Apple's iPhone 5 a GSM-CDMA world phone, iPad 2 to have SD card slot - report

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I think it’s more complicated than that. As you know, different chips are designed with a specific purpose to make them more efficient and completing their tasks and using power. I think we’ll more on SoCs that integrate cellular technologies which will reduce power usage and presumably increase performance, but they are still separate components within that system.



    Qualcomm’s latest Sanpdragon design looks pretty impressive, but it’s not something I expect Apple to use.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    iPhone 4 would take up the small form factor and evolve from there. In fact I could see iPhone 4 shrinking a bit in size. Apple would the be marketing an iPhone Mini and an iPhone Maxi.



    I just see it as being in Apples best interest to have more than one form factor. Sooner or later people will get tired of the same form factor. Plus in my case I could really benefit from a larger screen.



    As to all this talk about A5 as an Apple designator for it's next SoC let's not covet that ARM has a Cortex A5 core coming that might make sense in iPhones. It would be lower power than an A9 based solution and possible more suitable for "phones". I don't really think it is written in stone that iPhones will go Cortex A9. Especially if Apple optimizes for a tablet device.



    Whoa!



    The Cortex A5 opens another possible direction for iPhones.



    I think (or used to think) that Apple would use the iPad (because of lower shipments) to test the water for the next SOC tech to be used in the iOS devices to be built for the next 12 months.



    While not required on every model of iPad, the cell radio is an option. In addition, the iPad has space and a big battery.



    Well, because of the success of the iPad, Apple needs to get whatever SOC it uses,in pretty large volumes -- more than many smartphone mfgrs,



    Sol, above links to the coming Qualcom Snapdragon as a potential base for the next Apple SOC -- though he doesn't think Apple will use it.



    One advantage to the Snapdragon is they make a version that would appear to work on any GSM or CDMA network.



    I've done some searching and reading and it appears that Qualcom has a chip, the QSD8672, coming out this year. It has dual-core 1.5 GHz CPU, integrated GPU (OpenCL supported) and the requisite support for GSM and CDMA.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(processor)



    I wonder if this could be manufactured, with Apple tweaks, in quantities suitable for the iPad, initially -- and later in the year the the iPhone (maybe your iPhone Maxi).



    Then, late 2011 the 28nm version, the MSM8960, sets the whole cycle again.



    Just thinking out loud.



    Edit: Here's another interesting link:



    http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/14/e...-apple-tv-and/
  • Reply 62 of 117
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    ... It's an important step towards making the iPad more of a computer than a giant iPod Touch. ...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post


    The last thing Apple wants is to make the iPad "more of a computer". If anything, they want it to be LESS "of a computer". But I think your meaning might be that the device should be more powerful, more capable, and more differentiated from an iPod Touch. And I think that is their goal.



    The iPad is already more of a computer than a, "giant iPod Touch." Anyone who thinks of the iPad as a giant iPod Touch either a) hasn't used an iPad for any significant time, or b) is hung up on the superficiality of the fact that they both operate on touch input and unable to see anything beyond that.
  • Reply 63 of 117
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post


    I will buy an iPad when it has USB.



    Then you should buy now.
  • Reply 64 of 117
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I find this part extremely hard to believe and pretty much bad news if true.



    Why? This is Apple! Steve and Jonnathan have 'rethunk' everything Apple designs over and over and over ... The Dells and HTCs of this world will always be making copies of the original Apple designs even while Apple have totally new designs under development. The inability to see the next Apple design is nothing to be ashamed of ... no one ever has so far
  • Reply 65 of 117
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The iPad is already more of a computer than a, "giant iPod Touch." Anyone who thinks of the iPad as a giant iPod Touch either a) hasn't used an iPad for any significant time, or b) is hung up on the superficiality of the fact that they both operate on touch input and unable to see anything beyond that.



    Very true. The whole 'not a computer' thing will become a joke one day soon since the definition of a computer used in the minds of those that say it is stuck on it being a beige box running Windows. That use of the term 'computer' will be (well it already is to me) as hilarious as the mental image of a 1960's 'computer' is today. I suspect the people saying this tripe would have been resistant to the Windows beige box initially as it wasn't connected to a bank of reel to reel tapes!
  • Reply 66 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The iPad is already more of a computer than a, "giant iPod Touch."



    Again, what I said was that Apple's not interested in making the iPad "more of a computer". It wants to increase its power and functionality, but it does not want to make it "more of a computer". Those are very different concepts (at least, they are if you take the trouble to listen and think about what they mean). Apple wants the iPad to be a thing unto itself, and to have its own unique uses and purposes, as much as it possibly can.



    If you want a tablet that's "more of a computer", just get something from Microsoft. They're as hung up on obviousness and superficiality as - well, you are.



    Anyone who says Apple is trying to make the iPad "more of a computer" really hasn't been paying attention. If anything, Apple's computers are becoming more like iPads/iPhones than the other way around. You may have noticed, for example, the new App Store for Macs. That's a legacy of the iPhone/iPad side. A lot of games and apps are getting ported from iOS to Macs - NOT the other way around. Sorry.



    Jobs himself gave a presentation re how aspects of iOS would increasingly flow in a 'virtuous circle' back to the computer side. Weren't you listening? (Maybe you were too busy posting to listen. You DO have a lot of posts - clearly you like to talk. Well, some of us listen and learn. Why don't you try that next time, before you bash somebody?)
  • Reply 67 of 117
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Can this all fit into a phone? Absolutely, but that doesn?t mean it?ll fit into the iPhone the way Apple wants it to. You trim a little bit off that battery you can fit a lot more stuff. But is that worth it to Apple?



    And what is the power efficiency and performance of these chips? Are they are good as the chips Apple has been using? Historically that hasn?t been the case but this tech does get better and chips combine into smaller and more powerful and more power efficient products every year. Eventually this will move from being possible to feasible.







    Of course there is that new patent that came out recently about Apple producing a thinner, more reactive and more power efficient screen. What if instead of shrinking the physical body this time they take the extra thinness to make room for extra chips and more battery? They don't really have to bump storage options, altho I'd love to see them increase to 32/64.
  • Reply 68 of 117
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    Of course there is that new patent that came out recently about Apple producing a thinner, more reactive and more power efficient screen. What if instead of shrinking the physical body this time they take the extra thinness to make room for extra chips and more battery? They don't really have to bump storage options, altho I'd love to see them increase to 32/64.



    I'm sure this is true, if not the next iPhone certainly one soon thereafter. Apple's MO has always been 'keep adding more into a thinner space at roughly the same price'.
  • Reply 69 of 117
    iliveriliver Posts: 299member
    I'd like an AppleTV with an A8 processor that can also pop corn.
  • Reply 70 of 117
    iliveriliver Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    time to send in jason chen in a ninja mask to steal another unit.



    Oohh good one and I'm all for it.
  • Reply 71 of 117
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post


    I will buy an iPad when it has USB.



    And what will you do with this USB port?



    Right now you can 'add' a USB port via the Camera Connection Kit. But only three things work on this 'USB port':

    1) Keyboards

    2) Microphones

    3) Cameras and card readers (and only from apps that follow Apple's protocols on how to import photos)



    What is the point of having a USB port if only very few apps can actually see it.
  • Reply 72 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skiracer1987 View Post


    I don't get this.... now they are saying the A4 processor in the AppleTV2 can't handle 1080P ??? I thought it was a limitation they self imposed because streaming wasn't up to 1080p speeds at the moment... So now this person is saying it's the processor that can't handle it?? WTF... better not be true i'm not buying another one just for that. Personally I find all these assertions to be highly unlikely aside from the 2 cams in the iPad which we all know is definitely got to happen, maybe the SD card too.



    yeah, i thought the same thing: that the reason they didn't go with 1080p was because of streaming, not because the processor couldn't handle it.
  • Reply 73 of 117
    If you look at the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4 CDMA just out this month, they are identical, apart from internal radio switch, a very cost effective move to sell and gain more new customers, not just in iPhones but Mac, iPad's, iPod's and other line products, the iPhone is the best cross-promotion seller for Apple, from a business point of view; waiting 6 months (July 2011) to release an complete world phone would cost the company millions in lost potential earnings!!



    An Very Shrewd Move..
  • Reply 74 of 117
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigbowood View Post


    yeah, i thought the same thing: that the reason they didn't go with 1080p was because of streaming, not because the processor couldn't handle it.



    It depends on what you mean by 1080p. There are many different profiles, stating 1080p isn?t enough information in and of itself. The SoC can handle 1080p but can it sufficiently handle a higher profile 1080p at 60fps? I don?t know, but the POWERVR VXD hardware decoder that I?d expect to be used on the A4 can.
  • Reply 75 of 117
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post


    The last thing Apple wants is to make the iPad "more of a computer". If anything, they want it to be LESS "of a computer". But I think your meaning might be that the device should be more powerful, more capable, and more differentiated from an iPod Touch. And I think that is their goal.



    They should take away multi-tasking then. I think you are wrong. The idea is to create the ultimate "computer for the rest of us" that Jobs has always dreamed of. By that he didnt mean a computer where the backend was visible - the command line, or the filesystem etc. - but which could do anything via plug and play. Eventually the iPad will be able to print on any wireless printer, handle cameras and SD cards, probably connect to a midi device ( for Garage Band). It will do what the Air does but in a tablet fashion.



    At least I hope so. Otherwise Android might steal a march on them.
  • Reply 76 of 117
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    And what will you do with this USB port?



    Right now you can 'add' a USB port via the Camera Connection Kit. But only three things work on this 'USB port':

    1) Keyboards

    2) Microphones

    3) Cameras and card readers (and only from apps that follow Apple's protocols on how to import photos)



    What is the point of having a USB port if only very few apps can actually see it.



    This is an insane business decision. Talking to a dentist friend of mine in the pub.



    he: can I connect a video camera to do dentistry.

    me: No. The camera needs an SD card which you can add to the reader, or you can connect a static camera which will launch some app to install the pictures.



    Doctors and dentists use this fibre optic cameras to connect to monitors which show them what the camera is seeing. That would so much cheaper on an iPad that everybody would do it. They could take a snapshot and annotate the snapshot and then store it in a local intranet, or email it, or keep it on the iPad.



    There are so many things that could be done with an iPad which gave people access to some accessories. That decision is insane. If they dont add a standard USB cable to it this year, or just update next year, Android tablets will take this space
  • Reply 77 of 117
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Then you should buy now.



    Maybe he means non-crippled USB.
  • Reply 78 of 117
    No one, to my knowledge is complaining about the resolution of the current iPad. So the big question in regards to a super-high-resolution screen on an iPad would be - WHY?



    Even on the iPhone and Touch such technology is rather gimmicky. It sounds impressive. It's a great marketing tool. But really, if the resolution on those screens was somewhat lower, who would have noticed?



    Certainly upping the resolution on the iPad would not be unwelcome but it's no big deal. Consider, though that the much more expensive Air 11.6-inch has a native resolution of 1366X768. The iPad, right now, is 1024 by 768 for 132 ppi. A retina display is 960X640 for 326 pixels per inch.



    If Apple is comfortable asking so much money for a 1366X768 Air, why would the company feel compelled to put a super high resolution screen on the iPad? An iPad currently costs hundreds less than an Air which makes it compelling if you think that's enough portable computing for your needs. But if by putting a super high resolution screen on the iPad, the price goes up to Air territory, good luck selling that dog. There's no way that such resolution in a 9.7-inch screen comes cheap so you have to know that going that route would force Apple to dramatically increase the price. Not going to happen. Apple has devastated the competition by bringing in an affordable tablet with a legitimate screen. Why, then, would Apple let the competition catch up by following that with a much more expensive product.



    By the way, who wants valuable memory chewed up by content designed for such ultra-high resolution, not to mention computing power, battery life, bandwidth, and so on and so on. If the content isn't super-high resolution, what's the point?
  • Reply 79 of 117
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Whoa!



    The Cortex A5 opens another possible direction for iPhones.



    Especially considering the rumors from years ago that PA Semi was split into two teams. One was to develop processors for tablets and the other for phones and smaller devices. I see A4 as a stop gap measure to give PA the time to do decent work on a high performance chip.

    Quote:

    I think (or used to think) that Apple would use the iPad (because of lower shipments) to test the water for the next SOC tech to be used in the iOS devices to be built for the next 12 months.



    They could do that. Right now I look at IPad as a very generation one device and the A4 as a stop gap measure. If Apple went in a different direction with phones Obviosly not much can be tested on iPad.



    As a side note, these days you either have functioning silicon or you don't.

    Quote:



    While not required on every model of iPad, the cell radio is an option. In addition, the iPad has space and a big battery.



    The other thing is that cell tech has been changing rapidly so it might make sense to limit what you put on the SoC. Well atleast until we move to all digital radio systems.

    Quote:

    Well, because of the success of the iPad, Apple needs to get whatever SOC it uses,in pretty large volumes -- more than many smartphone mfgrs,



    Not to dismiss Apples efforts but their volumes are pretty small compared to the traditional suppliers.

    Quote:

    Sol, above links to the coming Qualcom Snapdragon as a potential base for the next Apple SOC -- though he doesn't think Apple will use it.



    I tend to doubt Apple using the products of external ARM suppliers. Once they went with an internal development group there is a big disincentive to use other suppliers. This even if the parts from the external suppliers are better.



    When Apple first announced doing their own ARM chips I expressed concerns about their ability to keep up. I'm not to sure that anything has developed to indicate this isn't a concern. In 3-5 years we should have an idea about Apples ability to leverage internal ARM development.

    Quote:

    One advantage to the Snapdragon is they make a version that would appear to work on any GSM or CDMA network.



    I've done some searching and reading and it appears that Qualcom has a chip, the QSD8672, coming out this year. It has dual-core 1.5 GHz CPU, integrated GPU (OpenCL supported) and the requisite support for GSM and CDMA.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(processor)



    I wonder if this could be manufactured, with Apple tweaks, in quantities suitable for the iPad, initially -- and later in the year the the iPhone (maybe your iPhone Maxi).



    Why not? Not that I think Apple will use the processor but it is in the same class as what I'm expecting from Apple. It should also be noted that these companies have quad core SoC coming this year too.

    Quote:

    Then, late 2011 the 28nm version, the MSM8960, sets the whole cycle again.



    Just thinking out loud.



    Edit: Here's another interesting link:



    http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/14/e...-apple-tv-and/



    ARM development has been extremely rapid of late. Apple could easily surprise all of us. Last I heard Cortex A9 cores use about 600 milli watts at 1GHz. Give Apple a suitable advanced 32nm process and they likely could do much better. That means four cores running in a power profile only marginally worst that today's A4.
  • Reply 80 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The iPad is already more of a computer than a, "giant iPod Touch." Anyone who thinks of the iPad as a giant iPod Touch either a) hasn't used an iPad for any significant time, or b) is hung up on the superficiality of the fact that they both operate on touch input and unable to see anything beyond that.



    Not used an iPad? Hung up on superficiality? kotatsu? No way.
Sign In or Register to comment.