I know but they will hopefully be listed in 2015, I have set aside 20,000CHF and have it entered in as a pre-order into Eurex. Check with your broker, you can setup something similar to get your buy in fast when it does. I wrote the comment to quickly and skipped a lot, I got side tracked by another poster, I meant to convey getting in early is always your best option, as with Space X but I hit submit and didn't proof read what I had just wrote.
Wish Apple would spend more time explaining how the average iPad user benefits from these technology improvements. Lately with iPads they've basically just been reading specs off a keynote slide. Is there a special place in the app store that showcases apps taking advantage of the A8X? I think iPad is a product that Apple just doesn't know what to do with. This past keynote when Tim asked the question of what could you do to make the iPad better and then proceeds to show a video of it getting 18% thinner really crystallized for me that their loss with what to do with this product. And as we can see with the increase in Mac sales and decrease in iPad growth we are not in a post-PC world at all. During the last earnings call Tim Cook said it doesn't bother him at all if someone chooses an iPhone or Mac over an iPad. Okay I get that because at the end of the day they're still buying an Apple product. But wouldn't he want to know why people are choosing those devices over an iPad? IMO if the iPad doesn't get a major shake up the sales decline will continue.
The problem, as I see it, is that those of us who do benefit from an iPad, are buying them. But what is the percentage of people buying tablets who would benefit from those enhanced specs? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%, less?
That's the problem Apple is faced with these days. When much cheaper tablets are "good enough" for most people's needs, then an Apple tablet loses its allure for an actual purchase, even if someone would rather have one. I use apps for which ever better performance is needed. But how many people use those apps? How many are available on Android in the first place? How many Android users even know such apps are available on the iPad? How many care?
For example, I use an app called Audio Tools. This is a professional app for audio use. The basic price is $19.95, pretty cheap. But you can add modules, and eventually end up with a couple of hundred in cost. But using my iPad, and sometimes my iPhone, which this is also for, and their adapter box that fits the Apple connector (the old connector, but works on Lightning with Apple's adapter), I can do sophisticated audio measurements that I used to have over $20 thousand in equipment for. You can get this for Android, as an app, but not the box, which allows all of those other measurements. And for Android, as with all other measurement apps, it's not calibrated, because there are too many Android devices out there, and many have low specs for microphones, etc. So while the basic Android app "works" without the box and an external measurement mic, which I sometimes use, the measurements that it can do are really just for "entertainment only". You can calibrate the Android device, if you have access to the hundreds of $$$ of calibration tools required.
But again, even though I know guys who have these apps for Android, they neither know nor care that they are inaccurate.
So this is where things are at. Most people don't do this work where an iPad is needed. So they don't need an iPad, and so they buy a much cheaper Android model that does do what they need. And so Apple is caught in a spiral.
I believe that now that the iPad has been out since mid 2010, it needs a rethink. Possibly iPhones too. I do believe that, in their labs, they are looking at more advanced models, and by that, I don't mean just newer chips. We can look at all those patents Apple has gotten over the years that are very innovative. The question is how many of them are practical in an actual device, or depend on technologies to implement that are still some years away?
Let's look at one thing that's been bothering me. Recharging devices has become a chore when running down, and more time is needed. Motorola has just come out with a phone that allows a super charge with a time in just a few minutes, at most. Is Apple incapable of doing the same? Is Motorola's technology lab so much better than Apple's? Or is Apple blasé about this? Does Apple care about long recharge times? This is something that Apple should have come out with, several years ago. It's obviously not that hard to do.
I know but they will hopefully be listed in 2015, I have set aside 20,000CHF and have it entered in as a pre-order into Eurex. Check with your broker, you can setup something similar to get your buy in fast when it does.
Oh, ok. There's been talk of a Space X IPO for years now. I bet that IPO will be huge when and if it finally gets announced.
I'm pretty sure that I won't be able to buy in before it's actually trading on the market though, through my broker.
I've never been able to buy in early to any IPO yet. I would have loved to pick up some BABA before it actually opened on the market.
Oh please! If you've actually been following DED on his own website, you'd know what he is. I've pointed out many flaws in his "facts" and reasoning to him over the years. He refuses to acknowledge them. Even if you prove to him that it's flawed, he often won't even read the evidence.
This argument is flawed, because, for example, the new Tegra has better performance per core than the A8x, an argument that has been used for Apple's chips over the years, but since it only has two cores, poorer multi core performance, another argument around Apple's chips over the years. The graphics performance of the latest Tegra is also pretty good.
But this doesn't matter that much. As I said in my first post here, Apple's chips aren't much of a threat to Qualcomm or other manufacturers, because Apple doesn't sell their chips, amd Apple's market share in tablets is continually falling. But, Apple's chips are inspiring other chip manufacturers to increase the performance of their own.
Not necessarily correct. There is speculation that every Apple iPad sold may be a x86-64 PC not sold. Please provide reliable evidence that Apple iPad market share is continually falling.
The most important determinant to whether a chip is important is in how it leads to increased sales. Has the A7 led to increased Apple tablet sales? No, sales are down. Is the A8x going to? Well, we don't know yet, but it looks as though the answer is no.
Do you have any evidence that decreased sales have any correlation to Apple Ax; perhaps Apple iPad would have far fewer sales if not for Apple Ax.
While it's true that Apple's profitability is much higher than competing tablet makers, if sales continue to drop, it won't matter much.
So, DED's arguments are incorrect. It's a marketing challenge for other companies to claim that they too have 64 bit chips, no doubt. And while I don't believe that Apple has done this for marketing purposes, does it really matter? I don't think so. If the biggest selling component of the tablet market is now tablets selling for under $250, then having a performance leading chip is of less importance than before. The truth is that these cheaper tablets have seen their performance rise to the point to where what most people do, which is view video, listen to music, browse the web, buy things, and do email, that they don't need significantly increased performance. Particularly not if that increased performance comes at a highly increased cost.
You have limited your definition of "tablet" to the ridiculous Google Android and Microsoft Surface narrative.
My concern, and something that DED continually misses, is that Apple has a habit of shaking up a market with a major disruption, and then sitting on it, and merely iterating designs over the years, rather than coming up with something that shakes it up again, in a way that will continue Apple's leading position, and so that position continually erodes, as we are seeing happen.
So while TouchID is probably helping iPhone sales, and is enabling Apple Pay, which, hopefully will be a great success for Apple, it's not doing nearly as much for iPads. Mine is great to use, and buying online is easier. But is it going to have people spend $100 more to get an Apple tablet? I'm not so sure.
Overall, I think that people must be more critical of what DED writes, and just because he writes what most people here want to read from someone, they have to look at the real world situation as well. And there, his writing falls short.
... is it going to have people spend $100 more to get an Apple tablet - Yes. Some consumers will see the value.
I always forget about that, thunderbolt being an intel development.
I wouldn't be surprised if apple moves away from thunderbolt all together. It seems like it never took off as much as they were hoping it would.
Thunderbolt is the only wrench but they could still use the mDP port that TB piggybacks to support displays. If they want to go that route I don't think sub-$700 notebook and sub-$500 desktops that don't support TB will be an issue since those are higher-end features. How many people are using TB peripherals on a 11" MacBook Airs right these days. My guess is fewer than we think.
And let's look at the ARM processor market. How many people are aware that ARM was an Apple product, more than anything? Not too many.
Apple would rather all the nuts and bolts be obscured or given Apple branding so that isn't an argument against Apple wanting to push ARM into a low-cost "PC."
The most important determinant to whether a chip is important is in how it leads to increased sales. Has the A7 led to increased Apple tablet sales? No, sales are down. Is the A8x going to? Well, we don't know yet, but it looks as though the answer is no.
I think the A8X (and tablet acceptance) will come into it's own in at least these ways:
increased sales of iPad Air 2 to consumers
increased sales of a new AppleTV/Home Hub/Server/Game Controller
new use of iPads as personal TVs and gaming devices
enterprise/institutional use of iPads including the new iPad Pro 12"
professional use of iPads including the new iPad Pro 12"
Some [much?] of the acceptance will be a result of the Apple/IBM partnership ... and as people, increasingly, use iPads in their work -- the will tend to purchase similar devices for their personal use!
Same reason he left out the countless other processor and SoC manufacturers out there who already dominate those markets. Nvidia's presence in those areas is minuscule.
For example, ones I've worked with include Freescale, Siemens, Infineon and ST Micro.
That's fine I never said there weren't others in that market. Your also forgetting that K1 has been doing very well in China and India with the Xiami MiPad, Acer Chromebooks and HP is using them in their ChromeBooks, which like their previous models will also sell quite well. I'm not really sure what your deal is with me, this might be an Apple forum but this thread concerns other manufacturers as well. Why is my opinion any less valid than yours. Especially when I actually use the products that Reds putting down, unlike you who just gets their info from other tech sites.
Oh, ok. There's been talk of a Space X IPO for years now. I bet that IPO will be huge when and if it finally gets announced.
I'm pretty sure that I won't be able to buy in before it's actually trading on the market though, through my broker.
I've never been able to buy in early to any IPO yet. I would have loved to pick up some BABA before it actually opened on the market.
Check out InteractiveBrokers, you can set aside funds for up and coming IPO's, they even offer simulated trading based on past market data so you can setup your home trading platform without actually making in any orders. Their worth a look and fairly inexpensive to boot. They also have a half way decent mobile trading app, unlike some of the absolute garbage I've used in the past, cough SwissQuote.
Wish Apple would spend more time explaining how the average iPad user benefits from these technology improvements. Lately with iPads they've basically just been reading specs off a keynote slide. Is there a special place in the app store that showcases apps taking advantage of the A8X? I think iPad is a product that Apple just doesn't know what to do with. This past keynote when Tim asked the question of what could you do to make the iPad better and then proceeds to show a video of it getting 18% thinner really crystallized for me that their loss with what to do with this product. And as we can see with the increase in Mac sales and decrease in iPad growth we are not in a post-PC world at all. During the last earnings call Tim Cook said it doesn't bother him at all if someone chooses an iPhone or Mac over an iPad. Okay I get that because at the end of the day they're still buying an Apple product. But wouldn't he want to know why people are choosing those devices over an iPad? IMO if the iPad doesn't get a major shake up the sales decline will continue.
The problem, as I see it, is that those of us who do benefit from an iPad, are buying them. But what is the percentage of people buying tablets who would benefit from those enhanced specs? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%, less?
That's the problem Apple is faced with these days. When much cheaper tablets are "good enough" for most people's needs, then an Apple tablet loses its allure for an actual purchase, even if someone would rather have one. I use apps for which ever better performance is needed. But how many people use those apps? How many are available on Android in the first place? How many Android users even know such apps are available on the iPad? How many care?
For example, I use an app called Audio Tools. This is a professional app for audio use. The basic price is $19.95, pretty cheap. But you can add modules, and eventually end up with a couple of hundred in cost. But using my iPad, and sometimes my iPhone, which this is also for, and their adapter box that fits the Apple connector (the old connector, but works on Lightning with Apple's adapter), I can do sophisticated audio measurements that I used to have over $20 thousand in equipment for. You can get this for Android, as an app, but not the box, which allows all of those other measurements. And for Android, as with all other measurement apps, it's not calibrated, because there are too many Android devices out there, and many have low specs for microphones, etc. So while the basic Android app "works" without the box and an external measurement mic, which I sometimes use, the measurements that it can do are really just for "entertainment only". You can calibrate the Android device, if you have access to the hundreds of $$$ of calibration tools required.
But again, even though I know guys who have these apps for Android, they neither know nor care that they are inaccurate.
So this is where things are at. Most people don't do this work where an iPad is needed. So they don't need an iPad, and so they buy a much cheaper Android model that does do what they need. And so Apple is caught in a spiral.
I believe that now that the iPad has been out since mid 2010, it needs a rethink. Possibly iPhones too. I do believe that, in their labs, they are looking at more advanced models, and by that, I don't mean just newer chips. We can look at all those patents Apple has gotten over the years that are very innovative. The question is how many of them are practical in an actual device, or depend on technologies to implement that are still some years away?
Let's look at one thing that's been bothering me. Recharging devices has become a chore when running down, and more time is needed. Motorola has just come out with a phone that allows a super charge with a time in just a few minutes, at most. Is Apple incapable of doing the same? Is Motorola's technology lab so much better than Apple's? Or is Apple blasé about this? Does Apple care about long recharge times? This is something that Apple should have come out with, several years ago. It's obviously not that hard to do.
Many good points.
I may add that for people who "good enough" is sufficient, a 3 year old ipad is arguably pretty close to a new $250 tablet for doing basic tasks.
The tablet market matured and saturated pretty quickly once the ipad came out.
And yes please on rapid charging and battery life.
My concern, and something that DED continually misses, is that Apple has a habit of shaking up a market with a major disruption, and then sitting on it, and merely iterating designs over the years, rather than coming up with something that shakes it up again, in a way that will continue Apple's leading position, and so that position continually erodes, as we are seeing happen.
Let's take Apple out of the picture... so who else is shaking up the market?
You say Apple is capable of causing a disruption (which is a feat in and of itself)... but then they sit on it.
So what are other companies doing?
I'm genuinely curious as a fan of tech (not just Apple... my only Apple device is an iPhone 5S)
Let me jump in, again ...
The big disruption I see is ApplePay ...
But the key to put a $0-$50 [subsidized?] device in the hands of billions of users worldwide. By definition, the device must include: ApplePay, phone, web, mail ... which requires UI, radios, TouchID.
Again good post, I to bought Apple very early, well during the Jobs second coming, early, in 2000 when it was trading at less than 14 dollars, I borrowed 100,000 CHF from my parents to help purchase 10,000 shares, after a 2 for 1 stock spit and than another 7 for 1 later, yea it's worth quite a lot now and hopefully will not sell in my life time. It's controlled by a living Trust, so my family should be financial secured when I pass. I also own quite a few others like Google, Microsoft, Space X, etc. that were also bought fairly early on.
We're almost exactly the same there, but I vacillated since 2002. Sorry about that ever since, but I really can't complain, particularly since dividends began pouring in. I had no idea that it would ever get this high, or that Apple would get this big. Really, who did back then. When Apple reached $36, my broker called me and said I should sell since I had made so much. When I refusrd, he asked; "What, you think it will go to $40?". I think I said; "Uh, yeah.".
Well Apple tends to be shooting where the market is going, while others are trying to chase where the market is now.
Intel's problem is that it's more interested in creating parts for which there is no market. Celeron's and Atom's serve what purpose? Creating a market for underpowered useless computers that OEM's then try to push as viable machines (see Windows XP and the underpowered netbook.) Poor Asus, completely fell on it's face with the eeePC, when it was supposed to be what the "chromebook" effectively is. The Atom parts only belong in devices that need a low power draw, but not on battery, but any place they could possibly used, ARM parts are better performance per watt. See GoogleTV "SmartTV"'s and AppleTV.
Apple still needs Intel, at least as long as there is a "desktop" market. Apple may have tried to stealth kill the Mac Pro, but the 3D animation, film and music industry didn't want to throw out their existing investments just to switch to Windows, or be forced to use expensive-to-manage Linux workstations. I don't see this changing, and changing to ARM would cause the same problem.
In fact, as much as Apple has refused to license OS X, if Apple ever decides to stop producing the "Mac Pro" , it would be in their best interest to license someone to build BYO Mac Pro (workstation) class hardware that OS X can be licensed to run on. Few people who use OS X want to switch to Windows, and there has always been a market for this class of hardware. It's not that they don't want Apple's hardware, it's that Apple doesn't produce hardware that the (gaming) high end want. No ARM chip is ever going to hit that.
Existing ARM parts are more powerful than 8 year old computers. But this is comparing completely dissimilar power profiles.
Just based on die-shrink's, consider that those producing ARM parts are on the same process node as Intel is, but the parts they are producing aren't even close.
vs
If you could glue a heatsink on top of the A8, I'm sure it's possible to just double the clock and get something faster than the Haswell Dual core, but would it burn energy twice as fast?
With finfet 16nm, you could probably easily double the clock of the A9 with proper cooling which would already be 30% faster than the A8X with the die shrink. That would mean about 12000 geekbench 3 for the A9 Boost edition :-) (with no change in the A8X architecture. Adding one core you'd get 16000. With some architecture changes, you could probably reach around 18000 for a desktop edition A9 (Single Core would be around 5000).
BTW, that's pretty close to the current I7-4770 and I7-4990 64 bit Mac in the single core, multi-core score.
So, all in all, if my utopic ;-) scenario holds, Apple would be about 1 generation behind Intel in late 2015 in performance on the desktop if they ever went there.
Well, it's not so simple. Intel admits that it was Apple that came to them with the idea, and the specs they wanted to see. So while Intel did the actual development of at least most of the engineering work, would they have even thought of doing it if they haven't been approached by Apple? Likely not. Thunderbolt is doing better than ever. It's being accepted more than it was. As driver chips get down in price, more companies are using it.
And let's look at the ARM processor market. How many people are aware that ARM was an Apple product, more than anything? Not too many. It was Apple that went to Acorn computing after having evaluated other mobile processors for their Newton project. They told Acorn that their chip could be redesigned for mobile, and got Acorn and VSLI to form ARM along with Apple. Acorn did the hardware engineering, and VSLI produced the chips. Apple contributed specs, microcode and firmware. So ARM was an Apple invention. They sold off their ARM holdings in the early 2000's, I think it was.
I had an A9home PC, it was this little cute purple thing that ran RiscOS, it contained an ARM9 CPU, 128Mb RAM and 40GB HD. I got it at a computer fair in Zurich, never really played with it all that much though. I Think I still have it in a box somewhere, I should dig it up, might be a fun thing to play with again.
With finfet 16nm, you could probably easily double the clock of the A9 with proper cooling which would already be 30% faster than the A8X with the die shrink. That would mean about 12000 geekbench 3 for the A9 Boost edition :-) (with no change in the A8X architecture. Adding one core you'd get 16000. With some architecture changes, you could probably reach around 18000 for a desktop edition A9 (Single Core would be around 5000).
BTW, that's pretty close to the current I7-4770 and I7-4990 64 bit Mac in the single core, multi-core score.
So, all in all, if my utopic ;-) scenario holds, Apple would be about 1 generation behind Intel in late 2015 in performance on the desktop if they ever went there.
Gosh I hope Apple releases a MacBook Air with an A9, that would just be the coolest thing ever.
Let's take Apple out of the picture... so who else is shaking up the market?
You say Apple is capable of causing a disruption (which is a feat in and of itself)... but then they sit on it.
So what are other companies doing?
I'm genuinely curious as a fan of tech (not just Apple... my only Apple device is an iPhone 5S)
Apple HAS caused disruptions. But once a technology settles in, price begins to become the most important factor in a purchasing decision for most people. So Apple's market share drops from 100% to the mid 20's.
The problem, as I've said several times here, and at other times, is that for most people, their products become less relevant. Why spend $500, when something else does what they want for $250? If Apple wants to keep those price points, then performance isn't enough, and neither is TouchID. I have to admit that I don't know what Apple would need to do that's disruptive, other than to keep well ahead in a number of areas. But we've seen numerous patents from them that could do it.
Incorporating solar cells in the screen. Incorporating a camera in the screen. Those are two patented areas from Apple from several years ago. Are they working on them or not? Are they practical?
How about this—Apple uses an LED backlight that uses several LEDs on the edge of the screen. OLEDs can illuminate individual pixels for notifications that use very little power. LCDs have traditionally illuminated the entire panel at once. With large backlighting from panels behind the screen, nothing could be done about that. But with LED backlighting, it can. Apple could illuminate just one LED to have notifications, live, when the phone is off, just the way some Android phones do. It would illuminate a part of the screen, enough for messages, time, temperature, etc., while using much less power than turning all the LEDs on at once. There are several of them. How about Apple doing that?
There are a number of ideas I have that Apple could be doing. Cameras, touch controls, and other areas, are ones in which Apple could be doing more work on. For example, Apple could lay out a camera that uses a mirror, preferably an aspheric mirror, that would allow the sensor to sit 90 degrees from the lens, eliminating camera thickness as a problem. This would allow a bigger sensor, and even an optical zoom, for which there are several promising technologies. This isn't a technology that hasn't been used in bigger cameras, as it has been. How would people react to a 16MP camera with a 3:1 optical zoom, with low noise? Would the module cost more? Sure. Would the extra sale make it worthwhile? Sure.
But the key to put a $0-$50 [subsidized?] device in the hands of billions of users worldwide. By definition, the device must include: ApplePay, phone, web, mail ... which requires UI, radios, TouchID.
Right.
But my question was... who else is creating this sort of disruption?
We know Apple can shake up multiple markets. We've seen it many times before. But who else does?
For instance... what is HTC's great disruption? Or what is Lenovo working on that will blow our socks off?
The comment I replied to earlier said that Apple introduces disruptive technologies... but then they just sit on them and simply iterates year after year. The tone of that comment was that Apple can't raise the bar every time.
The problem, as I see it, is that those of us who do benefit from an iPad, are buying them. But what is the percentage of people buying tablets who would benefit from those enhanced specs? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%, less?
That's the problem Apple is faced with these days. When much cheaper tablets are "good enough" for most people's needs, then an Apple tablet loses its allure for an actual purchase, even if someone would rather have one. I use apps for which ever better performance is needed. But how many people use those apps? How many are available on Android in the first place? How many Android users even know such apps are available on the iPad? How many care?
For example, I use an app called Audio Tools. This is a professional app for audio use. The basic price is $19.95, pretty cheap. But you can add modules, and eventually end up with a couple of hundred in cost. But using my iPad, and sometimes my iPhone, which this is also for, and their adapter box that fits the Apple connector (the old connector, but works on Lightning with Apple's adapter), I can do sophisticated audio measurements that I used to have over $20 thousand in equipment for. You can get this for Android, as an app, but not the box, which allows all of those other measurements. And for Android, as with all other measurement apps, it's not calibrated, because there are too many Android devices out there, and many have low specs for microphones, etc. So while the basic Android app "works" without the box and an external measurement mic, which I sometimes use, the measurements that it can do are really just for "entertainment only". You can calibrate the Android device, if you have access to the hundreds of $$$ of calibration tools required.
But again, even though I know guys who have these apps for Android, they neither know nor care that they are inaccurate.
So this is where things are at. Most people don't do this work where an iPad is needed. So they don't need an iPad, and so they buy a much cheaper Android model that does do what they need. And so Apple is caught in a spiral.
I believe that now that the iPad has been out since mid 2010, it needs a rethink. Possibly iPhones too. I do believe that, in their labs, they are looking at more advanced models, and by that, I don't mean just newer chips. We can look at all those patents Apple has gotten over the years that are very innovative. The question is how many of them are practical in an actual device, or depend on technologies to implement that are still some years away?
Let's look at one thing that's been bothering me. Recharging devices has become a chore when running down, and more time is needed. Motorola has just come out with a phone that allows a super charge with a time in just a few minutes, at most. Is Apple incapable of doing the same? Is Motorola's technology lab so much better than Apple's? Or is Apple blasé about this? Does Apple care about long recharge times? This is something that Apple should have come out with, several years ago. It's obviously not that hard to do.
The quick recharge always has an impact on battery life (how long the battery will last). This isn't an issue if you can actually replace the battery life some Android phones. You can charge a Iphone 6 with an Ipad charger and it will take half the time. But, your going to impact your battery significantly. Since Apple would need to make it possible to change the battery themselves to enable this right now and that have a major impact on their devices' size. I don't think we'll see it. In laptops it could be used though.
Good post, agreed fully. I don't think we will ever see Apple selling their ARM chips to others, nor do I think we would see the kinds of speeds that iOS produces if they were used in say an Android or Windows 8 tablet, their too customized to their target group. Mobile devices are also not the only thing ARM chips are used for, the K1 for instance is now being used in hospital imaging equipment and cars. Why did Ded leave out the absolutely huge market for none mobile device usage.
Most of us here know DED pretty well. We know his goals. Therefor, it isn't in his interest in presenting anything that undermines those goals, unless everyone already knows it, and he therefor can't ignore it. But, even then, he attempts to denigrate it.
His goal, and the goal of those here who unthinkingly defend him, it to put blinders on when he writes, so that he can ignore everything that contrasts with what he wants to say. What he wants to say it that Apple is pretty much perfect, and that everything they do is good, and that all competitors are incompetent.
Obviously, that isn't the real world. I bought my first Mac for my own company back in 1988 as part of a photo correction system called the "Crossfield Editing system". This was a package that had a high end drum scanner, a Mac IICi, software, etc. We were possibly the first commercial lab in the US to have bought this precursor to Photoshop. I've been using Macs ever since. I know their triumphs, and their sins. To pretend otherwise is either naivé, ignorance, or deliberate rewriting of history.
As I also own several million dollars of Apple stock, I also try to see the reality behind that investment. If I rhlught the company was destitute of value, I would sell the stock. But I've held it since mid 2004, and haven't sold any, but bought some during low valuations, where I could. I point out my investment, because I've been accused here of being a troll when I point out things that are wrong. But I try not to live in a Woo Woo world.
I don't think DED has any 'goals' or agenda. When it comes to Apple, he just sees things how they are, which is what makes his writing so attractive. He strips everything down to the historical facts and presents them in an entertaining way.
Admittedly, he can't hep his liberal roots seeping through on non-tech related matters, bless him.
Comments
“WAA,” the cry goes up, “BUT THEY SOLD IT OR MADE IT FREE SO THAT MEANS THEY DID NOTHING!”
I know but they will hopefully be listed in 2015, I have set aside 20,000CHF and have it entered in as a pre-order into Eurex. Check with your broker, you can setup something similar to get your buy in fast when it does. I wrote the comment to quickly and skipped a lot, I got side tracked by another poster, I meant to convey getting in early is always your best option, as with Space X but I hit submit and didn't proof read what I had just wrote.
The problem, as I see it, is that those of us who do benefit from an iPad, are buying them. But what is the percentage of people buying tablets who would benefit from those enhanced specs? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%, less?
That's the problem Apple is faced with these days. When much cheaper tablets are "good enough" for most people's needs, then an Apple tablet loses its allure for an actual purchase, even if someone would rather have one. I use apps for which ever better performance is needed. But how many people use those apps? How many are available on Android in the first place? How many Android users even know such apps are available on the iPad? How many care?
For example, I use an app called Audio Tools. This is a professional app for audio use. The basic price is $19.95, pretty cheap. But you can add modules, and eventually end up with a couple of hundred in cost. But using my iPad, and sometimes my iPhone, which this is also for, and their adapter box that fits the Apple connector (the old connector, but works on Lightning with Apple's adapter), I can do sophisticated audio measurements that I used to have over $20 thousand in equipment for. You can get this for Android, as an app, but not the box, which allows all of those other measurements. And for Android, as with all other measurement apps, it's not calibrated, because there are too many Android devices out there, and many have low specs for microphones, etc. So while the basic Android app "works" without the box and an external measurement mic, which I sometimes use, the measurements that it can do are really just for "entertainment only". You can calibrate the Android device, if you have access to the hundreds of $$$ of calibration tools required.
But again, even though I know guys who have these apps for Android, they neither know nor care that they are inaccurate.
So this is where things are at. Most people don't do this work where an iPad is needed. So they don't need an iPad, and so they buy a much cheaper Android model that does do what they need. And so Apple is caught in a spiral.
I believe that now that the iPad has been out since mid 2010, it needs a rethink. Possibly iPhones too. I do believe that, in their labs, they are looking at more advanced models, and by that, I don't mean just newer chips. We can look at all those patents Apple has gotten over the years that are very innovative. The question is how many of them are practical in an actual device, or depend on technologies to implement that are still some years away?
Let's look at one thing that's been bothering me. Recharging devices has become a chore when running down, and more time is needed. Motorola has just come out with a phone that allows a super charge with a time in just a few minutes, at most. Is Apple incapable of doing the same? Is Motorola's technology lab so much better than Apple's? Or is Apple blasé about this? Does Apple care about long recharge times? This is something that Apple should have come out with, several years ago. It's obviously not that hard to do.
I know but they will hopefully be listed in 2015, I have set aside 20,000CHF and have it entered in as a pre-order into Eurex. Check with your broker, you can setup something similar to get your buy in fast when it does.
Oh, ok. There's been talk of a Space X IPO for years now. I bet that IPO will be huge when and if it finally gets announced.
I'm pretty sure that I won't be able to buy in before it's actually trading on the market though, through my broker.
I've never been able to buy in early to any IPO yet. I would have loved to pick up some BABA before it actually opened on the market.
Not necessarily correct. There is speculation that every Apple iPad sold may be a x86-64 PC not sold. Please provide reliable evidence that Apple iPad market share is continually falling.
Do you have any evidence that decreased sales have any correlation to Apple Ax; perhaps Apple iPad would have far fewer sales if not for Apple Ax.
You have limited your definition of "tablet" to the ridiculous Google Android and Microsoft Surface narrative.
... is it going to have people spend $100 more to get an Apple tablet - Yes. Some consumers will see the value.
This is the single most absurd comment ever posted on this website.
Thunderbolt is the only wrench but they could still use the mDP port that TB piggybacks to support displays. If they want to go that route I don't think sub-$700 notebook and sub-$500 desktops that don't support TB will be an issue since those are higher-end features. How many people are using TB peripherals on a 11" MacBook Airs right these days. My guess is fewer than we think.
Apple would rather all the nuts and bolts be obscured or given Apple branding so that isn't an argument against Apple wanting to push ARM into a low-cost "PC."
I think the A8X (and tablet acceptance) will come into it's own in at least these ways:
Some [much?] of the acceptance will be a result of the Apple/IBM partnership ... and as people, increasingly, use iPads in their work -- the will tend to purchase similar devices for their personal use!
That's fine I never said there weren't others in that market. Your also forgetting that K1 has been doing very well in China and India with the Xiami MiPad, Acer Chromebooks and HP is using them in their ChromeBooks, which like their previous models will also sell quite well. I'm not really sure what your deal is with me, this might be an Apple forum but this thread concerns other manufacturers as well. Why is my opinion any less valid than yours. Especially when I actually use the products that Reds putting down, unlike you who just gets their info from other tech sites.
Check out InteractiveBrokers, you can set aside funds for up and coming IPO's, they even offer simulated trading based on past market data so you can setup your home trading platform without actually making in any orders. Their worth a look and fairly inexpensive to boot. They also have a half way decent mobile trading app, unlike some of the absolute garbage I've used in the past, cough SwissQuote.
Many good points.
I may add that for people who "good enough" is sufficient, a 3 year old ipad is arguably pretty close to a new $250 tablet for doing basic tasks.
The tablet market matured and saturated pretty quickly once the ipad came out.
And yes please on rapid charging and battery life.
Let me jump in, again ...
The big disruption I see is ApplePay ...
But the key to put a $0-$50 [subsidized?] device in the hands of billions of users worldwide. By definition, the device must include: ApplePay, phone, web, mail ... which requires UI, radios, TouchID.
We're almost exactly the same there, but I vacillated since 2002. Sorry about that ever since, but I really can't complain, particularly since dividends began pouring in. I had no idea that it would ever get this high, or that Apple would get this big. Really, who did back then. When Apple reached $36, my broker called me and said I should sell since I had made so much. When I refusrd, he asked; "What, you think it will go to $40?". I think I said; "Uh, yeah.".
Well Apple tends to be shooting where the market is going, while others are trying to chase where the market is now.
Intel's problem is that it's more interested in creating parts for which there is no market. Celeron's and Atom's serve what purpose? Creating a market for underpowered useless computers that OEM's then try to push as viable machines (see Windows XP and the underpowered netbook.) Poor Asus, completely fell on it's face with the eeePC, when it was supposed to be what the "chromebook" effectively is. The Atom parts only belong in devices that need a low power draw, but not on battery, but any place they could possibly used, ARM parts are better performance per watt. See GoogleTV "SmartTV"'s and AppleTV.
Apple still needs Intel, at least as long as there is a "desktop" market. Apple may have tried to stealth kill the Mac Pro, but the 3D animation, film and music industry didn't want to throw out their existing investments just to switch to Windows, or be forced to use expensive-to-manage Linux workstations. I don't see this changing, and changing to ARM would cause the same problem.
In fact, as much as Apple has refused to license OS X, if Apple ever decides to stop producing the "Mac Pro" , it would be in their best interest to license someone to build BYO Mac Pro (workstation) class hardware that OS X can be licensed to run on. Few people who use OS X want to switch to Windows, and there has always been a market for this class of hardware. It's not that they don't want Apple's hardware, it's that Apple doesn't produce hardware that the (gaming) high end want. No ARM chip is ever going to hit that.
Existing ARM parts are more powerful than 8 year old computers. But this is comparing completely dissimilar power profiles.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks
Alright, so what is equal to that?
Meanwhile Apple:
Just based on die-shrink's, consider that those producing ARM parts are on the same process node as Intel is, but the parts they are producing aren't even close.
vs
If you could glue a heatsink on top of the A8, I'm sure it's possible to just double the clock and get something faster than the Haswell Dual core, but would it burn energy twice as fast?
With finfet 16nm, you could probably easily double the clock of the A9 with proper cooling which would already be 30% faster than the A8X with the die shrink. That would mean about 12000 geekbench 3 for the A9 Boost edition :-) (with no change in the A8X architecture. Adding one core you'd get 16000. With some architecture changes, you could probably reach around 18000 for a desktop edition A9 (Single Core would be around 5000).
BTW, that's pretty close to the current I7-4770 and I7-4990 64 bit Mac in the single core, multi-core score.
So, all in all, if my utopic ;-) scenario holds, Apple would be about 1 generation behind Intel in late 2015 in performance on the desktop if they ever went there.
I had an A9home PC, it was this little cute purple thing that ran RiscOS, it contained an ARM9 CPU, 128Mb RAM and 40GB HD. I got it at a computer fair in Zurich, never really played with it all that much though. I Think I still have it in a box somewhere, I should dig it up, might be a fun thing to play with again.
Gosh I hope Apple releases a MacBook Air with an A9, that would just be the coolest thing ever.
The competition should be scared. Everyday there are moments I think the Air 2 is almost too fast. The A8X is simply a monster!
Apple HAS caused disruptions. But once a technology settles in, price begins to become the most important factor in a purchasing decision for most people. So Apple's market share drops from 100% to the mid 20's.
The problem, as I've said several times here, and at other times, is that for most people, their products become less relevant. Why spend $500, when something else does what they want for $250? If Apple wants to keep those price points, then performance isn't enough, and neither is TouchID. I have to admit that I don't know what Apple would need to do that's disruptive, other than to keep well ahead in a number of areas. But we've seen numerous patents from them that could do it.
Incorporating solar cells in the screen. Incorporating a camera in the screen. Those are two patented areas from Apple from several years ago. Are they working on them or not? Are they practical?
How about this—Apple uses an LED backlight that uses several LEDs on the edge of the screen. OLEDs can illuminate individual pixels for notifications that use very little power. LCDs have traditionally illuminated the entire panel at once. With large backlighting from panels behind the screen, nothing could be done about that. But with LED backlighting, it can. Apple could illuminate just one LED to have notifications, live, when the phone is off, just the way some Android phones do. It would illuminate a part of the screen, enough for messages, time, temperature, etc., while using much less power than turning all the LEDs on at once. There are several of them. How about Apple doing that?
There are a number of ideas I have that Apple could be doing. Cameras, touch controls, and other areas, are ones in which Apple could be doing more work on. For example, Apple could lay out a camera that uses a mirror, preferably an aspheric mirror, that would allow the sensor to sit 90 degrees from the lens, eliminating camera thickness as a problem. This would allow a bigger sensor, and even an optical zoom, for which there are several promising technologies. This isn't a technology that hasn't been used in bigger cameras, as it has been. How would people react to a 16MP camera with a 3:1 optical zoom, with low noise? Would the module cost more? Sure. Would the extra sale make it worthwhile? Sure.
Right.
But my question was... who else is creating this sort of disruption?
We know Apple can shake up multiple markets. We've seen it many times before. But who else does?
For instance... what is HTC's great disruption? Or what is Lenovo working on that will blow our socks off?
The comment I replied to earlier said that Apple introduces disruptive technologies... but then they just sit on them and simply iterates year after year. The tone of that comment was that Apple can't raise the bar every time.
So if Apple isn't doing it... who is?
The problem, as I see it, is that those of us who do benefit from an iPad, are buying them. But what is the percentage of people buying tablets who would benefit from those enhanced specs? Is it 75%, 50%, 25%, less?
That's the problem Apple is faced with these days. When much cheaper tablets are "good enough" for most people's needs, then an Apple tablet loses its allure for an actual purchase, even if someone would rather have one. I use apps for which ever better performance is needed. But how many people use those apps? How many are available on Android in the first place? How many Android users even know such apps are available on the iPad? How many care?
For example, I use an app called Audio Tools. This is a professional app for audio use. The basic price is $19.95, pretty cheap. But you can add modules, and eventually end up with a couple of hundred in cost. But using my iPad, and sometimes my iPhone, which this is also for, and their adapter box that fits the Apple connector (the old connector, but works on Lightning with Apple's adapter), I can do sophisticated audio measurements that I used to have over $20 thousand in equipment for. You can get this for Android, as an app, but not the box, which allows all of those other measurements. And for Android, as with all other measurement apps, it's not calibrated, because there are too many Android devices out there, and many have low specs for microphones, etc. So while the basic Android app "works" without the box and an external measurement mic, which I sometimes use, the measurements that it can do are really just for "entertainment only". You can calibrate the Android device, if you have access to the hundreds of $$$ of calibration tools required.
But again, even though I know guys who have these apps for Android, they neither know nor care that they are inaccurate.
So this is where things are at. Most people don't do this work where an iPad is needed. So they don't need an iPad, and so they buy a much cheaper Android model that does do what they need. And so Apple is caught in a spiral.
I believe that now that the iPad has been out since mid 2010, it needs a rethink. Possibly iPhones too. I do believe that, in their labs, they are looking at more advanced models, and by that, I don't mean just newer chips. We can look at all those patents Apple has gotten over the years that are very innovative. The question is how many of them are practical in an actual device, or depend on technologies to implement that are still some years away?
Let's look at one thing that's been bothering me. Recharging devices has become a chore when running down, and more time is needed. Motorola has just come out with a phone that allows a super charge with a time in just a few minutes, at most. Is Apple incapable of doing the same? Is Motorola's technology lab so much better than Apple's? Or is Apple blasé about this? Does Apple care about long recharge times? This is something that Apple should have come out with, several years ago. It's obviously not that hard to do.
The quick recharge always has an impact on battery life (how long the battery will last). This isn't an issue if you can actually replace the battery life some Android phones. You can charge a Iphone 6 with an Ipad charger and it will take half the time. But, your going to impact your battery significantly. Since Apple would need to make it possible to change the battery themselves to enable this right now and that have a major impact on their devices' size. I don't think we'll see it. In laptops it could be used though.
Good post, agreed fully. I don't think we will ever see Apple selling their ARM chips to others, nor do I think we would see the kinds of speeds that iOS produces if they were used in say an Android or Windows 8 tablet, their too customized to their target group. Mobile devices are also not the only thing ARM chips are used for, the K1 for instance is now being used in hospital imaging equipment and cars. Why did Ded leave out the absolutely huge market for none mobile device usage.
Most of us here know DED pretty well. We know his goals. Therefor, it isn't in his interest in presenting anything that undermines those goals, unless everyone already knows it, and he therefor can't ignore it. But, even then, he attempts to denigrate it.
His goal, and the goal of those here who unthinkingly defend him, it to put blinders on when he writes, so that he can ignore everything that contrasts with what he wants to say. What he wants to say it that Apple is pretty much perfect, and that everything they do is good, and that all competitors are incompetent.
Obviously, that isn't the real world. I bought my first Mac for my own company back in 1988 as part of a photo correction system called the "Crossfield Editing system". This was a package that had a high end drum scanner, a Mac IICi, software, etc. We were possibly the first commercial lab in the US to have bought this precursor to Photoshop. I've been using Macs ever since. I know their triumphs, and their sins. To pretend otherwise is either naivé, ignorance, or deliberate rewriting of history.
As I also own several million dollars of Apple stock, I also try to see the reality behind that investment. If I rhlught the company was destitute of value, I would sell the stock. But I've held it since mid 2004, and haven't sold any, but bought some during low valuations, where I could. I point out my investment, because I've been accused here of being a troll when I point out things that are wrong. But I try not to live in a Woo Woo world.
I don't think DED has any 'goals' or agenda. When it comes to Apple, he just sees things how they are, which is what makes his writing so attractive. He strips everything down to the historical facts and presents them in an entertaining way.
Admittedly, he can't hep his liberal roots seeping through on non-tech related matters, bless him.