I didn't do it intentionally, I forgot. You think I had already predicted you 'd go snarky on me instead of replying to my points, so I could then pull the card you said?
Of course it was an option, having already shipped a 32nm stock last year.
Qualcomm's 28nm wasn't an option as mentioned in the anandtech article, since the ipad was assembled in Jan February. Apple could have asked samsung to provide them their chip or to manufacture apple's chip at 32nm. Of course apple can't be suing the shit out of samsung and then expect them to manufacture for them the latest and greatest in their tech. They are obliged to play by samsung's rules there, and of course samsung told them last year's nm process for you guys. Apple should have thought of that before attempting and succeeding at banning the galaxy tab in Germany and Australia.
The heating issue has been as much debunked as the antennae issue had been debunked. Turns out after all the press stonewalling and the obligatory press conference they fixed the engineering error with the 4s. The ipad "3" is by many user reports noticeably warmer and we shall see how this plays out by user feedback and more objective reports.
My reading of that article is that 32 nm is not yet ready for large scale production, but that they are hoping to make use of it in devices later this year. That really doesn't sound like a fab process suitable for iPad scale production.
I doubt that the legal disputes with Samsung have any bearing on chip supply. If it did then you would expect Samsung simply to refuse to supply any components. They supplied the most advanced screen yet manufactured, so why would they not supply the best chips? Do you really not think it most likely that Apple used that chip because it was the most suitable one available in the quantities that they needed?
I shouldn't do this, ignore list and all, but I can see the quote up there and I'm dumbfounded.
The answer to my repeated question "why?" appears to be "Apple could have and should have used smaller process chips in the new iPad, but they couldn't because they were mean to Samsung and payback's a bitch, losers!"
I mean, I guess I kind have to admire the elaborateness of the self-enforcing worldview that gets you to Schadenfreude-- the iPad is fatally compromised (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), even though it didn't have to be (evidence to the affirmative not forthcoming) because Apple fucked up by litigating and awakened the sleeping giant, or something (evidence BEES! IN MY HEAD! MILLIONS OF BEES!).
Honestly, when your argument hinges on brusquely and self-confidently asserting the motivations for the inner workings of huge corporations of which you are very obviously not privy, perhaps you need to rethink your premise. Or not be surprised when people don't take you very seriously.
My reading of that article is that 32 nm is not yet ready for large scale production, but that they are hoping to make use of it in devices later this year. That really doesn't sound like a fab process suitable for iPad scale production.
I doubt that the legal disputes with Samsung have any bearing on chip supply. If it did then you would expect Samsung simply to refuse to supply any components. They supplied the most advanced screen yet manufactured, so why would they not supply the best chips? Do you really not think it most likely that Apple used that chip because it was the most suitable one available in the quantities that they needed?
How Dom your reading is that they ve not released it yet? Rhe article vlearly mentions it shipped its first production line stock in 2011, they had already shipped to oems by 2011.
They supplied the screen, lg and sharp soon follow, and they are making a lot of money out of the screens. They are of course making their own 11.6 retina screens for their own products. But had they offered up their 32nm process manufacturing too they would be giving too much of a competitive advantage to apple, and why should they when apple is rendering them unable to sell (be it rightly or wrongly, I can't be the judge of this) in too very big markets such as Germany and Australia. Of course they are going to keep some of their competitive advantages to themselves.
How Dom your reading is that they ve not released it yet? Rhe article vlearly mentions it shipped its first production line stock in 2011, they had already shipped to oems by 2011.
They supplied the screen, lg and sharp soon follow, and they are making a lot of money out of the screens. They are of course making their own 11.6 retina screens for their own products. But had they offered up their 32nm process manufacturing too they would be giving too much of a competitive advantage to apple, and why should they when apple is rendering them unable to sell (be it rightly or wrongly, I can't be the judge of this) in too very big markets such as Germany and Australia. Of course they are going to keep some of their competitive advantages to themselves.
I didn't say they hadn't released it - the article stated that to date there are no devices using it and suggested that it was not yet available in large quantities. You obviously think otherwise, but I can't figure out why. And personally I think it's obvious that the retina screen gives the iPad a much greater competitive advantage than a 32 nm chip would have done, so I don't follow your supply reasoning either.
I have a 4s and a ipad3. Now I haven't really stressed the iPad yet, but I know the iPhone has been WAY hotter... Marginally uncomfortable temp. I'm guessing it is at about 120-130 F, I'll have to get a measurement next time I think of it. My iPad has yet to register even noticeable warmth...
Indeed. I feel that my iPhone 4S is way hotter. Of course, this is pure conjecture, but I'm willing to bet that the temperatures exceed that of the iPad when playing computationally expensive games. Anyone like to comment on that? Of course they won't, because the iPhone 4S has been out for a while. And it probably gets about as hot as a 4 when playing games, maybe 5 degrees hotter.
Comments
I didn't do it intentionally, I forgot. You think I had already predicted you 'd go snarky on me instead of replying to my points, so I could then pull the card you said?
Of course it was an option, having already shipped a 32nm stock last year.
Qualcomm's 28nm wasn't an option as mentioned in the anandtech article, since the ipad was assembled in Jan February. Apple could have asked samsung to provide them their chip or to manufacture apple's chip at 32nm. Of course apple can't be suing the shit out of samsung and then expect them to manufacture for them the latest and greatest in their tech. They are obliged to play by samsung's rules there, and of course samsung told them last year's nm process for you guys. Apple should have thought of that before attempting and succeeding at banning the galaxy tab in Germany and Australia.
The heating issue has been as much debunked as the antennae issue had been debunked. Turns out after all the press stonewalling and the obligatory press conference they fixed the engineering error with the 4s. The ipad "3" is by many user reports noticeably warmer and we shall see how this plays out by user feedback and more objective reports.
My reading of that article is that 32 nm is not yet ready for large scale production, but that they are hoping to make use of it in devices later this year. That really doesn't sound like a fab process suitable for iPad scale production.
I doubt that the legal disputes with Samsung have any bearing on chip supply. If it did then you would expect Samsung simply to refuse to supply any components. They supplied the most advanced screen yet manufactured, so why would they not supply the best chips? Do you really not think it most likely that Apple used that chip because it was the most suitable one available in the quantities that they needed?
The answer to my repeated question "why?" appears to be "Apple could have and should have used smaller process chips in the new iPad, but they couldn't because they were mean to Samsung and payback's a bitch, losers!"
I mean, I guess I kind have to admire the elaborateness of the self-enforcing worldview that gets you to Schadenfreude-- the iPad is fatally compromised (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), even though it didn't have to be (evidence to the affirmative not forthcoming) because Apple fucked up by litigating and awakened the sleeping giant, or something (evidence BEES! IN MY HEAD! MILLIONS OF BEES!).
Honestly, when your argument hinges on brusquely and self-confidently asserting the motivations for the inner workings of huge corporations of which you are very obviously not privy, perhaps you need to rethink your premise. Or not be surprised when people don't take you very seriously.
My reading of that article is that 32 nm is not yet ready for large scale production, but that they are hoping to make use of it in devices later this year. That really doesn't sound like a fab process suitable for iPad scale production.
I doubt that the legal disputes with Samsung have any bearing on chip supply. If it did then you would expect Samsung simply to refuse to supply any components. They supplied the most advanced screen yet manufactured, so why would they not supply the best chips? Do you really not think it most likely that Apple used that chip because it was the most suitable one available in the quantities that they needed?
How Dom your reading is that they ve not released it yet? Rhe article vlearly mentions it shipped its first production line stock in 2011, they had already shipped to oems by 2011.
They supplied the screen, lg and sharp soon follow, and they are making a lot of money out of the screens. They are of course making their own 11.6 retina screens for their own products. But had they offered up their 32nm process manufacturing too they would be giving too much of a competitive advantage to apple, and why should they when apple is rendering them unable to sell (be it rightly or wrongly, I can't be the judge of this) in too very big markets such as Germany and Australia. Of course they are going to keep some of their competitive advantages to themselves.
How Dom your reading is that they ve not released it yet? Rhe article vlearly mentions it shipped its first production line stock in 2011, they had already shipped to oems by 2011.
They supplied the screen, lg and sharp soon follow, and they are making a lot of money out of the screens. They are of course making their own 11.6 retina screens for their own products. But had they offered up their 32nm process manufacturing too they would be giving too much of a competitive advantage to apple, and why should they when apple is rendering them unable to sell (be it rightly or wrongly, I can't be the judge of this) in too very big markets such as Germany and Australia. Of course they are going to keep some of their competitive advantages to themselves.
I didn't say they hadn't released it - the article stated that to date there are no devices using it and suggested that it was not yet available in large quantities. You obviously think otherwise, but I can't figure out why. And personally I think it's obvious that the retina screen gives the iPad a much greater competitive advantage than a 32 nm chip would have done, so I don't follow your supply reasoning either.
Anyway, let's leave it at that.
I'll second that.
I have a 4s and a ipad3. Now I haven't really stressed the iPad yet, but I know the iPhone has been WAY hotter... Marginally uncomfortable temp. I'm guessing it is at about 120-130 F, I'll have to get a measurement next time I think of it. My iPad has yet to register even noticeable warmth...
Indeed. I feel that my iPhone 4S is way hotter. Of course, this is pure conjecture, but I'm willing to bet that the temperatures exceed that of the iPad when playing computationally expensive games. Anyone like to comment on that? Of course they won't, because the iPhone 4S has been out for a while. And it probably gets about as hot as a 4 when playing games, maybe 5 degrees hotter.