bigger batteries are out of the question. They would need a more efficient backlight. It just so happens that Apple recently got a patent on just such a technology, which would also allow for a thinner screen and backlight, but it may be too early to use it. But, who knows?
If Apple somehow got the life to 12 hours, all bets would be off. As it is, Apple has a big advantage over other companies with their owning the Os, and many years of experience working on cpus and chipsets, and then acquiring two companies in that field.
The advantage is that Apple has been working on power management for portable devices for OS X since 1998. They've likely been working on it for handhelds since sometime 2004, as the iPad was a project before the iPhone. As OS X is fairly compartmentalized, it's been easy to pick and choose what parts they need for iOS. Couple that to your own work on the chip, and who else can match that?
That is pretty generalized statement to make about dual core . The reality is slightly different. The A9 has more advanced power management capability so for a task which can be optimized for a multicore you can save power by shutting down a core or moving into a sleep state quicker after completing the task. The A9 instruction pipeline is different then the A8 and allows out of order processing so most tasks will complete faster at the same clock even on the same process node. So if both chips are built at 45NM and run at 1 GHZ the A9 dual core will use less power for a given task then the A8 single core. If both core are running at full usage, power consumption increases, but real world because you can rapidly shutdown unneed circuits, overall power consumption decreases and peak performance increase.
Embedded is not necessarily the same as mobile.
Power optimization for a mobile OS goes much much deeper than turning off un-needed resources. It goes all the way down the actual processor instructions chosen to do certain tasks because they consume less power. QNX was probably not written with that level of optimization and retrofitting it may compromise the robustness and reliability that it is famous for.
Here is an interesting article.
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...spent-rim.aspx
Time will tell.
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
Design win for handheld military software defined radios.
You don't have to agree with me on this, but to support Shaw's point that QNX is a complete nob on power management is entirely different matter. Which side is closer to the truth --- me or Shaw?
Got a link that shows battery performance on a handheld QNX device?
Of course, I could compare my height to that of the Empire State Building...
RIM's position:
I'm much taller than when I was born. My parent's house hasn't grown at all. Therefore someday I will be taller than the the tallest building.
Got a link that shows battery performance on a handheld QNX device?
Why don't you file a freedom of information act request to DoD and see if they will give you the required information?
to say that it doesn't have any power management is, and I hate to use this term... retarded.
Balsillie has shown himself to be technologically handicapped.
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
It really doesn't matter what you or I think. You have repeatedly stated that QNX has done "power management".
That's all very nice!
What is germane to this thread (and others like it) is what effect does a QNX power management solution have on the battery performance PlayBook or BlackBerry phones -- e.g. mobile devices..
Realizing that QNX is not, yet, available (and verifiable) on either devices, we can only look to performance on other similar devices.
Shaw Wu states that the PlayBook (QNX) battery performance is poor.
The co-CEO states, vaguely, that the PlayBook (QNX) battery performance is competitive.
You make some vague statements that QNX has done power management and provide obscure references to 4-8 year old products that we cannot evaluate, nor read the specifications.
Reading through the history of your posts, you appear to have reasonable background with, and a vested interest in, the success of QNX and/or RIM -- for reasons that you haven't provided -- that's OK.
The RIM co-CEO has a responsibility to RIMs shareholders to present is corporation and its products in the best possible way -- that's expected!
Shaw Wu -- has a responsibility to his readers, his firm and its customers (investors).
Of the 3, which do you think provides the most objective analysis of QNX/Playbook.
My vote goes with Wu!
For the record, I have a significant position (for me) in AAPL, beginning in 2003 and increasing steadily over the years. Part of this is due to the fact that i have a 32 year relationship with Apple, its products and people.
That said, I would consider investing in RIM -- but I do not believe they are correctly positioned for the future, and they are underperforming in the near term.