Yes A15 won't be ready for iPhone 5, and IMHO a quad core GPU on the iPhone screen does not make sence battery wise. So I expect a A5X dual core CPU/GPU on the new iPhone which is enough to compete/beat the competition. A9 quad core is just a waist of 2 cores that won't be used and a battery drain on android phones...
What I expect to see is the dual-core Cortex-A9 32nm process (Apple still hiring Samsung to build Apple's ASICs) with 1GB RAM and a newer Img Tech (not Rogue) still with two cores.
Because of the power savings with the smaller lithography I would expect Apple to boost the processing speed of at least the CPU and perhaps the GPU.
If they do offer a quad-core CPU I have to wonder if they would advertise that since with the Cortex-A15 they will be dropping down to dual-core again. Does that make sense when you consider the way the average consumer looks at a YoY product release? Samsung et al. just throw everything at a wall and see what sticks but with a small inventory you simply can't do that. Now if they offer a larger iPhone in addition with their current size that might be a way to go but I'm still skeptical that it would make sense.
PS: One thing to consider is that Apple won't do a 12 month cycle like it's done 3 out of the 4 years since releasing the iPhone. While I think another Autumn release makes the most sense what if they want to keep doing a 5 season release cycle. They are certainly sustaining sales and profits to make it doable. If they do move to early 2013 for the 6th gen iPhone then Cortex-A15 could then be possible. Again, I don't think that'll happen but I mention it for the sake of considering all angles.
“With the iPhone, something happened with the new OS or the new phone, and it just started running through the battery so fast. I’ve had a lot of issues with things I have to turn off just to save the battery life.”
So what is "so fast"? And which competitive products did he compare it to?"
Anyone who has tested the iPhone under anything approaching real world conditions says that it works just fine.
It's faster than any other phone on the market AND it has 20% lower power consumption than the previous model. You may call the Mali-400 crap, but it doesn't have problems with any mobile games and it plays 1080p mkv movies effortlessly (still talking about the non-overclocked version), which is something that even my iPad struggles with (although this is probably caused by software). The A5X is a beast, but it consumes more power than an entire iPhone 4S. It's impossible to have such power in a phone at the moment.
But then again the A5X is driving a 2048x1536 display not to mention the power consumed by the display itself. Its hardly comparable to ANY smartphone out on the market. And please remember that the iPad and iPhone do not have the ability to playback your pirate MKV files, so yes, it WILL be a 3rd party app software issue.
I for one am glad Samsung is trying to up the specs on their next Gen smartphone. Samsung is the only manufacturer that is close to being competetive with apple in the high end smartphone area. If Apple had no competitors chasing after them, then they would probably come out with new iphones less frequently and with fewer improvements from the previous generation too.
Couple of things, I was a bit let down that its just A9 cores rather than something A15-ish like Krait, but on the other hand the only other quad A9 we've seen (Tegra 3) was hampered by a single channel memory controller for four cores instead of two for two like most designs. So there's potential to be closer to Krait than Tegra 3, especially if a workload gets all four cores going.
Also, so long after the GS2 launch the Mali 400 still ranks among the best graphics chips in Android, even if its behind the 543MP2/4 in the iPad/iPhone. So I'm excited to see what Samsung will have done with the GPU in all this time, I'd wager they will take the performance crown again at least on the Android front.
Specs don't matter as long as every device is significantly more powerful than you need. We reached that point with desktop computers several years ago. Even the cheapest desktop computer I can buy today is faster than 95% of users need. So people have switched to buying on features, reliability, quality, etc - all the things where Apple excels.
Phones are already at that point for many people, as well. Some hard core game players may feel otherwise, but most of them wouldn't play games on a phone, anyway. It's just not as big a selling feature for phones as the ecosystem, battery life, etc.
I of course agree with you but once you are in the store after already convinced to buy a Macbook, you need to decide which one to buy. Do I buy the cheapest or pay an extra $100 bucks or so? This decision will always depend on specs. Battery life is a spec, as is the rest of the criteria which you will make your decision. Do I get an 8GB iPhone or the 32GB? Specs do matter to the consumer, and in Apple's case, usually after they already decided to buy an Apple product. You can say spec wars don't matter anymore but specs a.k.a. features will always be part of the buying decision. And that was my point.
I of course agree with you but once you are in the store after already convinced to buy a Macbook, you need to decide which one to buy. Do I buy the cheapest or pay an extra $100 bucks or so? This decision will always depend on specs. Battery life is a spec, as is the rest of the criteria which you will make your decision. Do I get an 8GB iPhone or the 32GB? Specs do matter to the consumer, and in Apple's case, usually after they already decided to buy an Apple product. You can say spec wars don't matter anymore but specs a.k.a. features will always be part of the buying decision. And that was my point.
Yes, but that's not the important part of the buying decision. Once you've decided to buy a MacBook Pro, it doesn't matter all that much to Apple whether you upgrade the CPU or not. The important decision is which product you should buy - and Apple doesn't generally use specs to drive that purchase decision.
Look at the 'I'm a Mac' commercials. 60+ commercials in that series and did you ever hear specs mentioned?
Look at the iPad TV ads. All about what you can do with the device and how great your pictures and videos look. Nothing about specs.
Look at the iPhone TV commercials. Do the Rock God or Road Trip ads say ANYTHING about specs?
While the print ads have more room for details and therefore include more specs, the focus is never on the spec. Rather, it is on what you can do with the device and why that spec is important to the function of the device.
In contrast, look at the competitors' advertising that's all about specs. When Samsung brags about a quad core processor, do they ever explain why you would want a quad core processor or what it would allow you to do that Apple's A5x won't? Of course not. It's all about "4 is more than 2, so you should buy our product".
I for one am glad Samsung is trying to up the specs on their next Gen smartphone. Samsung is the only manufacturer that is close to being competetive with apple in the high end smartphone area. If Apple had no competitors chasing after them, then they would probably come out with new iphones less frequently and with fewer improvements from the previous generation too.
People keep claiming that, yet there's absolutely nothing to support the claim.
Look at the iPad. Apple still doesn't have any real competition and we're already up to the 3rd generation. Apple is driven by the desire to improve its products and make great products even greater. They also realize that continually improving their products means more repeat buyers. Given their extremely high customer retention rates, giving repeat buyers a reason to jump in early is a major driving force. Apple wants you to buy a new iPad or iPhone every year, so they need to offer enough improvements to justify that.
Having to respond to competition can actually slow down progress some times. Let's say the competition introduces a new feature that really doesn't add any value but has mass-market appeal. Even though it really doesn't make the iDevice work any better, all the media and bloggers are whining about how far behind the curve Apple is because they don't have this particular feature, so Apple decides to go ahead and add the feature. So it wastes money for the consumer (the cost of adding the device), wastes battery life, and ties up resources that Apple could have used to make a REAL improvement. It is very common for companies to waste resources on a useless feature simply because the market demands it - even though there's no real value. With an innovative company like Apple which is driven to improve the product already and which has multiple experiments underway all the time, the distraction may well be greater than any added value.
It is therefore not completely clear that Apple products would be worse without competition.
We had this same issue with Microwave Ovens. Raytheon had a patented rotating antenna that was slightly more expensive than a fixed antenna. To compensate for this weakness, other companies introduced turntables to rotate the food instead of the antenna to achieve the same evenly heated result at the expense of cubic capacity and additional easily broken mechanical parts. Eventually the turntable caught on and Raytheon had to add turntables to some of their Amana RadarRange lines in order to sell them. Finally they just threw up their hands and sold their entire appliance business and went back to selling airplanes and missles.
We had this same issue with Microwave Ovens. Raytheon had a patented rotating antenna that was slightly more expensive than a fixed antenna. To compensate for this weakness, other companies introduced turntables to rotate the food instead of the antenna to achieve the same evenly heated result at the expense of cubic capacity and additional easily broken mechanical parts. Eventually the turntable caught on and Raytheon had to add turntables to some of their Amana RadarRange lines in order to sell them. Finally they just threw up their hands and sold their entire appliance business and went back to selling airplanes and missles.
Exactly. Raytheon was forced to add a feature that didn't do anything for the performance of their product because the competition had convinced the consumer that rotating the food was necessary for good energy distribution. That required research time and money that could have been better spent elsewhere.
One could argue that Raytheon could have spent the money educating the public, but that doesn't change the picture. It's money that's wasted in terms of 'better product'. (Plus, being on the defensive to respond to the competition is not a good marketing position to be in). If Raytheon hadn't had competition pushing the rotating food concept, that money could have been spent on some other feature that really would have helped to make it a better product.
CPU is the same but the GPU is a new chip so if the new iPhone uses a dual core A5X it will have the new GPU just dual core and that is a big difference. IMHO for a 4" screen it's more than enough not to mention the 1g of ram than the new iPad has will also help a lot on the new iPhone...
The iPad 2/iPhone 4S use a Power VR SGX 543MP2. The iPad 3 (and the Playstation Vita) use a Power VR 543MP4.
Comments
What's admirable is that this CPU uses a 32nm process and will be more power-efficient. Here's waiting for 48h battery life in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
really? Apple should be in jail then
Yep. Because they… certainly… insult their customers.
…
What I expect to see is the dual-core Cortex-A9 32nm process (Apple still hiring Samsung to build Apple's ASICs) with 1GB RAM and a newer Img Tech (not Rogue) still with two cores.
Because of the power savings with the smaller lithography I would expect Apple to boost the processing speed of at least the CPU and perhaps the GPU.
If they do offer a quad-core CPU I have to wonder if they would advertise that since with the Cortex-A15 they will be dropping down to dual-core again. Does that make sense when you consider the way the average consumer looks at a YoY product release? Samsung et al. just throw everything at a wall and see what sticks but with a small inventory you simply can't do that. Now if they offer a larger iPhone in addition with their current size that might be a way to go but I'm still skeptical that it would make sense.
PS: One thing to consider is that Apple won't do a 12 month cycle like it's done 3 out of the 4 years since releasing the iPhone. While I think another Autumn release makes the most sense what if they want to keep doing a 5 season release cycle. They are certainly sustaining sales and profits to make it doable. If they do move to early 2013 for the 6th gen iPhone then Cortex-A15 could then be possible. Again, I don't think that'll happen but I mention it for the sake of considering all angles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHD
Did Google pay Steve Wozniak, Co-Founder of Apple, to also say the 4S battery sux.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/01/16/woz-talks-siri-4s-android/
Where did he say the battery sucks?
His exact quote was:
“With the iPhone, something happened with the new OS or the new phone, and it just started running through the battery so fast. I’ve had a lot of issues with things I have to turn off just to save the battery life.”
So what is "so fast"? And which competitive products did he compare it to?"
Anyone who has tested the iPhone under anything approaching real world conditions says that it works just fine.
LOL
Sounds pretty crappy to me. He also mentions that Android is better than Siri LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Fixed that for you Samesung. Thank me later.
Nothing to read here. Move along.
What does that say about the upcoming Quad Core chipsets from Apple then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
They lifted the music from Mass Effect 2 - Sammy can't do anything original
You must not be familiar with a thing called "license".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4Ev3r
SAMESUNG IS A TRYING-HARD, SECOND-RATE, APPLE COMMERCIAL COPYCAT--BAD TASTE ALL THE WAY!
must be why they are #1 smartphone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youarewrong
It's faster than any other phone on the market AND it has 20% lower power consumption than the previous model. You may call the Mali-400 crap, but it doesn't have problems with any mobile games and it plays 1080p mkv movies effortlessly (still talking about the non-overclocked version), which is something that even my iPad struggles with (although this is probably caused by software). The A5X is a beast, but it consumes more power than an entire iPhone 4S. It's impossible to have such power in a phone at the moment.
But then again the A5X is driving a 2048x1536 display not to mention the power consumed by the display itself. Its hardly comparable to ANY smartphone out on the market. And please remember that the iPad and iPhone do not have the ability to playback your pirate MKV files, so yes, it WILL be a 3rd party app software issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
must be why they are #1 smartphone sales.
Prove it!! Samsung do not supply actual sales figures so you will find it impossible to prove.
I for one am glad Samsung is trying to up the specs on their next Gen smartphone. Samsung is the only manufacturer that is close to being competetive with apple in the high end smartphone area. If Apple had no competitors chasing after them, then they would probably come out with new iphones less frequently and with fewer improvements from the previous generation too.
Couple of things, I was a bit let down that its just A9 cores rather than something A15-ish like Krait, but on the other hand the only other quad A9 we've seen (Tegra 3) was hampered by a single channel memory controller for four cores instead of two for two like most designs. So there's potential to be closer to Krait than Tegra 3, especially if a workload gets all four cores going.
Also, so long after the GS2 launch the Mali 400 still ranks among the best graphics chips in Android, even if its behind the 543MP2/4 in the iPad/iPhone. So I'm excited to see what Samsung will have done with the GPU in all this time, I'd wager they will take the performance crown again at least on the Android front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Specs don't matter as long as every device is significantly more powerful than you need. We reached that point with desktop computers several years ago. Even the cheapest desktop computer I can buy today is faster than 95% of users need. So people have switched to buying on features, reliability, quality, etc - all the things where Apple excels.
Phones are already at that point for many people, as well. Some hard core game players may feel otherwise, but most of them wouldn't play games on a phone, anyway. It's just not as big a selling feature for phones as the ecosystem, battery life, etc.
I of course agree with you but once you are in the store after already convinced to buy a Macbook, you need to decide which one to buy. Do I buy the cheapest or pay an extra $100 bucks or so? This decision will always depend on specs. Battery life is a spec, as is the rest of the criteria which you will make your decision. Do I get an 8GB iPhone or the 32GB? Specs do matter to the consumer, and in Apple's case, usually after they already decided to buy an Apple product. You can say spec wars don't matter anymore but specs a.k.a. features will always be part of the buying decision. And that was my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
I of course agree with you but once you are in the store after already convinced to buy a Macbook, you need to decide which one to buy. Do I buy the cheapest or pay an extra $100 bucks or so? This decision will always depend on specs. Battery life is a spec, as is the rest of the criteria which you will make your decision. Do I get an 8GB iPhone or the 32GB? Specs do matter to the consumer, and in Apple's case, usually after they already decided to buy an Apple product. You can say spec wars don't matter anymore but specs a.k.a. features will always be part of the buying decision. And that was my point.
Yes, but that's not the important part of the buying decision. Once you've decided to buy a MacBook Pro, it doesn't matter all that much to Apple whether you upgrade the CPU or not. The important decision is which product you should buy - and Apple doesn't generally use specs to drive that purchase decision.
Look at the 'I'm a Mac' commercials. 60+ commercials in that series and did you ever hear specs mentioned?
Look at the iPad TV ads. All about what you can do with the device and how great your pictures and videos look. Nothing about specs.
Look at the iPhone TV commercials. Do the Rock God or Road Trip ads say ANYTHING about specs?
While the print ads have more room for details and therefore include more specs, the focus is never on the spec. Rather, it is on what you can do with the device and why that spec is important to the function of the device.
In contrast, look at the competitors' advertising that's all about specs. When Samsung brags about a quad core processor, do they ever explain why you would want a quad core processor or what it would allow you to do that Apple's A5x won't? Of course not. It's all about "4 is more than 2, so you should buy our product".
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark
I for one am glad Samsung is trying to up the specs on their next Gen smartphone. Samsung is the only manufacturer that is close to being competetive with apple in the high end smartphone area. If Apple had no competitors chasing after them, then they would probably come out with new iphones less frequently and with fewer improvements from the previous generation too.
People keep claiming that, yet there's absolutely nothing to support the claim.
Look at the iPad. Apple still doesn't have any real competition and we're already up to the 3rd generation. Apple is driven by the desire to improve its products and make great products even greater. They also realize that continually improving their products means more repeat buyers. Given their extremely high customer retention rates, giving repeat buyers a reason to jump in early is a major driving force. Apple wants you to buy a new iPad or iPhone every year, so they need to offer enough improvements to justify that.
Having to respond to competition can actually slow down progress some times. Let's say the competition introduces a new feature that really doesn't add any value but has mass-market appeal. Even though it really doesn't make the iDevice work any better, all the media and bloggers are whining about how far behind the curve Apple is because they don't have this particular feature, so Apple decides to go ahead and add the feature. So it wastes money for the consumer (the cost of adding the device), wastes battery life, and ties up resources that Apple could have used to make a REAL improvement. It is very common for companies to waste resources on a useless feature simply because the market demands it - even though there's no real value. With an innovative company like Apple which is driven to improve the product already and which has multiple experiments underway all the time, the distraction may well be greater than any added value.
It is therefore not completely clear that Apple products would be worse without competition.
We had this same issue with Microwave Ovens. Raytheon had a patented rotating antenna that was slightly more expensive than a fixed antenna. To compensate for this weakness, other companies introduced turntables to rotate the food instead of the antenna to achieve the same evenly heated result at the expense of cubic capacity and additional easily broken mechanical parts. Eventually the turntable caught on and Raytheon had to add turntables to some of their Amana RadarRange lines in order to sell them. Finally they just threw up their hands and sold their entire appliance business and went back to selling airplanes and missles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4Ev3r
WHATEVER!
That's telling him!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
We had this same issue with Microwave Ovens. Raytheon had a patented rotating antenna that was slightly more expensive than a fixed antenna. To compensate for this weakness, other companies introduced turntables to rotate the food instead of the antenna to achieve the same evenly heated result at the expense of cubic capacity and additional easily broken mechanical parts. Eventually the turntable caught on and Raytheon had to add turntables to some of their Amana RadarRange lines in order to sell them. Finally they just threw up their hands and sold their entire appliance business and went back to selling airplanes and missles.
Exactly. Raytheon was forced to add a feature that didn't do anything for the performance of their product because the competition had convinced the consumer that rotating the food was necessary for good energy distribution. That required research time and money that could have been better spent elsewhere.
One could argue that Raytheon could have spent the money educating the public, but that doesn't change the picture. It's money that's wasted in terms of 'better product'. (Plus, being on the defensive to respond to the competition is not a good marketing position to be in). If Raytheon hadn't had competition pushing the rotating food concept, that money could have been spent on some other feature that really would have helped to make it a better product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShAdOwXPR
CPU is the same but the GPU is a new chip so if the new iPhone uses a dual core A5X it will have the new GPU just dual core and that is a big difference. IMHO for a 4" screen it's more than enough not to mention the 1g of ram than the new iPad has will also help a lot on the new iPhone...
The iPad 2/iPhone 4S use a Power VR SGX 543MP2. The iPad 3 (and the Playstation Vita) use a Power VR 543MP4.
It's the same chip, just with extra cores.