That's exactly what happened with the iPod range. People were clamouring for a low-end iPhone as flash players began to become dominant, and Apple slowly released the Nano and the Shuffle.
probably the worst launch for an iDevice and an iOS release in Apple history
This meme is simply not true. The iPhone 5 sold more units at launch and has continued to sell at a higher rate than all of the previous models. Blogosphere disappointment with the device hasn't translated into actual loss of sales.
The iPhone 5S will be a major speed bump; they do big silicon performance jumps with the S releases, and changes in screen technology and chassis with number releases. Contrary to public perception you get a bigger leap from an iPhone 4 to a 4S than a 4S to a 5.
3GS/4: Single-core CPU with a SGX535 4S/5: Dual-core CPU with a SGX543
Not that it's a lot of data points though. And you won't se the new iPhone until September because they're refreshing the iPod Touch and iPhone at the same time now, in line for the holiday sales period.
The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year (see graph on next page). Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000.
When faced with a new word it is often prudent to attempt to deduce its meaning from context. Given that the article is about journalists "in withdrawal" and "cranky" due to a lack of new Apple news, what do you think that "Jonesing" could mean?
I can't say that it's been an issue in practice on either platform. Most iOS apps are either at the native resolution (I can't recall the last time I used an app that wasn't Retina) or a simple 2x upscale which looks nigh-identical to running on the lower-res hardware. Meanwhile Android devices have converged on the small subset of screen resolutions and sizes that are available at high volume from panel fabricators, such that developers only have to target a handful of specifications.
Phone apps run on tablets (and vice versa) are just awful on both.
Yes, but it's demonstrably an interest in Apple's actual products, and not just fame-for-fame's-sake. There's a difference between rampant speculation about the new Star Wars film (because people really care about Star Wars, the end product) and rampant speculation about Harrison Ford's personal life (because fame).
I don't think the tablet market is sufficiently saturated that they're selling iPads primarily to people that already own one, yet. (You may be interested in this piece, which shows through stats just how saturated the iPhone market is, though.)
You read an article which is entirely composed of speculation about Apple's future product roadmap, and you come away with the conclusion that Apple's fame isn't about its products?
The mobile phone industry was built around getting people to buy new phones every year (18 months, towards the end) for a long, long time before Apple came on the scene, and there weren't new features - needed or not - as an inducement.
I'd be curious to know for what fraction of cases CPUs were binned for technical reasons (bad cores) and economic reasons (using a surplus of 4-core chips to fill a 2-core order).
A better quote would be "the 50d did have the feature, disabled in the Canon firmware. ML unlocked this to enable 1080p at 30fps with the ability to use FPS override for 24/25p". However that's not to say that this is a video DSLR with the feature disabled; consumer DSLRs typically have specialist video encoding hardware to turn it into a conventional, compressed format because RAW files demand very high-end CF cards and are hard to work with.
This camera could never have shipped with usable video recording.
"It can be unethical when" is a qualification that was not applied to the AC's original statement. Quite often it's banded around like it's an axiom or a matter of orthodoxy.
HTC's been going through a rough time lately. While they're not left holding the bill for unsold devices, they may have made strategic decisions about their next year's handset releases that assumed they'd have the HTC One on sale and doing well (such as cancelling low/mid-range handsets in their own portfolio).
Announcing next week would put it one week before the Apple WWDC, ensuring that it will be forgotten in favour of iOS 7 and poorly-conceived iPhone 6 rumours in the shortest possible time.
A regular old collision between two objects in space is like a plutonium atom absorbing a stray thermal neutron and undergoing fission. You can have as many events as you want from as many atoms as you like, but so long as they're dilute, the events are independent and it's safe. That's what has happened in this instance.
A collision between an object in space and the debris from a previous collision is like a plutonium atom undergoing fission, then its neutron finding another plutonium atom and causing a further fission event. You've got a chain reaction, but right now it's at equilibrium, with each event causing fewer than one secondary event. That has not happened yet. It could happen eventually, but it hasn't.
Kessler syndrome is like nuclear criticality. Once you have a sufficiently high concentration of objects, you have more than one secondary event for every primary event. The chain reaction becomes self-sustaining. Then you're fucked.
It's not even a chain reaction yet, much less a self-sustaining one. When a piece of debris from a spontaneous collision causes another collision, then we'll have the first chain reaction event relevant to Kessler syndrom.
The funny thing is that it could turn out to be a thousand times less bad than it sounds, but by being cowards and refusing to lay out the system at the event itself, leaving the explanation of the service to a confused mass of PR statements, Phil Harrison interviews, and FAQ entries, they've made sure it looks absolutely as bad as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what happened with the iPod range. People were clamouring for a low-end iPhone as flash players began to become dominant, and Apple slowly released the Nano and the Shuffle.
probably the worst launch for an iDevice and an iOS release in Apple history
This meme is simply not true. The iPhone 5 sold more units at launch and has continued to sell at a higher rate than all of the previous models. Blogosphere disappointment with the device hasn't translated into actual loss of sales.
The iPhone 5S will be a major speed bump; they do big silicon performance jumps with the S releases, and changes in screen technology and chassis with number releases. Contrary to public perception you get a bigger leap from an iPhone 4 to a 4S than a 4S to a 5.
3GS/4: Single-core CPU with a SGX535
4S/5: Dual-core CPU with a SGX543
Not that it's a lot of data points though. And you won't se the new iPhone until September because they're refreshing the iPod Touch and iPhone at the same time now, in line for the holiday sales period.
There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your vocabulary.
Right, Moore's original piece was rather agnostic to the processes which would be required to increase the density.
http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf
The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year (see graph on next page). Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000.
http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf
When faced with a new word it is often prudent to attempt to deduce its meaning from context. Given that the article is about journalists "in withdrawal" and "cranky" due to a lack of new Apple news, what do you think that "Jonesing" could mean?
Being announced in the September and Holiday press events, like they were last year?
I can't say that it's been an issue in practice on either platform. Most iOS apps are either at the native resolution (I can't recall the last time I used an app that wasn't Retina) or a simple 2x upscale which looks nigh-identical to running on the lower-res hardware. Meanwhile Android devices have converged on the small subset of screen resolutions and sizes that are available at high volume from panel fabricators, such that developers only have to target a handful of specifications.
Phone apps run on tablets (and vice versa) are just awful on both.
Yes, but it's demonstrably an interest in Apple's actual products, and not just fame-for-fame's-sake. There's a difference between rampant speculation about the new Star Wars film (because people really care about Star Wars, the end product) and rampant speculation about Harrison Ford's personal life (because fame).
I don't think the tablet market is sufficiently saturated that they're selling iPads primarily to people that already own one, yet. (You may be interested in this piece, which shows through stats just how saturated the iPhone market is, though.)
You read an article which is entirely composed of speculation about Apple's future product roadmap, and you come away with the conclusion that Apple's fame isn't about its products?
The mobile phone industry was built around getting people to buy new phones every year (18 months, towards the end) for a long, long time before Apple came on the scene, and there weren't new features - needed or not - as an inducement.
Actually that last point is way off; Magic Lantern can already do standard HD video.
I'd be curious to know for what fraction of cases CPUs were binned for technical reasons (bad cores) and economic reasons (using a surplus of 4-core chips to fill a 2-core order).
A better quote would be "the 50d did have the feature, disabled in the Canon firmware. ML unlocked this to enable 1080p at 30fps with the ability to use FPS override for 24/25p". However that's not to say that this is a video DSLR with the feature disabled; consumer DSLRs typically have specialist video encoding hardware to turn it into a conventional, compressed format because RAW files demand very high-end CF cards and are hard to work with.
This camera could never have shipped with usable video recording.
"It can be unethical when" is a qualification that was not applied to the AC's original statement. Quite often it's banded around like it's an axiom or a matter of orthodoxy.
HTC's been going through a rough time lately. While they're not left holding the bill for unsold devices, they may have made strategic decisions about their next year's handset releases that assumed they'd have the HTC One on sale and doing well (such as cancelling low/mid-range handsets in their own portfolio).
It'd be fun to run that simulation, actually. Maybe I can rustle up some computer time in the near future.
Announcing next week would put it one week before the Apple WWDC, ensuring that it will be forgotten in favour of iOS 7 and poorly-conceived iPhone 6 rumours in the shortest possible time.
It's easy, you just ignite the van Allen belts. I saw this great movie about it.
A regular old collision between two objects in space is like a plutonium atom absorbing a stray thermal neutron and undergoing fission. You can have as many events as you want from as many atoms as you like, but so long as they're dilute, the events are independent and it's safe. That's what has happened in this instance.
A collision between an object in space and the debris from a previous collision is like a plutonium atom undergoing fission, then its neutron finding another plutonium atom and causing a further fission event. You've got a chain reaction, but right now it's at equilibrium, with each event causing fewer than one secondary event. That has not happened yet. It could happen eventually, but it hasn't.
Kessler syndrome is like nuclear criticality. Once you have a sufficiently high concentration of objects, you have more than one secondary event for every primary event. The chain reaction becomes self-sustaining. Then you're fucked.
A salient lesson that not everything proceeds towards equilibrium, and even then, the equilibria reached are not necessarily desirable.
It's not even a chain reaction yet, much less a self-sustaining one. When a piece of debris from a spontaneous collision causes another collision, then we'll have the first chain reaction event relevant to Kessler syndrom.
The funny thing is that it could turn out to be a thousand times less bad than it sounds, but by being cowards and refusing to lay out the system at the event itself, leaving the explanation of the service to a confused mass of PR statements, Phil Harrison interviews, and FAQ entries, they've made sure it looks absolutely as bad as possible.
Perfect.