Historically... Apple has had no problem selling Mac laptops with a starting price of $1,000 when you could get a Windows laptop for $500 or less. And of course Windows PC outsold Mac laptops.
And we're seeing that with iPads too. The $250 Android tablets are selling more than Apple's $500 tablets... thus making Apple's tablet share shrink.
But market share was never Apple's goal.
The Mac has NEVER had a significant amount of market share in 30 years. But it's always been enough to keep the Mac around.
iPod sales have all but disappeared... maybe the iPad will follow. I doubt it though... since the iPad is a wonderful machine with an ECOSYSTEM to match.
Sure... you can buy a $250 or even a $100 Android tablet... but you won't be getting exactly the same things that the iPad and its accompanying ecosystem will offer.
More buyers will go for the cheaper tablets... and only a select few will go for Apple's solution. But I hope it's enough for Apple to keep the iPad around.
Apple kept selling Macs even though Windows PCs have crushed them in sales for decades. We'll probably see the same thing happen to iPads.
iPad sales have fallen for sure... but I hope it's just a trend and not an iPod-like moment. I think the iPad still has a lot of life.
Thank you! That's what I wanted to hear.
But if Apple doesn't do any of that cool stuff... can anyone else do it? That's what I keep asking.
We've seen Amazon put the "3D" thing in their Fire phones... and Samsung puts things like that weird "Eye Scroll" thing in all of their recent phones. None of that stuff is particularly exciting... and none of it is disruptive either.
Meanwhile... Apple spends their time developing incredible processors... and working on things like ApplePay and TouchID. That's good stuff. And it's all from Apple.
So again... who else is working on that kind of stuff?
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
Not necessarily correct? But I may be correct? I am correct. You haven't shown otherwise anywhere.
There is speculation that an iPad sale is directly correlated to a PC not sold? And you say that I haven't proof? You really need to show that that statement is correct, because it's most definately not. True, iPad purchases are resulting in fewer pc purchases. Is it a one to one affair? Of course not. If it were, we would see the numbers of pcs sold drop by the number of iPads sold, and the numbers, which are well known, don't match that at all.
There is reliable evidence that iPad market share is falling. What? You think that Apple still has 100% of the tablet market? Seriously? Where are you from, if you believe that? Remember that even App,e quotes IDG's numbers at their financial calls, and during their presentations. Do you think they would if they thought those numbers were too far off?
Where did I say that the decreasing iPad sales, which is something I do hope you aren't also denying, is DUE to the A8x? I never said that. I did say that the A8x isn't likely to add to iPad sales by itself. And that remains true.
Yes, I have limited my statements to what Apple considers to be the tablet market. That ridiculous Android, iOS, Windows tablet market. Why! Because THAT IS THE TABLET MARKET!!!
Yes, just as you say SOME people will pay $100 more for an iPad. I never said otherwise. But as tablet sales continue to rise, iPad sales are falling off. I hope you aren't going to deny that. And if you don't, then you have to rethink your denial that iPad market share is shrinking. Even if you include pc sales in that, iPad marketshare is shrinking, because of sales are slowing by about 3% now, not the previous 10%, and tablet sales are rising by about 15% a year.
You may not have respect for those who disagree with you but unless they say things that are obviously silly, I do. Relic has shown that she has an understanding of technology that is greater than most people here, as she actually works with it. I believe her rather than those who pretend to know things that some here don't actually know. Look inward.
Wow! How in the heck did troll become a moderator?
Battery is "damaged" when you charge it. It is just a question of terminology. If they didn't worry at all they would have shipped with the larger charger...
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with using the larger charger, your battery will just last less time. How much less depends on how often you charge it. If your a heavy user that needs 1 charge per day, then the effect will be more pronounced.
Another reason that the Ipad can be charged with the larger charger is that you tend to use your Ipad less and the batter will last longer, so even a quick charge would be less damaging since it is done less often. So, for both those reasons it is less of an issue for an Ipad. How many people have had to replace their Ipad battery?
Your phone's battery could last even longer if you connect it to under powered USB ports, but that doesn't mean I encourage you to do so except in absolute necessity.
So, basically, do whatever you want...
You are making assumptions that are simply incorrect.
And you are busily tossing unsubstantiated assertions and anecdotal evidence about battery technology in return, so I would suggest you address the technical issues or climb down off your horse.
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
Not happy about it doesn't mean they are unhappy about it. They apparently make close to half of all profits from the "PC" market and their position is growing.
If Apple was unhappy about it they could have easily adopted Windows back in the day to sell more of their HW and/or raced to the bottom with cheap, shitty HW. They refused to do any of that when they were close to bankruptcy when they made their Hail Mary pass to NeXT and Steve Jobs, so I don't think they are unhappy about their position in the "PC" market today.
To add to that I would like to see Miracast, your mention of using the iPad as a TV would benefit from this. Of course there are my usual requests, being able to run multiple apps in the background, multi-user support to split your work and home profiles, able to use a different browser, email client, etc. as your default instead of an Apple app and a built in file manager that can mount all of my cloud and network storge and than be able access these drives via every app that is installed on the system and not just ones that are programed to handle such things, better app communication.
I do think we're getting closer to some of that, at least.
Miracast would be interesting, but I'm not sure how Apple thinks of other technologies interfering with their own solutions. We don't know where they're going.
We're certainly getting better at multitasking in the background. My use of that with a number of Android tablets has been somewhat dismal however. I feel that Apple is likely more concerned with performance and battery life. But still...they do keep expanding it. 2GB of RAM helps. Maybe when all of their devices are upgraded we'll see.
Profiles are something I'm not so sure about. Not that I wouldn't want to see them. But to Apple, this is a personal device, multiple users is against that concept. I don't think it's about sales either. I think they really believe in the idea.
About default browsers. I recently had someone with a problem with his Mac call me to look at it. Someone had come over, and installed Firefox, and set it as the default browser. I removed it. With Firefox, he couldn't do a number of things that were easy to do before. As we know, Apple coevals their software, so that the whole is greater than the parts. Having an alien browser as default breaks that. Now, as far as I'm concerned, I have every major browser installed, but Safari remains my default browser. I've never found the supposed advantage of the others to be worth the effort. Some others do.
But, for the large majority of users, it's not a good idea. As I said, it breaks things. Things that many people rely on to do whatever they do. Since most computer users are not sophisticated, leaving a machine as default will serve most people well.
For the rest, well, they have to live with this, as Apple must be more concerned with that unsophisticated user, who, when it comes to tablets, is less sophisticated than the average computer user. In this case, the majority needs supplant those of the minority. At least, now Apple allows their JavaScript engine to be used by third party browsers.
Hiding the file system is one of the great advances Apple has made here. It's what makes the iPad so easy to use, and so difficult to screw up. But now, with iCloud Drive, we do have what amounts to some control over files that we never had before, and Box fully supports that as well. If other cloud services get off their duffs and spent the time to write the cold to support open/save, as Box does, rather than just import/export, we're in good shape. I've no need to really delve I to the file structure. I've had it with Kexts.
I misspoke -- i meant creative professionals -- artists, photographers, video/sound editors, designers ... these are more individuals than institunal employees.
Take a few moments and listen to these ... they were done on a Mac Laptop using Garage Band ...
The first was Mystified singing over herself -- much the way Natalie Cole sang over father's recording ... She said she lost count and can't even tell how many voice overs there are -- I can count 4, maybe 5 concurrent voices.
The second is GB generating the sound of a grand piano accompaniment ...
This should doable on an iPad!
It's already very popular in that group. There are a large number of really good apps for them (us).
And you are busily tossing unsubstantiated assertions and anecdotal evidence about battery technology in return, so I would suggest you address the technical issues or climb down off your horse.
No, I am not. You are using outdated information to cover every instance. You haven't shown anything that would support your contentions. So since you began this, why don't you show that in EVERY case, quick charging lessens battery life? I'm saying that there are specific situations where quick charging does not result in lessened battery life. I'm disputing your assertions, which haven't been shown, by you, to be true.
The problem is that most batteries are not designed for quick charging, and could be damaged. I have no beef with that. But, as I mentioned, heat is the problem, and with batteries designed to be quick charged, the internal resistance is lower, so that the speed of the charge can be shortened without building up all of that heat. This isn't magic, but most batteries aren't designed for it. A low resistance battery costs more. And, by the way, if you're going to go to Battery University, the problem with them is that their information is very generalized. For example, they still think the lithium batteries can only be fully charged 500 times before held charge is 70%. Apple is claiming 1,000 times with a held charge of 80%, so their information is out of date, and somewhat suspect.
Here's a battery designed for fast charge and long life. There are others.
Here's the Tesla thing I was talking about earlier. Now, they've been using this for some time. As I said, they state that it doesn't shorten battery life.
That's not always true. There are batteries that are designed for quick recharge, it all has to do with the internal resistance of the battery. The lower it is, the faster the recharge. It's the internal heat generated by a very fast recharge that damages the battery. Less internal resistance, the less the heat.
I've been using batteries for my power tools for many years. The normal charge time is about one hour for a full charge. But there are 15 minute chargers. I use them. First for my nicad models, and now for my Lithium batteries. Different chargers, of course. The manufacturers of the power tools, who make the batteries, and chargers, claim longer life for the 15 minute charges. They say the batteries last longer, and I have no reason to dispute that.
There is no evidence that Apple's batteries will be damaged by the bigger charge. Apple apparently doesn't think so either, as it hasn't told us not to use them, and I alwsys do.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
And you are busily tossing unsubstantiated assertions and anecdotal evidence about battery technology in return, so I would suggest you address the technical issues or climb down off your horse.
No, I am not. You are using outdated information to cover every instance. You haven't shown anything that would support your contentions. So since you began this, why don't you show that in EVERY case, quick charging lessens battery life? I'm saying that there are specific situations where quick charging does not result in lessened battery life. I'm disputing your assertions, which haven't been shown, by you, to be true.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
Apple could have made cheaper computer years ago to compete with the garbage put out by the Dells and HPs of the world.
Since they made the conscious decision not to... Apple can't be too upset by their resulting computer market share.
As for the iPad... I'm sure Apple isn't thrilled by the declining sales. Like I said... I hope it's a short trend and not a permanent situation. It's funny that we're having this conversation about people keeping iPads for 4 years... when the iPad itself has only been out for 4 years.
Some people say Apple needs to give the iPad more capabilities to make it act like a real computer. A 12" iPad Pro with a Wacom digitizer and professional app support... hell yes!
The problem is... that iPad Pro would probably start at $900.
And that's in a market where $250 Android tablets are "good enough"
So I dunno.... maybe Apple will have "lost" in the tablet market in the same way they "lost" in the desktop market.
Have I ever mentioned that I've had AAPL since it was...$14. Eat your hearts out..3 splits later and more purchases prior to splits. As apple][ said just buy it and sit back and relax. Oh yeah reinvest the dividends. Better yet, forget you've got it, Come back and visit it in 10 years. Keep on buying and repeat the forget about it. As an example, a bit over a year ago back I bought 3 lousy shares. Those are now up 13% AFTER the fees I paid to buy them.
It's almost scary, how proficient Apple's gotten at semiconductor design. And if you look at the specs and design of the A7 and A8, it's clear their team is gunning for Intel, not the other ARM manufacturers. And they're beating the pants off of everyone on a performance-per-watt basis.
This is innovation for people that don't want to recognize it. Apple has patented more than a few concepts over the years that likely have lead to the performance we see I Apples A series chips.
As far as the baseband chips go, I think Apple's primary goal for that is to design the most power efficient chips ever made, for use in the Apple Watch. It's just a matter of time before they make the Watch fully independent.
How much time is the real question. The big problem with a true Dick Tracey watch is the battery though. Until the power nit is cracked I don't see an iWatch being an iPhone replacement anytime soon.
And...I still think we may see Macs with A-series chips one day.
Macs or a new product line. Apple could make an A8x powered laptop today if they wanted. Performance wouldn't be that bad and if the entry came in at slight above iPads price points it would be a steel. By the way I know that you can still get better performance out of a laptop with Intel parts in it but the key here is the much lower price.
The A9 should be a tick, bringing us an all new CPU core (Swift>Cyclone>Hurricane?) on a 20nm process.
14nm! I'm expecting A9 to ship on a 14nm process. That has the potential for a 40% power reduction with the same design. Obviously Apple will add more to the chip and soak up some of the savings and probably add clock rate. I could see them getting another 30% solid increase in performance without really trying that hard.
Its not as hard to emulate X86 code on ARM as you might expect, especially since Intel's chips haven't even processed true CISC instructions since the Pentium Pro. But an Intel chip retails for hundreds of dollars, vs much less for their own chips.
The real thing that would make an ARM based Mac fly off the shelves would be support for iPad apps. The need to support Wndows isn't as great as it once was. The number of people that actually need i86 support and windows is extremely small these days.
And Apple is one P&L, they wouldn't have to sell them to themselves for a profit.
The Pro Macs might stay with Intel chips, no reason a MacBook SuperAir couldn't be ARM based though.
I see a separate product line as the best approach here. Apple would need to clearly define which hardware is i86 compatible and supports Windows.
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.
Observations:
Yes TSMC just announced 16nm FinFET+Risk certification
However, they lost their partership with Global Foundries, who joined with Samsung a single unified FinFET solution:
It's 14nm FinFET by Samsung and Global Foundries
TSMC stamped out 20nm SLP/16nm FinFET just like Global Foundries when they were partners.
Problem for TSMC is this won't be ready until July 2015 while 14nm FinFET arrives from Samsung/GloFlo for scaled production Q1/2015.
Intel is already pushing back their 14nm FinFET 6-12 months from their initial target dates.
Hell the A8X gets smoked 3:1 by the iMac 27 latest performance numbers.
Finally, the A9 mythical future Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of any Intel Xeon/Haswell/Skylake or AMD FX Excavator/APU or K12. Not by a long shot.
No one is going to want to purchase crippled Macbooks so Apple can shave off the cost. They want and should get an increase in performance above today's Intel CPUs and that is how come Intel's Skylake will be what the masses will demand.
The question then becomes does the AX series scale up? It is still multitudes slower than what is in a high end Mac.
The design currently targets TSMC low power process. Im not sure where that tops out clock wise but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the A8X could run at 2GHz. Switch over to a performance optimized process and it is likely that Apple could exceed 2GHz by a wide margin with an increase in power usage. Of course power usage is only part of the problem, scaling performance requires enhancements to the architecture. For example resized caches, faster RAM, more on chip buffering, ALU tweaks and the like. These are easy to accomplish really so I see a significant upside for Apple with even a slightly tweaked design.
The interesting thing here is that Apple apparently has the design flexibility to target a number of different processes. They so far have hit a number of nodes at Samsung and now are on TSMC low power node. I really doubt that they would have much trouble at all targeting a performance node from these companies or even Global Foundries. Add in another CPU core or even a three core complex and you are left with an excellent notebook processor.
I haven't gotten the feeling from you that you do know this. I have talked to her, and her posts have shown that she does know what she' stalking g about. Perhaps you can enlighten us further.
As far as your knowledge goes, I don't see it from your statements here. Surely you know that clock speed has little to do with anything unless it specifically refers to the same processor family? So comparing clocks and performance is not proper. And while I'm not a fan of Nvidia, their latest SoC is pretty good. Knocking it isn't helping your case.
You obviously can't compare x86 to MIPS to ARM clock speeds since the processors are fundamentally different. However, the Denver K1 and A7/8 are both ARMv8 processors. It's perfectly fair to compare their performance per clock. Especially when performance per clock is what Nvidia was hyping when talking about the Denver K1 compared to OTHER ARM processors. Nvidia obviously thinks it's a fair comparison, so the question is, why don't you?
The K1 is fast not because of Nvidia optimization or advances in processor architecture. It's fast because it has a high clock speed.
They should really invest more in battery technology. Its all very well them being slim but you end up putting the devices in cases to protect the soft aluminium. I have an iPad 3 which does my basic needs of surfing and don't really need a superheats processor. Id rather spend money on a macbook air.
You make an assumption here that they aren't investing in battery research. I'm pretty confident they are doing so quietly. There is a massive amount of research going into battery technology right now, probably more than mankind has invested in decades earlier. It isn't just for personal electronics either, as cars, utilities and solar powered systems are all hot areas for new battery placement. There are two problems though. One is the obvious R&D is slow here. The other is that it takes a while to validate a battery for safeness. The new tech will come eventually.
. . . So I get it DED, in your opinion nothing is better than Apple but that doesn't mean others can't produce decent products as well or at least try, it's like he wants everyone to fail.
You're reading too much into the message. I think DED tries to be objective and simply states facts for the most part. Of course, it doesn't hurt an Apple advocate's stance when those facts happen to paint a dire picture for the so-called competition.
CAN others produce decent products? Perhaps. But just what kind of story do the (supposedly factual) statistics tell? They're saying that the competition doesn't seem to be able to get their respective acts together so as to result in viable production and sales of these so-called "decent products".
When I examined the first Apple iPhone back in 2007, while being quite impressed with the relative genius of its design, which included its obvious integration with the Apple ecosystem, I also wondered just how the competition would be able to beat, much less meet this great product.
I'm rather doubly disappointed that not only no one has come close Apple's innovation, but that they'd also resort to lazily and criminally copying Apple and/or stupidly repeat past mistakes of running races to the bottom, pricing and quality-wise.
Performance metrics ignoring performance/watt is a failed game in mobile, so by definition, A8X is > than K1. Sure, throw a bigger battery at the K1 and there's performance equivalence, but that won't facilitate the K1 moving into smartphones, and hence the small volumes aren't going to provide much profit for Nvidia. While you boast of multiple background apps in your Android device, Apple has of Metal and Swift which together will provide a substantial increase in the gaming experience.
Now you could argue that Apple "cheats" by designs with much larger die comparative to the competition, but that comes with winning the profit game. Lather/rinse/repeat, Nvidia is losing this game.
It isn't so much cheating as it is a demonstration that Apple can put a lot of stuff on the die that is not directly related to GPU/CPU performance. This means they don't have to build larger PC boards to support independent chips for these functions. I've said it many times in these forums but silicon is what the PC board was in the 1980-90's. It is the place where manufactures like Apple now innovate.
This is actually key to understanding Apple and innovation, their ability to knock out these complex chips sets them apart in the industry.
Sorry but I just dont see this massive power drain your talking about with the K1, my Nexus 9 has a 6,700mAh battery and I consistently get between 7.5 to 8 hours of life, my Pad Air 2 has a 7340mAh and I get beween 8 and 8.5, seems fairly similiar to me. When playing a game, the iPad Air 2 drains quicker.
Here's someone that gets a different result than you. Your mileage varied.
Comments
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
Wow! How in the heck did troll become a moderator?
Don't bother replying.
And you are busily tossing unsubstantiated assertions and anecdotal evidence about battery technology in return, so I would suggest you address the technical issues or climb down off your horse.
Not happy about it doesn't mean they are unhappy about it. They apparently make close to half of all profits from the "PC" market and their position is growing.
If Apple was unhappy about it they could have easily adopted Windows back in the day to sell more of their HW and/or raced to the bottom with cheap, shitty HW. They refused to do any of that when they were close to bankruptcy when they made their Hail Mary pass to NeXT and Steve Jobs, so I don't think they are unhappy about their position in the "PC" market today.
I do think we're getting closer to some of that, at least.
Miracast would be interesting, but I'm not sure how Apple thinks of other technologies interfering with their own solutions. We don't know where they're going.
We're certainly getting better at multitasking in the background. My use of that with a number of Android tablets has been somewhat dismal however. I feel that Apple is likely more concerned with performance and battery life. But still...they do keep expanding it. 2GB of RAM helps. Maybe when all of their devices are upgraded we'll see.
Profiles are something I'm not so sure about. Not that I wouldn't want to see them. But to Apple, this is a personal device, multiple users is against that concept. I don't think it's about sales either. I think they really believe in the idea.
About default browsers. I recently had someone with a problem with his Mac call me to look at it. Someone had come over, and installed Firefox, and set it as the default browser. I removed it. With Firefox, he couldn't do a number of things that were easy to do before. As we know, Apple coevals their software, so that the whole is greater than the parts. Having an alien browser as default breaks that. Now, as far as I'm concerned, I have every major browser installed, but Safari remains my default browser. I've never found the supposed advantage of the others to be worth the effort. Some others do.
But, for the large majority of users, it's not a good idea. As I said, it breaks things. Things that many people rely on to do whatever they do. Since most computer users are not sophisticated, leaving a machine as default will serve most people well.
For the rest, well, they have to live with this, as Apple must be more concerned with that unsophisticated user, who, when it comes to tablets, is less sophisticated than the average computer user. In this case, the majority needs supplant those of the minority. At least, now Apple allows their JavaScript engine to be used by third party browsers.
Hiding the file system is one of the great advances Apple has made here. It's what makes the iPad so easy to use, and so difficult to screw up. But now, with iCloud Drive, we do have what amounts to some control over files that we never had before, and Box fully supports that as well. If other cloud services get off their duffs and spent the time to write the cold to support open/save, as Box does, rather than just import/export, we're in good shape. I've no need to really delve I to the file structure. I've had it with Kexts.
It's already very popular in that group. There are a large number of really good apps for them (us).
You just don't get much.
No, I am not. You are using outdated information to cover every instance. You haven't shown anything that would support your contentions. So since you began this, why don't you show that in EVERY case, quick charging lessens battery life? I'm saying that there are specific situations where quick charging does not result in lessened battery life. I'm disputing your assertions, which haven't been shown, by you, to be true.
The problem is that most batteries are not designed for quick charging, and could be damaged. I have no beef with that. But, as I mentioned, heat is the problem, and with batteries designed to be quick charged, the internal resistance is lower, so that the speed of the charge can be shortened without building up all of that heat. This isn't magic, but most batteries aren't designed for it. A low resistance battery costs more. And, by the way, if you're going to go to Battery University, the problem with them is that their information is very generalized. For example, they still think the lithium batteries can only be fully charged 500 times before held charge is 70%. Apple is claiming 1,000 times with a held charge of 80%, so their information is out of date, and somewhat suspect.
Here's a battery designed for fast charge and long life. There are others.
http://www.boston-power.com/technology/fastcharge
Here's the Tesla thing I was talking about earlier. Now, they've been using this for some time. As I said, they state that it doesn't shorten battery life.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516876/forget-battery-swapping-tesla-aims-to-charge-electric-cars-in-five-minutes/
That's not always true. There are batteries that are designed for quick recharge, it all has to do with the internal resistance of the battery. The lower it is, the faster the recharge. It's the internal heat generated by a very fast recharge that damages the battery. Less internal resistance, the less the heat.
I've been using batteries for my power tools for many years. The normal charge time is about one hour for a full charge. But there are 15 minute chargers. I use them. First for my nicad models, and now for my Lithium batteries. Different chargers, of course. The manufacturers of the power tools, who make the batteries, and chargers, claim longer life for the 15 minute charges. They say the batteries last longer, and I have no reason to dispute that.
There is no evidence that Apple's batteries will be damaged by the bigger charge. Apple apparently doesn't think so either, as it hasn't told us not to use them, and I alwsys do.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
Apple could have made cheaper computer years ago to compete with the garbage put out by the Dells and HPs of the world.
Since they made the conscious decision not to... Apple can't be too upset by their resulting computer market share.
As for the iPad... I'm sure Apple isn't thrilled by the declining sales. Like I said... I hope it's a short trend and not a permanent situation. It's funny that we're having this conversation about people keeping iPads for 4 years... when the iPad itself has only been out for 4 years.
Some people say Apple needs to give the iPad more capabilities to make it act like a real computer. A 12" iPad Pro with a Wacom digitizer and professional app support... hell yes!
The problem is... that iPad Pro would probably start at $900.
And that's in a market where $250 Android tablets are "good enough"
So I dunno.... maybe Apple will have "lost" in the tablet market in the same way they "lost" in the desktop market.
But that's not really "losing" per se.
I see a separate product line as the best approach here. Apple would need to clearly define which hardware is i86 compatible and supports Windows.
Observations:
Yes TSMC just announced 16nm FinFET+Risk certification
However, they lost their partership with Global Foundries, who joined with Samsung a single unified FinFET solution:
It's 14nm FinFET by Samsung and Global Foundries
TSMC stamped out 20nm SLP/16nm FinFET just like Global Foundries when they were partners.
Problem for TSMC is this won't be ready until July 2015 while 14nm FinFET arrives from Samsung/GloFlo for scaled production Q1/2015.
Intel is already pushing back their 14nm FinFET 6-12 months from their initial target dates.
Hell the A8X gets smoked 3:1 by the iMac 27 latest performance numbers.
Finally, the A9 mythical future Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of any Intel Xeon/Haswell/Skylake or AMD FX Excavator/APU or K12. Not by a long shot.
No one is going to want to purchase crippled Macbooks so Apple can shave off the cost. They want and should get an increase in performance above today's Intel CPUs and that is how come Intel's Skylake will be what the masses will demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)
Apple does not have a license for Thunderbolt on the ARM processors, or they would have never released a USB3.0+ in Lightning.
The design currently targets TSMC low power process. Im not sure where that tops out clock wise but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the A8X could run at 2GHz. Switch over to a performance optimized process and it is likely that Apple could exceed 2GHz by a wide margin with an increase in power usage. Of course power usage is only part of the problem, scaling performance requires enhancements to the architecture. For example resized caches, faster RAM, more on chip buffering, ALU tweaks and the like. These are easy to accomplish really so I see a significant upside for Apple with even a slightly tweaked design.
The interesting thing here is that Apple apparently has the design flexibility to target a number of different processes. They so far have hit a number of nodes at Samsung and now are on TSMC low power node. I really doubt that they would have much trouble at all targeting a performance node from these companies or even Global Foundries. Add in another CPU core or even a three core complex and you are left with an excellent notebook processor.
You obviously can't compare x86 to MIPS to ARM clock speeds since the processors are fundamentally different. However, the Denver K1 and A7/8 are both ARMv8 processors. It's perfectly fair to compare their performance per clock. Especially when performance per clock is what Nvidia was hyping when talking about the Denver K1 compared to OTHER ARM processors. Nvidia obviously thinks it's a fair comparison, so the question is, why don't you?
The K1 is fast not because of Nvidia optimization or advances in processor architecture. It's fast because it has a high clock speed.
You make an assumption here that they aren't investing in battery research. I'm pretty confident they are doing so quietly. There is a massive amount of research going into battery technology right now, probably more than mankind has invested in decades earlier. It isn't just for personal electronics either, as cars, utilities and solar powered systems are all hot areas for new battery placement. There are two problems though. One is the obvious R&D is slow here. The other is that it takes a while to validate a battery for safeness. The new tech will come eventually.
. . . So I get it DED, in your opinion nothing is better than Apple but that doesn't mean others can't produce decent products as well or at least try, it's like he wants everyone to fail.
You're reading too much into the message. I think DED tries to be objective and simply states facts for the most part. Of course, it doesn't hurt an Apple advocate's stance when those facts happen to paint a dire picture for the so-called competition.
CAN others produce decent products? Perhaps. But just what kind of story do the (supposedly factual) statistics tell? They're saying that the competition doesn't seem to be able to get their respective acts together so as to result in viable production and sales of these so-called "decent products".
When I examined the first Apple iPhone back in 2007, while being quite impressed with the relative genius of its design, which included its obvious integration with the Apple ecosystem, I also wondered just how the competition would be able to beat, much less meet this great product.
I'm rather doubly disappointed that not only no one has come close Apple's innovation, but that they'd also resort to lazily and criminally copying Apple and/or stupidly repeat past mistakes of running races to the bottom, pricing and quality-wise.
It isn't so much cheating as it is a demonstration that Apple can put a lot of stuff on the die that is not directly related to GPU/CPU performance. This means they don't have to build larger PC boards to support independent chips for these functions. I've said it many times in these forums but silicon is what the PC board was in the 1980-90's. It is the place where manufactures like Apple now innovate.
This is actually key to understanding Apple and innovation, their ability to knock out these complex chips sets them apart in the industry.
Sorry but I just dont see this massive power drain your talking about with the K1, my Nexus 9 has a 6,700mAh battery and I consistently get between 7.5 to 8 hours of life, my Pad Air 2 has a 7340mAh and I get beween 8 and 8.5, seems fairly similiar to me. When playing a game, the iPad Air 2 drains quicker.
Here's someone that gets a different result than you. Your mileage varied.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/