Linux dominates the smartwatch category now, just like it dominates the handset market and the tablet market. Does that make you angry? Does it make you want to rage post on the internet?
Doofus, Apple went from 61% share of the smarwatch market to 17% today. That actually happened. I would not be surprised if Apple hits single digits by this time last year. This butt ugly power hungry product update practically guarantees it.
Doofus, Apple went from 61% share of the smarwatch market to 17% today. That actually happened. I would not be surprised if Apple hits single digits by this time last year. This butt ugly power hungry product update practically guarantees it.
the real winner is TSMC, which is making all three processors.
And the real loser is Intel, if these 7nm parts actually do come to market in volume without yield issues. Nobody knows that for sure until it actually happens, at least nobody who is talking. We will know the answer in a month or so, and then we will know that Intel really did manage to turn its historical two year process lead into a one year lag.
At this point, the measurement of a nanometer in chip manufacturing is so.......flexible.......that it's not really worth paying attention to, other than as an announcement of something new. It's too imprecise of a measurement.
The nominal node name still serves to identify the node, even if it no long actually measures the half-pitch. And there is the intel factor: multiply the TSMC/Samsung node name by roughly 1.4 to get the Intel node name. This is pretty much generally understood.
As far as I can see, node names do not correspond to any particular mask dimension, they are just names, but names are useful.
Apple has 17% of the smartwatch market, with Xiaomi looking set to take the lead in the near future. That is, 83% of smartwatch buyers today do not want Apple.
The absence of the A35 in Qualcomm's design proves that A36 did not get the design win, A7 did. Now go ahead and bluster about that.
It's also interesting that 28nm got the design win, not 14nm. Instead of blowing an artery like you seem to be on the verge of, just sit back and see which product gets the win in the market. I'm predicting: not Apple.
Other than the Qualcomm 3100 data point, there is not a whole lot of evidence as this point in time about which system architecture is ultimately the most power efficient for a watch. Samsung with go with a v8 part in their next smartwatch, then everybody will be able to get head-to-head real life power efficiency data. Until then you're sounding, well, a bit strident. Just a bit. Maybe go for a walk or something.
So absence of lawsuit is your new fallback argument.
See "promises to be" in your own quote. Promises promises. See, ARM engineering told ARM marketing that "A35 is more power efficient than A53" and marketing twisted it. Omigosh, marketing did that. Qualcomm obviously untwisted it based on actual engineering, not marketing claims. But you want to ignore that with bluster.
More like "we didn't go with A35 because A7 is more efficient". A35 has been out since 2015, Qualcomm had plenty of time to evaluate it. A7 obviously won. I guess I'm not trusting ARM on their marketing claim.
If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC?
With subtitle "64/32 bit". See the "32 bit" part? Your argument still not supported, you are trying to parse a slide. How lame. See if you can find something better, good luck.
They claim the same battery life as the previous model, which happily lasts 2-3 days.
Sure, in reserve mode, where you have to press the button to tell the time. In other words, it lasts 2-3 days when it is off. Apple's own guidelines say 45 minutes of app time on an 18 hour charge.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like only sample quantities, I doubt that any product currently ships with it.
Intel is selling 10nm product today...
Which product is that?
Linux dominates the smartwatch category now, just like it dominates the handset market and the tablet market. Does that make you angry? Does it make you want to rage post on the internet?
Doofus, Apple went from 61% share of the smarwatch market to 17% today. That actually happened. I would not be surprised if Apple hits single digits by this time last year. This butt ugly power hungry product update practically guarantees it.
This actually happened.
Single digits.
Doofus, Apple went from 61% share of the smarwatch market to 17% today. That actually happened. I would not be surprised if Apple hits single digits by this time last year. This butt ugly power hungry product update practically guarantees it.
Don't wet your jammies.
Apple had 61% of the smartwatch market in 2015 and 17% today. That's what I call falling behind, not taking the lead.
the real winner is TSMC, which is making all three processors.
And the real loser is Intel, if these 7nm parts actually do come to market in volume without yield issues. Nobody knows that for sure until it actually happens, at least nobody who is talking. We will know the answer in a month or so, and then we will know that Intel really did manage to turn its historical two year process lead into a one year lag.
At this point, the measurement of a nanometer in chip manufacturing is so.......flexible.......that it's not really worth paying attention to, other than as an announcement of something new. It's too imprecise of a measurement.
The nominal node name still serves to identify the node, even if it no long actually measures the half-pitch. And there is the intel factor: multiply the TSMC/Samsung node name by roughly 1.4 to get the Intel node name. This is pretty much generally understood.
As far as I can see, node names do not correspond to any particular mask dimension, they are just names, but names are useful.
Yes, you won the internet blowhard award today. You must be fun at parties.
Apple has 17% of the smartwatch market, with Xiaomi looking set to take the lead in the near future. That is, 83% of smartwatch buyers today do not want Apple.
Huawei's Watch 2 can last for weeks without its smarts
Without Qualcomm, Android would not be grinding Apple down towards single digit market share right now.
Bye.
You got nothing.
Not proven
Strongly suggested by the fact that the A7 got the win. Better than your frantic arm waving.
The absence of the A35 in Qualcomm's design proves that A36 did not get the design win, A7 did. Now go ahead and bluster about that.
It's also interesting that 28nm got the design win, not 14nm. Instead of blowing an artery like you seem to be on the verge of, just sit back and see which product gets the win in the market. I'm predicting: not Apple.
There's is no indication that the A7 was selected for power efficiency rather than, oh, cost.
Cost is a theory you pulled out of your ass, with zero support. Snapdragon Wear 3100 is based on a new ultra-low power hierarchical system architecture approach. More than sufficient evidence that the primary goal of Qualcomm's new SoC is power efficiency. And they passed up the A35 for that. Blow smoke all you want, it happened.
Other than the Qualcomm 3100 data point, there is not a whole lot of evidence as this point in time about which system architecture is ultimately the most power efficient for a watch. Samsung with go with a v8 part in their next smartwatch, then everybody will be able to get head-to-head real life power efficiency data. Until then you're sounding, well, a bit strident. Just a bit. Maybe go for a walk or something.
So absence of lawsuit is your new fallback argument.
See "promises to be" in your own quote. Promises promises. See, ARM engineering told ARM marketing that "A35 is more power efficient than A53" and marketing twisted it. Omigosh, marketing did that. Qualcomm obviously untwisted it based on actual engineering, not marketing claims. But you want to ignore that with bluster.
More like "we didn't go with A35 because A7 is more efficient". A35 has been out since 2015, Qualcomm had plenty of time to evaluate it. A7 obviously won. I guess I'm not trusting ARM on their marketing claim.
If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC?
With subtitle "64/32 bit". See the "32 bit" part? Your argument still not supported, you are trying to parse a slide. How lame. See if you can find something better, good luck.
Something about, you are imagining something in that slide that isn't there. Please try a little harder.
They claim the same battery life as the previous model, which happily lasts 2-3 days.
Sure, in reserve mode, where you have to press the button to tell the time. In other words, it lasts 2-3 days when it is off. Apple's own guidelines say 45 minutes of app time on an 18 hour charge.