Personally, I think it is bad for entirely different reason. It paints Apple as a penny pincher, cutting design specs to the bone just to save a buck. Apple makes premium products and that isn't something a producer of premium products does.
unless they did it for a different reason you arent aware of (performance vs battery cost/benefits analysis, etc). then it is something a producer of premium products does.
considering this will be the best selling smartphone in history, i dont think they have an image problem.
I think this is probably an 80/80 type situation. 80% of the people won't notice a difference 80% of the time. Personally, I think it is bad for entirely different reason. It paints Apple as a penny pincher, cutting design specs to the bone just to save a buck. Apple makes premium products and that isn't something a producer of premium products does.
or, maybe theres a reason you arent aware of, not being on the engineering team. perf vs power usage, cost/benefits analysis etc. in which case, then it is something a producer of premium products does. since the 6 will be the best selling smartphone in history (again), i dont think they have an image problem...
Seems like Apple would highlight the difference in performance between the two models if ANY of the hardware was different.
They did for the battery. Why didn’t they for RAM if this is true?
Because it would obviously play against their goal to promote both models - not to mention that they've never disclosed RAM in any iPhone-related advertisement.
It would cost Apple $3 more to double it to 2GB; but Apple is so cheap; they just don't want to do it! LOL!
lol indeed - the cost of the materials isn't the cost at issue. The cost in power (and thus battery life) to refresh RAM is what is at issue.
Even if the CPU is sleeping, you have to keep your memory powered up and refreshed - or it looses state. Or are you one of those magical people who have never lost a document due to a power outage?
No power, no contents of RAM. The more RAM you add, the more power you suck.
Also stop ascribing conventional thinking from desktop PCs to appliances like the iPhone. The environment of the iPhone is carefully controlled - for many reasons. Efficient memory management is one of them, again due to the constraints on power that mobile form factors impose.
Simply throwing more resources at a problem is an inelegant and wasteful solution - and it's definitely NOT the Apple way. Thank goodness. A more integrated approach is far more intelligent. But it's also more nuanced since you simply can't judge the performance of something by specs alone - which is why Apple publishes very little of the actual hardware specs for iOS devices - because at the end of the day it should be irrelevant. If they can deliver the same experience with the same amount of memory each year then why should anyone care? And so far they have.
That they were able to do what they did with the first iPad on 512MB is still astounding....
Hey, Wiz! RAM is absolutely the only thing in your phone that you can't turn off. It has to be refreshed thousands of times a second! You can stop the CPU, the GPU and the backlight, but the second you stop refreshing that RAM you've lost everything and have to reboot the phone from scratch.
Exactly - it's all about the energy consumption, not Apple being stingy (please!)
People barking up the "Apple is cheap/stingy" tree are really just to ignorant to understand how embarrassed they should be in even making that argument!
If that is the reason they should stick to 512MB, then.
Yes, because gawd forbid someone actually do an actual analysis and figure out the right balance. Instead let's just pick arbitrary numbers out of thin air and argue for/against them.
Sheesh. And people wonder why Apple doesn't get into the specifics of the hardware? Here's the case in point.
Thank you for your opinion and specifics on why you feel it may be a bad idea to only have 1GB system RAM.
This is what forums are supposed to be about - the exchange of ideas and in doing so educate/point to different avenues of thought, etc.
I think that you have "hit it on the head" on a good point - that Pro users (users that require extra power) are generally NOT the target audience for mobile devices and that sucks if you are a Pro user.
But lets look at this from a different view point:
Why put more hardware into a device if 1-2% (my guesstimate for Pro uses in the overall general market for mobile devices - we can agree to disagree on the number) are the only ones that truly need it?
The company can reduce material costs, perhaps ensure a steady and large supply of a part, make the device thinner, make better decisions what emphasizes they want, etc. if they focus on what 98% need versus 2%.
Again - no argument that this sometimes makes it suck for the 2%.
But for a company looking to make a profit, meet investor expectations, etc. - does it make sense to place your emphasis
on 98% of the users - OR - 2% of the users and possibly delay shipping a device because of additional testing, procurement of parts, etc.?
Emphasizing 2% of your users to the possible detriment of the other 98% does not make good business sense.
And lets be honest here - Apple is not in the business of pleasing each and every person as that is an impossible goal.
And Apple seems to be doing something right because people keep buying and buying Apple products.
I do not recall any other mobile device manufacturer being able to sell as many devices as they can make in huge numbers (1M is not a huge number), maintain industry leading profit margins, maintain industry leading cash on hand, etc. that is focusing on Pro users ahead of “normal” consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
lol indeed - the cost of the materials isn't the cost at issue. The cost in power (and thus battery life) to refresh RAM is what is at issue.
Even if the CPU is sleeping, you have to keep your memory powered up and refreshed - or it looses state. Or are you one of those magical people who have never lost a document due to a power outage?
No power, no contents of RAM. The more RAM you add, the more power you suck.
Also stop ascribing conventional thinking from desktop PCs to appliances like the iPhone. The environment of the iPhone is carefully controlled - for many reasons. Efficient memory management is one of them, again due to the constraints on power that mobile form factors impose.
Simply throwing more resources at a problem is an inelegant and wasteful solution - and it's definitely NOT the Apple way. Thank goodness. A more integrated approach is far more intelligent. But it's also more nuanced since you simply can't judge the performance of something by specs alone - which is why Apple publishes very little of the actual hardware specs for iOS devices - because at the end of the day it should be irrelevant. If they can deliver the same experience with the same amount of memory each year then why should anyone care? And so far they have.
That they were able to do what they did with the first iPad on 512MB is still astounding....
then why not use the more power efficient LPDDR4 mobile RAM? Use that & moving to 2GB of RAM shouldn't be problematic.
Couldn't agree less. He's a pretentious, condescending pissant, who I would bet any amount of money doesn't know 1% as much as he'd like you to think he does.
This crap about accusing everybody but him of "not knowing how RAM is used", really pisses me off. Apparently he, the great expert, is not aware of how RAM works. Kind a a remarkable lapse of knowledge for the Great Guru!
Hey, Wiz! RAM is absolutely the only thing in your phone that you can't turn off. It has to be refreshed thousands of times a second! You can stop the CPU, the GPU and the backlight, but the second you stop refreshing that RAM you've lost everything and have to reboot the phone from scratch.
In a desktop or laptop, the more RAM the better, but with the extremly limited energy available to a phone, you need to use as little as you can possibly get away with. Kind of amazing that one of your enormous knowledge¡ wouldn't be aware of this.
IOW, get bent.
Pretty harsh don't you think, Wizard69 is a good person, his tech rightups are very informative and most of the time accurate. He is always around to offer a helpful hand in the Genius Bar section and spends time with those who ask for his assistance, I looked through your posts and don't see you helping people the way he does. If you disagree with him or anyone for that matter, then debate, please don't insult, as it's not only tacky but turns the thread into a pissing contest.
Memory is probably the least power hungry component in your phone, an additional 1GB would have not significantly taxed the system in terms of power usage, especially to the point where it wouldn't have been beneficial. Apple can get away with only offering 1GB because they restrict the amount of apps that can be utilized in background, I am firmly in the belief that Apple only offers 1GB because of this specific control. Which means they can not only maximize profits but maintain the instant computing experience we have all become so used too. Which is fine, but defiantly makes the iPhone 6 a now product and not a when, meaning when Apple starts adding more advanced multitasking features like; side by side apps or allowing more then one third party app to run in the background for longer then the current hardcoded allowed time or apps that start to replace their desktop counterparts, you will defiantly start to see the limitations of only having 1GB. Unless of course Apple's plan is to only make these features available to the iPad and these features will become reality, it's just a matter of time. One of the most frustrating things I currently have with my iPad is not being able to run at least three different music creations apps at once, at least without any help from a programs like AudioBus, which has it's one disadvantages. Wizard69 also has a legitimate complaint about the browser, it's very easy to over tax a browser with sites that contain large amounts of media content. Another problem are forums, there is nothing more frustrating then typing a large post, switch over to your email client to quickly read something only to come back to a refreshed page within the browser, lost work. Fortunately, AppleInsider and some others that cater to low memory mobile browsers, doesn't have this problem as the site saves your work with a draft feature. Regardless, I have started using Pages to write up my posts and then copy and Paste the text into the textbox to circumvent this limitation.
It's fine that you believe 1GB is completely satisfactory and 9 times out of 10 it probably is for most people, but Wizards whole point is for those who require the extra power, as we do exist and it's unfair to dismiss us. Personally, I simply just use another platform for my phone needs as I have zero emotional investment in the technology or manufacture who made it, as long as it does what I need it too do, I'm fine. Others though don't feel as I do and want to use nothing but an Apple product, for them I think Apple could have added an additional 1GB of memory, especially in the iPhone 6 Plus. It has the space for a larger battery and the display, resolution is ripe for something like side by side app viewing. Stating that Apple chose to use only 1GB of memory because of some dated techno gibberish about power efficiency that you yourself probably don't fully understand and then calling the person who doesn't see it your way, pissant is uncalled for.
Everyone has an opinion, please state yours with respect to the others in this forum. Have a nice day.
Hey Relic ...
Good response. I am glad you are standing up for Wizard! I don't always agree with Wizard, but respect his technical knowledge/experience -- and his willingness to share them (offer assistance to others).
Hey, Wiz! RAM is absolutely the only thing in your phone that you can't turn off. It has to be refreshed thousands of times a second! You can stop the CPU, the GPU and the backlight, but the second you stop refreshing that RAM you've lost everything and have to reboot the phone from scratch.
I am not knowledgeable of the state-of-the-art on RAM technology ... Though, what @Mac-sochist is describing is Dynamic RAM or DRAM -- and yes, it must be refreshed continuously. Another kind of RAM is Static RAM, or SRAM. This does not need to be refreshed.
As to more RAM for iDevices -- I suspect that new iPads this year will have more RAM ... Especially if there is a larger iPad offering. This would allow Apple to implement side-by-side running apps and multiple background tasks ... But the big thing, IMO, is that more RAM will support display and manipulation of large images and video. Large, detail, images for medical use is a major opportunity for an iPad -- as I see it. And pro video editors are already pushing the limits for 4K, 5K and even 6K video.
Pretty harsh don't you think, Wizard69 is a good person, his tech rightups are very informative and most of the time accurate. He is always around to offer a helpful hand in the Genius Bar section and spends time with those who ask for his assistance, I looked through your posts and don't see you helping people the way he does. If you disagree with him or anyone for that matter, then debate, please don't insult, as it's not only tacky but turns the thread into a pissing contest.
Memory is probably the least power hungry component in your phone, an additional 1GB would have not significantly taxed the system in terms of power usage, especially to the point where it wouldn't have been beneficial. Apple can get away with only offering 1GB because they restrict the amount of apps that can be utilized in background, I am firmly in the belief that Apple only offers 1GB because of this specific control. Which means they can not only maximize profits but maintain the instant computing experience we have all become so used too. Which is fine, but defiantly makes the iPhone 6 a now product and not a when, meaning when Apple starts adding more advanced multitasking features like; side by side apps or allowing more then one third party app to run in the background for longer then the current hardcoded allowed time or apps that start to replace their desktop counterparts, you will defiantly start to see the limitations of only having 1GB. Unless of course Apple's plan is to only make these features available to the iPad and these features will become reality, it's just a matter of time. One of the most frustrating things I currently have with my iPad is not being able to run at least three different music creations apps at once, at least without any help from a programs like AudioBus, which has it's one disadvantages. Wizard69 also has a legitimate complaint about the browser, it's very easy to over tax a browser with sites that contain large amounts of media content. Another problem are forums, there is nothing more frustrating then typing a large post, switch over to your email client to quickly read something only to come back to a refreshed page within the browser, lost work. Fortunately, AppleInsider and some others that cater to low memory mobile browsers, doesn't have this problem as the site saves your work with a draft feature. Regardless, I have started using Pages to write up my posts and then copy and Paste the text into the textbox to circumvent this limitation.
It's fine that you believe 1GB is completely satisfactory and 9 times out of 10 it probably is for most people, but Wizards whole point is for those who require the extra power, as we do exist and it's unfair to dismiss us. Personally, I simply just use another platform for my phone needs as I have zero emotional investment in the technology or manufacture who made it, as long as it does what I need it too do, I'm fine. Others though don't feel as I do and want to use nothing but an Apple product, for them I think Apple could have added an additional 1GB of memory, especially in the iPhone 6 Plus. It has the space for a larger battery and the display, resolution is ripe for something like side by side app viewing. Stating that Apple chose to use only 1GB of memory because of some dated techno gibberish about power efficiency that you yourself probably don't fully understand and then calling the person who doesn't see it your way, pissant is uncalled for.
Everyone has an opinion, please state yours with respect to the others in this forum. Have a nice day.
Relic:
Thank you for your opinion and specifics on why you feel it may be a bad idea to only have 1GB system RAM.
This is what forums are supposed to be about - the exchange of ideas and in doing so educate/point to different avenues of thought, etc.
I think that you have "hit it on the head" on a good point - that Pro users (users that require extra power) are generally NOT the target audience for mobile devices and that sucks if you are a Pro user.
But lets look at this from a different view point:
Why put more hardware into a device if 1-2% (my guesstimate for Pro uses in the overall general market for mobile devices - we can agree to disagree on the number) are the only ones that truly need it?
The company can reduce material costs, perhaps ensure a steady and large supply of a part, make the device thinner, make better decisions what emphasizes they want, etc. if they focus on what 98% need versus 2%.
Again - no argument that this sometimes makes it suck for the 2%.
But for a company looking to make a profit, meet investor expectations, etc. - does it make sense to place your emphasis
on 98% of the users - OR - 2% of the users and possibly delay shipping a device because of additional testing, procurement of parts, etc.?
Emphasizing 2% of your users to the possible detriment of the other 98% does not make good business sense.
And lets be honest here - Apple is not in the business of pleasing each and every person as that is an impossible goal.
And Apple seems to be doing something right because people keep buying and buying Apple products.
I do not recall any other mobile device manufacturer being able to sell as many devices as they can make in huge numbers (1M is not a huge number), maintain industry leading profit margins, maintain industry leading cash on hand, etc. that is focusing on Pro users ahead of “normal” consumers.
You raise a very interesting point.
It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Apple are concentrating on the 98% at the expense of the 2%. The reason you cite - profit.
We think of the 2% wanting more RAM as geeks or unreasonable, so we don't have much sympathy for them (Relic, notwithstanding).
But: look at the blind.
Cook attacked a shareholder for concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind. He said that there are some things which go beyond ROI and accommodating the blind was one of them. And yet, what is the proportion of people who are blind who use a smartphone? It must be tiny.
So we have a double standard here, and if I'm feeling cynical, I would say that Cook drew attention to this issue in order to gain public sympathy; you can hardly criticise someone who is helping the blind.
Apple's public image is very important, especially to Cook; I would say more so than it was to Jobs. So there are some minorities that he cares about, others that he doesn't.
It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Apple are concentrating on the 98% at the expense of the 2%. The reason you cite - profit.
We think of the 2% wanting more RAM as geeks or unreasonable, so we don't have much sympathy for them (Relic, notwithstanding).
But: look at the blind.
Cook attacked a shareholder for concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind. He said that there are some things which go beyond ROI and accommodating the blind was one of them. And yet, what is the proportion of people who are blind who use a smartphone? It must be tiny.
So we have a double standard here, and if I'm feeling cynical, I would say that Cook drew attention to this issue in order to gain public sympathy; you can hardly criticise someone who is helping the blind.
Apple's public image is very important, especially to Cook; I would say more so than it was to Jobs. So there are some minorities that he cares about, others that he doesn't.
If it is indeed just for profit then Apple should be called out on it as it is completely against the standard set by "concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind."
Is there irrefutable written/verbal (from Tim C or any Apple SVP - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) proof that Apple chose the amount of system RAM solely for profit?
I hope that is not the case as Apple appears, in my opinion, to make decisions because it was the "right thing to do" based on multiple points of emphasis. Just because it is the fastest/latest technology does not automatically make it the "right thing to do". Now what the "right thing to do" is a whole other discussion topic and I think we should stay on topic in regards to the system RAM here.
Has someone already done the research on the availability, pricing, etc. of a 2GB system RAM module (lack of a better description) versus a 1GB system RAM module that would fit in the iPhone 6?
Perhaps the 2GB system RAM was not available in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price to make the Sept. launch.
Because if it was why would Apple not secure a sufficient quantity at a set price sometime prior to the final physical build of the iPhone 6 using its cash reserve to "pre-buy" production?
Again we must known what Apple (from Apple directly - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) is emphasizing in the iPhone 6 so we can make informed comments about their decisions in regards to hardware.
An engineer working in medical tech, might not necessarily know the ins and outs of how and how much power RAMs suck, any more than many other people would know.
And as for the idea that Apple kept the RAM in the new iphone to 1gb for cost saving purposes, it's a fairly dumb and uninformed suggestion.
They want to save 8$ pr iphone... And on the other hand blow hundreds of millions of dollars on designing their own CPU/CPU architecture?!?
And people wonder why Apple doesn't get into the specifics of the hardware? Here's the case in point.
Right ................ well, except maybe for the CPU, camera, NFC, display, design, hmmmm, you know what, nevermind, they discuss everything except that which is not beneficial to the marketing of new hardware like memory size. Wait, I'm sorry, that's not right, Apple did discuss and listed the memory size of the iPhone when it went from 512mb to 1GB.
I'm just teasing you and really don't mean anything behind it. I am however very interested in some of the literature you've been reading as to why adding an additional 1GB of RAM would be so detrimental to the iPhones battery life that it would negate any and all advantages it could have brought. Regardless the reasons, one thing is for sure, consumers don't really care as this iPhone will probably be the most popular phone in history. I hope the new iPad however does have an additional 1GB of RAM.
FWIW, my speculation on why Apple is sticking with 1 GB of RAM for the iPhone is really from an uptime perspective (battery blah blah blah), but not due to the power draw from another GB of DRAM.
The power draw from 1 GB of DRAM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The increased power consumption comes from powering the CPUs and wireless radios that more RAM would afford, i.e., more processes, more applications running require the SoC and radios to run more often.
That has to be traded with the actual benefit of having more of those apps and processes running vs stopping them, reloading, and getting app developers to properly implementing apps in such a scheme. So, Apple is making a decision for their mass market of consumers, and they believe that overall, having longer battery life is a better trade for the mass of their customers than the benefit from have all the functionality that another 1 GB of DRAM would give.
I'm not talking about you, whom may be able to manage your system perfectly or is understanding of the consequences. Big picture mass market, I think Apple knows how their customers use their devices. And they've designed a system that's meant not to be managed. It's fire and forget. A large fraction of users never kill tabs, never quit applications, will let every single app do push notifications and geofencing. Having more RAM will mean instead of having 5 to 6 major processes running, there'd by 10 to 12, and that extra set of processes don't really provide a bigger benefit to users than longer uptime will. So, Apple's made a decision to not even give users the opportunity to do that.
I really doubt the reason is because they are stingy. It's really a user experience decision.
FWIW, my speculation on why Apple is sticking with 1 GB of RAM for the iPhone is really from an uptime perspective (battery blah blah blah), but not due to the power draw from another GB of DRAM.
The power draw from 1 GB of DRAM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The increased power consumption comes from powering the CPUs and wireless radios that more RAM would afford, i.e., more processes, more applications running require the SoC and radios to run more often.
That has to be traded with the actual benefit of having more of those apps and processes running vs stopping them, reloading, and getting app developers to properly implementing apps in such a scheme. So, Apple is making a decision for their mass market of consumers, and they believe that overall, having longer battery life is a better trade for the mass of their customers than the benefit from have all the functionality that another 1 GB of DRAM would give.
I'm not talking about you, whom may be able to manage your system perfectly or is understanding of the consequences. Big picture mass market, I think Apple knows how their customers use their devices. And they've designed a system that's meant not to be managed. It's fire and forget. A large fraction of users never kill tabs, never quit applications, will let every single app do push notifications and geofencing. Having more RAM will mean instead of having 5 to 6 major processes running, there'd by 10 to 12, and that extra set of processes don't really provide a bigger benefit to users than longer uptime will. So, Apple's made a decision to not even give users the opportunity to do that.
I really doubt the reason is because they are stingy. It's really a user experience decision.
But what if they moved to 2GB RAM using the more power efficient LPDDR4 RAM, which is suppose to be about 40% more power efficient than the RAM they're currently using? Wouldn't that help Apple achieve their objectives?
It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Apple are concentrating on the 98% at the expense of the 2%. The reason you cite - profit.
We think of the 2% wanting more RAM as geeks or unreasonable, so we don't have much sympathy for them (Relic, notwithstanding).
But: look at the blind.
Cook attacked a shareholder for concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind. He said that there are some things which go beyond ROI and accommodating the blind was one of them. And yet, what is the proportion of people who are blind who use a smartphone? It must be tiny.
So we have a double standard here, and if I'm feeling cynical, I would say that Cook drew attention to this issue in order to gain public sympathy; you can hardly criticise someone who is helping the blind.
Apple's public image is very important, especially to Cook; I would say more so than it was to Jobs. So there are some minorities that he cares about, others that he doesn't.
If it is indeed just for profit then Apple should be called out on it as it is completely against the standard set by "concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind."
Is there irrefutable written/verbal (from Tim C or any Apple SVP - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) proof that Apple chose the amount of system RAM solely for profit?
I hope that is not the case as Apple appears, in my opinion, to make decisions because it was the "right thing to do" based on multiple points of emphasis. Just because it is the fastest/latest technology does not automatically make it the "right thing to do". Now what the "right thing to do" is a whole other discussion topic and I think we should stay on topic in regards to the system RAM here.
Has someone already done the research on the availability, pricing, etc. of a 2GB system RAM module (lack of a better description) versus a 1GB system RAM module that would fit in the iPhone 6?
Perhaps the 2GB system RAM was not available in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price to make the Sept. launch.
Because if it was why would Apple not secure a sufficient quantity at a set price sometime prior to the final physical build of the iPhone 6 using its cash reserve to "pre-buy" production?
Again we must known what Apple (from Apple directly - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) is emphasizing in the iPhone 6 so we can make informed comments about their decisions in regards to hardware.
I have been dealing with Apple for 36 years (July 1978). They have always tried to make the best products and put their customer's first.
Apple, like many US companies is driven by the profit motive -- return a fair profit to Apple's [owners and] investors. Without profit, there are no Apple Products, Apple Employees, Apple Customers -- in fact, there is no Apple.
Apple has always been prudent where costs and hardware are concerned -- my 1978 Apple ][ came with 4K RAM, standard. That was possible because WOZ had built in an Assembler, Integer BASIC, Color Graphics, HiRes Graphics, etc. right into the machine. Jobs hired Rod Holt to invent a state-of-the art power supply -- it was more reliable, light-weight, less expensive and did not require a fan,
The points I am trying to make here:
Apple will do whatever it can to make the best products
Apple will challenge itself to do more with less
As to the RAM on smart phones:
IMO, Apple's competitors use 2GB 3GB? RAM on their phones because:
Their hardware and OS are not integrated -- so they add more RAM to achieve acceptable performance
They use it to play Spec Bingo against Apple and other competition
They use it to provide advanced capabilities to attract a few tech nerds
I suspect that Apple could easily * provide more RAM on the new iPhones ... But why? That would be the easy way out. Better to provide a lean, but sophisticated OS, hardware that can outperform the competition using less RAM, provide more function and usability to all their customers -- and provide better battery-life in the bargain.
* no RAM availability problem -- no major BOM/cost issues
That's what I believe motivates Apple's decision on how much RAM to provide on their iDevices.
.
OS X on iPhone? The solution is simple - if you need to run OS X, buy a Mac. There is no good usage case for OS X on smaller platforms. iOS is tailored for that. Microsoft are making a big mistake with Windows everywhere, and not producing specific software to support that hardware platform.
Comments
Personally, I think it is bad for entirely different reason. It paints Apple as a penny pincher, cutting design specs to the bone just to save a buck. Apple makes premium products and that isn't something a producer of premium products does.
unless they did it for a different reason you arent aware of (performance vs battery cost/benefits analysis, etc). then it is something a producer of premium products does.
considering this will be the best selling smartphone in history, i dont think they have an image problem.
2GB of Ram would have allwoed proper multi-tasking and even 2 or more tabs to be actually running in the web browser.
Heavens forbid, we could have even had a desktop mode setting in Safari.
whats "proper" multitasking? what makes it proper? desktop-style multitasking isnt by definition proper on a mobile system.
and what tabs are you talking about? iphone's safari doesnt have any tabs. nobody knows whats going to happen for the ipad.
I think this is probably an 80/80 type situation. 80% of the people won't notice a difference 80% of the time. Personally, I think it is bad for entirely different reason. It paints Apple as a penny pincher, cutting design specs to the bone just to save a buck. Apple makes premium products and that isn't something a producer of premium products does.
or, maybe theres a reason you arent aware of, not being on the engineering team. perf vs power usage, cost/benefits analysis etc. in which case, then it is something a producer of premium products does. since the 6 will be the best selling smartphone in history (again), i dont think they have an image problem...
Seems like Apple would highlight the difference in performance between the two models if ANY of the hardware was different.
They did for the battery. Why didn’t they for RAM if this is true?
Because it would obviously play against their goal to promote both models - not to mention that they've never disclosed RAM in any iPhone-related advertisement.
RAM requires power to be refreshed. That's why Apple keeps the amount down.
If that is the reason they should stick to 512MB, then.
lol indeed - the cost of the materials isn't the cost at issue. The cost in power (and thus battery life) to refresh RAM is what is at issue.
Even if the CPU is sleeping, you have to keep your memory powered up and refreshed - or it looses state. Or are you one of those magical people who have never lost a document due to a power outage?
No power, no contents of RAM. The more RAM you add, the more power you suck.
Also stop ascribing conventional thinking from desktop PCs to appliances like the iPhone. The environment of the iPhone is carefully controlled - for many reasons. Efficient memory management is one of them, again due to the constraints on power that mobile form factors impose.
Simply throwing more resources at a problem is an inelegant and wasteful solution - and it's definitely NOT the Apple way. Thank goodness. A more integrated approach is far more intelligent. But it's also more nuanced since you simply can't judge the performance of something by specs alone - which is why Apple publishes very little of the actual hardware specs for iOS devices - because at the end of the day it should be irrelevant. If they can deliver the same experience with the same amount of memory each year then why should anyone care? And so far they have.
That they were able to do what they did with the first iPad on 512MB is still astounding....
Exactly - it's all about the energy consumption, not Apple being stingy (please!)
People barking up the "Apple is cheap/stingy" tree are really just to ignorant to understand how embarrassed they should be in even making that argument!
Yes, because gawd forbid someone actually do an actual analysis and figure out the right balance. Instead let's just pick arbitrary numbers out of thin air and argue for/against them.
Sheesh. And people wonder why Apple doesn't get into the specifics of the hardware? Here's the case in point.
Oy - this thread....
All you have to do is read this thread to see why
If the goal is to promote both models, why wouldn’t they be the same?
Relic:
Thank you for your opinion and specifics on why you feel it may be a bad idea to only have 1GB system RAM.
This is what forums are supposed to be about - the exchange of ideas and in doing so educate/point to different avenues of thought, etc.
I think that you have "hit it on the head" on a good point - that Pro users (users that require extra power) are generally NOT the target audience for mobile devices and that sucks if you are a Pro user.
But lets look at this from a different view point:
Why put more hardware into a device if 1-2% (my guesstimate for Pro uses in the overall general market for mobile devices - we can agree to disagree on the number) are the only ones that truly need it?
The company can reduce material costs, perhaps ensure a steady and large supply of a part, make the device thinner, make better decisions what emphasizes they want, etc. if they focus on what 98% need versus 2%.
Again - no argument that this sometimes makes it suck for the 2%.
But for a company looking to make a profit, meet investor expectations, etc. - does it make sense to place your emphasis
on 98% of the users - OR - 2% of the users and possibly delay shipping a device because of additional testing, procurement of parts, etc.?
Emphasizing 2% of your users to the possible detriment of the other 98% does not make good business sense.
And lets be honest here - Apple is not in the business of pleasing each and every person as that is an impossible goal.
And Apple seems to be doing something right because people keep buying and buying Apple products.
I do not recall any other mobile device manufacturer being able to sell as many devices as they can make in huge numbers (1M is not a huge number), maintain industry leading profit margins, maintain industry leading cash on hand, etc. that is focusing on Pro users ahead of “normal” consumers.
lol indeed - the cost of the materials isn't the cost at issue. The cost in power (and thus battery life) to refresh RAM is what is at issue.
Even if the CPU is sleeping, you have to keep your memory powered up and refreshed - or it looses state. Or are you one of those magical people who have never lost a document due to a power outage?
No power, no contents of RAM. The more RAM you add, the more power you suck.
Also stop ascribing conventional thinking from desktop PCs to appliances like the iPhone. The environment of the iPhone is carefully controlled - for many reasons. Efficient memory management is one of them, again due to the constraints on power that mobile form factors impose.
Simply throwing more resources at a problem is an inelegant and wasteful solution - and it's definitely NOT the Apple way. Thank goodness. A more integrated approach is far more intelligent. But it's also more nuanced since you simply can't judge the performance of something by specs alone - which is why Apple publishes very little of the actual hardware specs for iOS devices - because at the end of the day it should be irrelevant. If they can deliver the same experience with the same amount of memory each year then why should anyone care? And so far they have.
That they were able to do what they did with the first iPad on 512MB is still astounding....
then why not use the more power efficient LPDDR4 mobile RAM? Use that & moving to 2GB of RAM shouldn't be problematic.
Hey Relic ...
Good response. I am glad you are standing up for Wizard! I don't always agree with Wizard, but respect his technical knowledge/experience -- and his willingness to share them (offer assistance to others).
From @Mac-sochist, above:
I am not knowledgeable of the state-of-the-art on RAM technology ... Though, what @Mac-sochist is describing is Dynamic RAM or DRAM -- and yes, it must be refreshed continuously. Another kind of RAM is Static RAM, or SRAM. This does not need to be refreshed.
Here's a simple explanation:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question452.htm
As to more RAM for iDevices -- I suspect that new iPads this year will have more RAM ... Especially if there is a larger iPad offering. This would allow Apple to implement side-by-side running apps and multiple background tasks ... But the big thing, IMO, is that more RAM will support display and manipulation of large images and video. Large, detail, images for medical use is a major opportunity for an iPad -- as I see it. And pro video editors are already pushing the limits for 4K, 5K and even 6K video.
Pretty harsh don't you think, Wizard69 is a good person, his tech rightups are very informative and most of the time accurate. He is always around to offer a helpful hand in the Genius Bar section and spends time with those who ask for his assistance, I looked through your posts and don't see you helping people the way he does. If you disagree with him or anyone for that matter, then debate, please don't insult, as it's not only tacky but turns the thread into a pissing contest.
Memory is probably the least power hungry component in your phone, an additional 1GB would have not significantly taxed the system in terms of power usage, especially to the point where it wouldn't have been beneficial. Apple can get away with only offering 1GB because they restrict the amount of apps that can be utilized in background, I am firmly in the belief that Apple only offers 1GB because of this specific control. Which means they can not only maximize profits but maintain the instant computing experience we have all become so used too. Which is fine, but defiantly makes the iPhone 6 a now product and not a when, meaning when Apple starts adding more advanced multitasking features like; side by side apps or allowing more then one third party app to run in the background for longer then the current hardcoded allowed time or apps that start to replace their desktop counterparts, you will defiantly start to see the limitations of only having 1GB. Unless of course Apple's plan is to only make these features available to the iPad and these features will become reality, it's just a matter of time. One of the most frustrating things I currently have with my iPad is not being able to run at least three different music creations apps at once, at least without any help from a programs like AudioBus, which has it's one disadvantages. Wizard69 also has a legitimate complaint about the browser, it's very easy to over tax a browser with sites that contain large amounts of media content. Another problem are forums, there is nothing more frustrating then typing a large post, switch over to your email client to quickly read something only to come back to a refreshed page within the browser, lost work. Fortunately, AppleInsider and some others that cater to low memory mobile browsers, doesn't have this problem as the site saves your work with a draft feature. Regardless, I have started using Pages to write up my posts and then copy and Paste the text into the textbox to circumvent this limitation.
It's fine that you believe 1GB is completely satisfactory and 9 times out of 10 it probably is for most people, but Wizards whole point is for those who require the extra power, as we do exist and it's unfair to dismiss us. Personally, I simply just use another platform for my phone needs as I have zero emotional investment in the technology or manufacture who made it, as long as it does what I need it too do, I'm fine. Others though don't feel as I do and want to use nothing but an Apple product, for them I think Apple could have added an additional 1GB of memory, especially in the iPhone 6 Plus. It has the space for a larger battery and the display, resolution is ripe for something like side by side app viewing. Stating that Apple chose to use only 1GB of memory because of some dated techno gibberish about power efficiency that you yourself probably don't fully understand and then calling the person who doesn't see it your way, pissant is uncalled for.
Everyone has an opinion, please state yours with respect to the others in this forum. Have a nice day.
Relic:
Thank you for your opinion and specifics on why you feel it may be a bad idea to only have 1GB system RAM.
This is what forums are supposed to be about - the exchange of ideas and in doing so educate/point to different avenues of thought, etc.
I think that you have "hit it on the head" on a good point - that Pro users (users that require extra power) are generally NOT the target audience for mobile devices and that sucks if you are a Pro user.
But lets look at this from a different view point:
Why put more hardware into a device if 1-2% (my guesstimate for Pro uses in the overall general market for mobile devices - we can agree to disagree on the number) are the only ones that truly need it?
The company can reduce material costs, perhaps ensure a steady and large supply of a part, make the device thinner, make better decisions what emphasizes they want, etc. if they focus on what 98% need versus 2%.
Again - no argument that this sometimes makes it suck for the 2%.
But for a company looking to make a profit, meet investor expectations, etc. - does it make sense to place your emphasis
on 98% of the users - OR - 2% of the users and possibly delay shipping a device because of additional testing, procurement of parts, etc.?
Emphasizing 2% of your users to the possible detriment of the other 98% does not make good business sense.
And lets be honest here - Apple is not in the business of pleasing each and every person as that is an impossible goal.
And Apple seems to be doing something right because people keep buying and buying Apple products.
I do not recall any other mobile device manufacturer being able to sell as many devices as they can make in huge numbers (1M is not a huge number), maintain industry leading profit margins, maintain industry leading cash on hand, etc. that is focusing on Pro users ahead of “normal” consumers.
You raise a very interesting point.
It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Apple are concentrating on the 98% at the expense of the 2%. The reason you cite - profit.
We think of the 2% wanting more RAM as geeks or unreasonable, so we don't have much sympathy for them (Relic, notwithstanding).
But: look at the blind.
Cook attacked a shareholder for concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind. He said that there are some things which go beyond ROI and accommodating the blind was one of them. And yet, what is the proportion of people who are blind who use a smartphone? It must be tiny.
So we have a double standard here, and if I'm feeling cynical, I would say that Cook drew attention to this issue in order to gain public sympathy; you can hardly criticise someone who is helping the blind.
Apple's public image is very important, especially to Cook; I would say more so than it was to Jobs. So there are some minorities that he cares about, others that he doesn't.
You raise a very interesting point.
It is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Apple are concentrating on the 98% at the expense of the 2%. The reason you cite - profit.
We think of the 2% wanting more RAM as geeks or unreasonable, so we don't have much sympathy for them (Relic, notwithstanding).
But: look at the blind.
Cook attacked a shareholder for concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind. He said that there are some things which go beyond ROI and accommodating the blind was one of them. And yet, what is the proportion of people who are blind who use a smartphone? It must be tiny.
So we have a double standard here, and if I'm feeling cynical, I would say that Cook drew attention to this issue in order to gain public sympathy; you can hardly criticise someone who is helping the blind.
Apple's public image is very important, especially to Cook; I would say more so than it was to Jobs. So there are some minorities that he cares about, others that he doesn't.
If it is indeed just for profit then Apple should be called out on it as it is completely against the standard set by "concentrating on profit at the expense of the blind."
Is there irrefutable written/verbal (from Tim C or any Apple SVP - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) proof that Apple chose the amount of system RAM solely for profit?
I hope that is not the case as Apple appears, in my opinion, to make decisions because it was the "right thing to do" based on multiple points of emphasis. Just because it is the fastest/latest technology does not automatically make it the "right thing to do". Now what the "right thing to do" is a whole other discussion topic and I think we should stay on topic in regards to the system RAM here.
Has someone already done the research on the availability, pricing, etc. of a 2GB system RAM module (lack of a better description) versus a 1GB system RAM module that would fit in the iPhone 6?
Perhaps the 2GB system RAM was not available in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price to make the Sept. launch.
Because if it was why would Apple not secure a sufficient quantity at a set price sometime prior to the final physical build of the iPhone 6 using its cash reserve to "pre-buy" production?
Again we must known what Apple (from Apple directly - no rumors/conjecture/second hand water cooler talk) is emphasizing in the iPhone 6 so we can make informed comments about their decisions in regards to hardware.
And as for the idea that Apple kept the RAM in the new iphone to 1gb for cost saving purposes, it's a fairly dumb and uninformed suggestion.
They want to save 8$ pr iphone... And on the other hand blow hundreds of millions of dollars on designing their own CPU/CPU architecture?!?
Right ................ well, except maybe for the CPU, camera, NFC, display, design, hmmmm, you know what, nevermind, they discuss everything except that which is not beneficial to the marketing of new hardware like memory size. Wait, I'm sorry, that's not right, Apple did discuss and listed the memory size of the iPhone when it went from 512mb to 1GB.
I'm just teasing you and really don't mean anything behind it. I am however very interested in some of the literature you've been reading as to why adding an additional 1GB of RAM would be so detrimental to the iPhones battery life that it would negate any and all advantages it could have brought. Regardless the reasons, one thing is for sure, consumers don't really care as this iPhone will probably be the most popular phone in history. I hope the new iPad however does have an additional 1GB of RAM.
FWIW, my speculation on why Apple is sticking with 1 GB of RAM for the iPhone is really from an uptime perspective (battery blah blah blah), but not due to the power draw from another GB of DRAM.
The power draw from 1 GB of DRAM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The increased power consumption comes from powering the CPUs and wireless radios that more RAM would afford, i.e., more processes, more applications running require the SoC and radios to run more often.
That has to be traded with the actual benefit of having more of those apps and processes running vs stopping them, reloading, and getting app developers to properly implementing apps in such a scheme. So, Apple is making a decision for their mass market of consumers, and they believe that overall, having longer battery life is a better trade for the mass of their customers than the benefit from have all the functionality that another 1 GB of DRAM would give.
I'm not talking about you, whom may be able to manage your system perfectly or is understanding of the consequences. Big picture mass market, I think Apple knows how their customers use their devices. And they've designed a system that's meant not to be managed. It's fire and forget. A large fraction of users never kill tabs, never quit applications, will let every single app do push notifications and geofencing. Having more RAM will mean instead of having 5 to 6 major processes running, there'd by 10 to 12, and that extra set of processes don't really provide a bigger benefit to users than longer uptime will. So, Apple's made a decision to not even give users the opportunity to do that.
I really doubt the reason is because they are stingy. It's really a user experience decision.
FWIW, my speculation on why Apple is sticking with 1 GB of RAM for the iPhone is really from an uptime perspective (battery blah blah blah), but not due to the power draw from another GB of DRAM.
The power draw from 1 GB of DRAM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The increased power consumption comes from powering the CPUs and wireless radios that more RAM would afford, i.e., more processes, more applications running require the SoC and radios to run more often.
That has to be traded with the actual benefit of having more of those apps and processes running vs stopping them, reloading, and getting app developers to properly implementing apps in such a scheme. So, Apple is making a decision for their mass market of consumers, and they believe that overall, having longer battery life is a better trade for the mass of their customers than the benefit from have all the functionality that another 1 GB of DRAM would give.
I'm not talking about you, whom may be able to manage your system perfectly or is understanding of the consequences. Big picture mass market, I think Apple knows how their customers use their devices. And they've designed a system that's meant not to be managed. It's fire and forget. A large fraction of users never kill tabs, never quit applications, will let every single app do push notifications and geofencing. Having more RAM will mean instead of having 5 to 6 major processes running, there'd by 10 to 12, and that extra set of processes don't really provide a bigger benefit to users than longer uptime will. So, Apple's made a decision to not even give users the opportunity to do that.
I really doubt the reason is because they are stingy. It's really a user experience decision.
But what if they moved to 2GB RAM using the more power efficient LPDDR4 RAM, which is suppose to be about 40% more power efficient than the RAM they're currently using? Wouldn't that help Apple achieve their objectives?
I have been dealing with Apple for 36 years (July 1978). They have always tried to make the best products and put their customer's first.
Apple, like many US companies is driven by the profit motive -- return a fair profit to Apple's [owners and] investors. Without profit, there are no Apple Products, Apple Employees, Apple Customers -- in fact, there is no Apple.
Apple has always been prudent where costs and hardware are concerned -- my 1978 Apple ][ came with 4K RAM, standard. That was possible because WOZ had built in an Assembler, Integer BASIC, Color Graphics, HiRes Graphics, etc. right into the machine. Jobs hired Rod Holt to invent a state-of-the art power supply -- it was more reliable, light-weight, less expensive and did not require a fan,
The points I am trying to make here:
As to the RAM on smart phones:
IMO, Apple's competitors use 2GB 3GB? RAM on their phones because:
I suspect that Apple could easily * provide more RAM on the new iPhones ... But why? That would be the easy way out. Better to provide a lean, but sophisticated OS, hardware that can outperform the competition using less RAM, provide more function and usability to all their customers -- and provide better battery-life in the bargain.
* no RAM availability problem -- no major BOM/cost issues
That's what I believe motivates Apple's decision on how much RAM to provide on their iDevices.
.