Yeah, but the other problem is that the government is real and god isn't, and certainly isn't about to come down smiting people for alienating the inalienables. Frankly, I think I have more to fear from religious folks than from government types, especially where the two over-lap, which seems only to happen in statistically siginificant numbers in the US and the Middle East. Funny why the two don't get along so very well, isn't it?
Hey, I'm not much of a believer in the FSM, either. BUT, everyone in this country (USA) seems to treat those words as meaning "These rights are yours, and no government can take them away." And THAT is what is important.
I'm with you on the "fearing religious folks", though.
1) British law has no interpretation of "free speech". None. It's an assumed "right", not an actual one. Funnily, we seem to do a better job than those countries *WITH* such laws.
I too am a fan of our uncodified constitution but you went a bit too far here. The European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, has been in force since 3rd September 1953 and became directly enforceable in UK courts when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. Article 10, taken from Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act:
Article 10
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Yeah, that's the problem with the UN "Bill of Rights" as compared with the U.S. Constitution.
In the U.N. Bill of Rights, it is the GOVERNMENT that grants the "right".
In the U.S. Constitution, it is GOD who grants those rights. That is why they are referred to as "Inailenable".
The difference is, what Government "grants", Government can "revoke".
Yes, the U.S. Constitution CAN be modified; but the bar is set so high that it is nearly impossible to accomplish. And even the average, non-politically-savvy citizen in Amurika understands the value of the First Amendment. So, it is highly unlikely that particular "Amendment" will be up for review anytime soon.
U.N. "Human Rights"? Better than nothing, I suppose; but not nearly as strong as the First Amendment. I cannot speak to other countries' "Free Speech" provisions, however; there are probably some that are even more "bulletproof" than the U.S.' First Amendment.
An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home.
It's not *absolutely* the same. The other TV in the home very likely, nowadays, has at least a cable box/DTA/other cable card device attached to it. (In other words, even local stations in analog are gone in some areas already, and will likely be gone in more soon.)
I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.
What I meant was, it is no different as far as TW is concerned.
Most cable companies charge a small fee for each digital converter box; so, I guess that counts as "charging more". The "service" stays the same, but the equipment rental fee goes up.
It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.
Sorry, I meant a "no additional charge" service, if you were already a TW digital cable subscriber. I was thinking in terms of myself, I guess; since I fall into the TW digital cable subscriber category. Although, I don't have an iPad; so I guess it's a $350 minimum for me, eh?
Methinks that several of the "Channels" first heard about this when it was announced, and SOME of them bitched to TimeWarner that their current agreements didn't cover LIVE streaming of their content.
Why mujst everybody monetize every single little thing? I understand these "networks" have a duty to their stockholders; but they are not getting the big picture. An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home. No more. No less.
And not running Windows does not automagically invalidate the Alt+F4 thing. A number of X11 window managers have that keystroke bound to the usual command, or can be bound that way by user config.
Sorry, I don't use X11 unless absolutely forced to. When I see "Alt+[anything]", I immediately think "Windows". And so do the vast majority of computer-users.
BTW, love your sig! I thought for years that it was "just me" that thought that C++ was a ridiculous language, that didn't deserve to share an alphabetic designation with the mighty C; but after years of reflection, I'm with Sir Linus on this one! I just wish it would die the death it so richly deserves; so it will stop being a fucking bullet-point on job requirements!
Find an earlier ARM device than the Newton, which started development in 1987, and we'll talk. Especially considering that Qualcomm didn't even exist until 1984, and didn't get its first patent until 1990.
My point was never that Qualcomm was the first ARM designer. My point was I consider them to have wider experience. If you haven't been paying attention a lot has happened with ARM since 1984. Apple really has not been involved with ARM much besides the Newton and now the A4/A5.
That YOU know of, that is...
How far back do you think the iPhone/iPad development goes? Well, whatever you guess, add about 3 or 4 years. Remember, Apple actually developed a tablet internally FIRST; then put THAT project on hold to start development of what would become the iPhone.
Being a 30-year embedded developer myself, with several successful industrial product designs under my belt, I would estimate that, if Apple actually ever left ARM development, it was only for about 7 or 8 years, considering the Newton, et al., were not discontinued until Jobs came back in 1994. I would be really surprised to find that the beginnings of what we now call the iPhone/iPad were started any later than 2002-2003 at the latest.
There were also some failed/never-released products, like the first Apple TV (in 1995?), that I think either never were released, or were released in a very small quantities. Who knows if those embedded devices used ARM? I would submit that at least some of them probably did.
But in the end, both Apple and Qualcomm have the engineering talent on board to actually, really, design a CPU from scratch. Neither of them actually do; because it is much easier to license the ARM IP, and then do what they need. And without being actually privvy to their internal engineering departments (which I don't think either of us are!), anything else is pure speculation on both our parts.
But the facts disagree with your opinion, sorry.
Qualcomm designs ARM chips for many other companies and businesses. They also design for their own products. Their markets include smartphones and other mobile devices. Apple only designs chips for their own products. Which company do you think has wider industry experience? Which other facts would you like to discuss? These are simple facts.
The fact that Qualcomm rents-out its design team to other firms doesn't necessarily give them wider experience. Apple has enough projects that will never see the light of day (yes, speculating; but pretty "sound" speculating) that pretty much negates Qualcomm's R&D rent-boy status. Oh, and BTW, I would be willing to bet that, when it comes to "breadth" of projects, that Apple probably designs more different TYPES of products than does Qualcomm. Qualcomm is all about communications designs (and they do a fucking fantastic job at those, which isn't surprising, given their history); Apple designs a wide variety of embedded products. Much wider. And it is designing for DIFFERENT applications that brings depth (and breadth) of experience; not just tweaking chip designs that have already been incrementally improved with a single application, communications, in mind. Understand?
And you've seen the internals of the A4 and A5 chips to know that for a fact, right? Idiot, and an arrogant idiot, at that.
Before you start calling people names, maybe you should have you clicked on that link where it shows the internals of an A4 and the Cortex-A8 core. If that wasn't enough for you, there's always google where others have dissected the A4 chip.
First, I apologize for my intemperate language. However, the fact that the A4's Cortex A8 core is relatively "stock" does NOT mean that Apple COULDN'T have modified it; all it really means is that they were satisfied ENOUGH that i
But all the big interest seems in making the iPad function as a secondary display for your computer, not the other way around.
I can think of a variety of ways in which the current iPad form factor might be useful to me, but they all involve the device working as a "real" computer, rather than just as a media or "app" box like the iPhone. Apple already markets quite a good OS in the form of OS X, which (ignoring flames from detractors) has the advantage of being Unixy enough for my purposes.
If Apple would consider dropping OS X on to the iPad and marketing some form of roll-out or foldable keyboard for it, I might seriously consider buying one. But as it stands, it seems Apple is pointing the MacBook Air in my direction, and that just looks like an inadequate laptop.
OS X is different that iOS when you get above he Darwin layer, if I understand the OS architecture. I correctly (I am not an OS X or iOS dev; just a user). I'm pretty sure that Quartz and OpenGL (not to mention GCD and OpenCL) are nowhere to be found in iOS, either. Since iOS is a "windowless" OS, I would imagine all the window-management stuff is out as well. With that in mind, I'm pretty sure that, even disregarding the cross-compiling issues for x86 vs. ARM, that OS X would REALLY suck on something as lightweight in processing-power as the iPad. I don't know where the ARM9 Cortex core is as far as throughput per GHz compared to, say a Core2Duo; but I'm pretty damn sure that you would not have the zippy, fluid experience that people love about the iPad, if it ran bog-standard OS X. br>
In fact, that has been the reason that the iOS devices have been so pleasant for the user; because Apple wisely didn't take the easy way out, and just throw hardware at the problem; instead, they really tightly optimized both the hardware AND OS design.
And that's what sets it apart. I'm sure that Apple looked at the issue long and hard before embarking on the iOS project; and I'm also sure that the very first thing they tried was to recompile OS X for ARM, and give that a go... No one wants to maintain TWO OSes; but at least Apple was smart enough to realize that it was the only practical solution.
I had a Mac that shipped with 512M. It sucked pretty badly when trying to use MacOS until I finally upgraded the RAM to a civilized amount.
And I've seen PDP-8 systems that had 8 KILObytes of RAM (core) that supported multiple concurrent apps and multiple concurrent users. Just like dick size, it isn't the absolute size that counts (above a certain, really small number), but rather how you use it.
We have these things called 'stands', which you lean the tablet up against.
Both hands free! With a tiny bit of creativity, one could also use a desk, table, or wall in such a way as to act as a stand as well.
Around 50 years ago we also invented these things called 'keyboards', and while you need a specific type of keyboard that has only existed for about a decade to connect it to a tablet, these keyboards do provide a better experience with massive data input.
For iPad specifically, there is a tiny adapter you can buy with a USB port on it.
For Android tablets, they typically come with a USB port on the side, though you might still need a mini-to-usb-A adapter depending on what port it has built in.
Then you can use any keyboard invented in the last 15 years or so.
I realize you personally don't care, but this is for others who might read and believe what you have to say.
Apple isn't just an ARM licensee, they helped DEVELOP the ARM. There is literally NO ONE on the planet with more ARM experience than Apple.
As for ARM experience, your history is off. Apple worked with VLSI and Acorn on ARM. Acorn spun off the design team into a company that later became ARM. Apple had an integral part in the formation of ARM but haven't done much with the company since the formation.
Also considering a dozen companies are ARM licensees, I would fight it hard to believe that no one has more experience than Apple.
Find an earlier ARM device than the Newton, which started development in 1987, and we'll talk. Especially considering that Qualcomm didn't even exist until 1984, and didn't get its first patent until 1990.
It is my opinion that Qualcomm has much deeper experience than Apple.
But the facts disagree with your opinion, sorry.
For the most part licensees like Apple and TI and Samsung take the core that they get from ARM and build the rest of the system around it. Qualcomm is the only I know that modifies the core for optimization.
And you've seen the internals of the A4 and A5 chips to know that for a fact, right? Idiot, and an arrogant idiot, at that.
If you take a look at any dissection of the A4, it clearly shows where the ARM core is located and it appears to be a stock core design with little modification.
Now you're changing your position to say that there IS modification? Which is it, fucktard?
In the A4 and possible A5, most of Apple's modifications are on everything around the core but not the core itself.
No, they FABRICATED it. They didn't DEVELOP it. It was those people Apple got from the PASemi acquisition that did the development work. It's the difference between designing a photocopier and operating one.
Your timing is off. Apple didn't buy PA Semi until April 2008. The first iPhone was released in June 29, 2007, almost a full year before they acquired PA Semi. Logically Apple would have to be designing the iPhone before June 2007. So somehow PA Semi being owned by Apple designed an ARM chip for Apple two years before they owned them. Not unless Steve Jobs has a time machine.
I didn't say a thing about the original iPhone. It did not use the A4 or A5; but rather a much more "stock" ARM SoC (FABRICATED by Samsung). I think it might have still been slightly customized; but not a from-the-ground-up design like the A4/A5.
Also PA Semi worked with Power architecture not ARM.
That is, until Apple bought them... PASemi was purchased primarily because of their rich experience in LOW POWER (as in current consumption, not "Power" as in PPC) chip design. In fact, they probably had to play catch-up when switching gears to ARM. But engineers of that calibre are usually able to (and obviously did) transfer their special knowledge to another platform. And considering that ARM implementations are often designed with low-power in mind (the TI OMAP microcontrollers being especially current-miserly, IIRC), all the PASemi people had to do was to make sure the rest of the SoC in the A4/A5 was just as frugal on power as the ARM core already was.
From what I recall Apple used a Samsung ARM chip for the original original iPhone (released June 2007), 3G (released June 2008) , and 3GS (released June 2009 and chip designed by Intrinsity). It wasn't until iPhone 4
Uh, maybe the 65,000 iPad-specific "jobs" that are available on the App Store?
Oh, I quite agree. If someone has one of those "iPad specific jobs" they should definitely consider buying an iPad.
So, wait. NOW you're saying that there are 65,000 reasons FOR buying an iPad?
That's a pretty large envelope. Are you SURE you want to keep claiming that you can't understand WHY someone would "need" an iPad?
There is practically no one (relative to the population) that NEEDS a computer, either. Or a microwave oven. Or a TV, DVD player, MP3 player, game console, radio, or stereo. Do you? Yet I'll be willing to bet that you own all, or at least some, of these.
If you do, then by your own logic, you're just being stupid, right?
That depends on several other factors, cost for a new fondle slab, utility of the Xoom vs iPad, fit into corporate IT systems, etc. Corporate users probably don't have other priorities, but corporate IT might. I do not have a good feel for what corporate IT feels is their job. At a cost of less than $1000, time spent screwing around with hardware efficiently is fairly short.
Actually, it is pretty much nonexistant. How many "IT people" even bother to open up a monitor or a router (even an expensive one) when it breaks, and then, how many can actually FIX one? Replacing a bad drive or motherboard does NOT equal component-level troubleshooting and repair. And since you simply can't purchase the motherboard in an iPad (or a Xoom, I'll bet!), what in the fuck is there to even "repair"? And if you ARE competent to effect a repair (lets say, like replacing a bad display), then a moment or two with a heat-gun isn't going to be that much of a problem, either.
Also, just because you are an "IT person" doesn't mean you magically understand the HARDWARE you're using any better than the "simple users" do. In fact, in my experience, that skillset combination is actually fairly rare in Corporate IT. Those people are usually DESIGNING the equipment, not playing around hooking it up and configuring it, and have EE, not CS, degrees, and certainly not the typical clue-free MCSE (Must Consult Someone Experienced) droid.
The person who is telling his friends to wait for the Xoom because it is "more serviceable" (his GUESS) than the iPad is simply giving bad advice. Too bad his friends might think he actually has a handle on the subject; because he just doesn't.
Who said anything about reverse engineering for your own benefit? What about getting your product fixed for a reasonable price? You could take an out-of-warranty appliance (TV, radio, microwave oven, washer/dryer) in to a electronics repair shop and get it fixed up when the original manufacturer discontinued service, or maybe you just wanted a better price even if it voided your original warranty, and the repair shop would provide their own warranty plan so you could just take it back to them. What's wrong with doing the same with an iPad or whatever else you want?
Um, and where is that repair shop going to get the nearly 100% CUSTOM components to effect said "repair"?
Think; then post.
Oh, and using a heat-gun to get something apart is well-within the capabilities of any reputable "repair-shop" (and even most tech-savvy users). Anyone else SHOULD really stay the fuck out, because there is absolutely nothing to be gained (and lots of potential for damage) by an unqualified user just poking around in a device containing static-sensitive components.
But, if you were truly experienced in electronics, you would already understand that. I, for one have been an embedded hardware/software developer for over 30 years, and have also worked as a bench tech, repairing a wide variety of consumer electronics.
With that in mind, let me just say in closing that, you sir, are simply full of shit.
Honestly, what difference does it make?
You either agree with what he has to say or you disagree.
Maybe he's just a Microsoft fanboy These people do exist you know.
Yes, but don't you think it's odd that he hasn't posted in defense of "himself"?
While I agree that the iPad is a very interesting device, it is still terribly limiting in some respects. It is bound to increase the number of devices you lug around rather than decrease their number.
That is FAR from a "given". There are plenty of people that have STOPPED carrying devices they normally carry once they got an iPad.
There's still the problem of doing everything that Apple refuses to allow. For a web tablet, you simply can't gloss over Flash being banned outright.
Doesn't seem to be bothering people who actually USE the iPad. In fact, quite the opposite. Next?
The fact that one is forced to run an OS not of one's choosing is also very problematic.
And how is that different from ANY Android device, except, perhaps, the Nexus smarphones? You have to jump through some serious hoops (and sometimes it isn't even possible) to run anything other than the version of Android that the manufacturer ships with their devices.
BTW, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from writing your OWN OS for the iPad, except your lack of talent/laziness/time/interest. If you have the chops to replace the OS on your Android, you should be able to write your own replacement OS for the iPad, right?
But my question remains: What's the hurry? What is it about the tablet that requires you to have one even though by your own admission it is less then what you want?
I'm sincerely interested in the buying impulse when it comes to consumer technology. Two years ago you didn't know you could not live without a tablet. Today, you are so certain you must have one that you'll overpay for something you wish was different.
So, I assume that your iPad just sits there, in perpetual "standby", or do you actually use it for ANYTHING?
If the answer is that it just sits there, in standby, then why didn't you just return it, and save your wife hundreds of dollars; or better yet, buy HER something nice with the money?
However, if your answer is that you DO use it, then how on earth can you question any other person's decision to purchase one?
Either way, your position is totally untenable, and you are nothing but a disingenous troll.
And they're asking several hundred dollars for it? How stupid can people get?
And what, exactly, is it in there that you think YOU can repair or replace? Your TV's remote control is probably also glued together. Wanna know why? Because it makes no sense to waste the cost of fasteners on a non-user-repairable device.
So, who's the stupid one, now?
Oh, and call me when you're the CEO of the 2nd-highest valued corporation OF ANY TYPE, and we'll listen to your OPINIION regarding the stupidity of "people".
Many, many, many CONSUMER products use adhesives in place of conventional fasteners. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you own a few yourself.
...and copy the sleek design to create a product that is equally appealing to the eyes and twice or three times as powerful?
They don't have $7 billion to buy (pre pay) for millions of the most expensive parts. This gives Apple a heck of a cost of goods advantage.
Um, that's not the total explanation, especially when it comes to chip FABRICATORS like Motorola and Samsung. They SHOULD be able to whip all over Apple when it comes to tablet pricing; but they haven't been able to. Why?
Because it ain't ALL about buying power. The A5 SoC IS apparently all that and a bag of chips, cost/performance-wise. Apple's acquisition of the engineering talent at PASemi is paying off in spades, not their buying power.
so this is why ipad2 is so cheap. tiny 512mb ram. and shitty cameras. no wonder samsung is finding it difficult to compete with its 1gb ram tablet with a 2mp front cam and an 8mp rear cam, 1080p recording, dual core graphics, dual core cpu.
only steve jobs suck-ups can call 512mb ample.
Really? Have you ever heard of even the iPad 1 (with its 256 MB) running out of RAM? Find me even one example.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the other problem is that the government is real and god isn't, and certainly isn't about to come down smiting people for alienating the inalienables. Frankly, I think I have more to fear from religious folks than from government types, especially where the two over-lap, which seems only to happen in statistically siginificant numbers in the US and the Middle East. Funny why the two don't get along so very well, isn't it?
Hey, I'm not much of a believer in the FSM, either. BUT, everyone in this country (USA) seems to treat those words as meaning "These rights are yours, and no government can take them away." And THAT is what is important.
I'm with you on the "fearing religious folks", though.
Autism isn't an excuse to act like a jackass in public and get away with it. Shitty parents only think it is.
I'm sure you have the pediatric psychology degree to back up that asshattery?
1) British law has no interpretation of "free speech". None. It's an assumed "right", not an actual one. Funnily, we seem to do a better job than those countries *WITH* such laws.
I too am a fan of our uncodified constitution but you went a bit too far here. The European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, has been in force since 3rd September 1953 and became directly enforceable in UK courts when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. Article 10, taken from Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act:
Article 10 Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Yeah, that's the problem with the UN "Bill of Rights" as compared with the U.S. Constitution.
In the U.N. Bill of Rights, it is the GOVERNMENT that grants the "right".
In the U.S. Constitution, it is GOD who grants those rights. That is why they are referred to as "Inailenable".
The difference is, what Government "grants", Government can "revoke".
Yes, the U.S. Constitution CAN be modified; but the bar is set so high that it is nearly impossible to accomplish. And even the average, non-politically-savvy citizen in Amurika understands the value of the First Amendment. So, it is highly unlikely that particular "Amendment" will be up for review anytime soon.
U.N. "Human Rights"? Better than nothing, I suppose; but not nearly as strong as the First Amendment. I cannot speak to other countries' "Free Speech" provisions, however; there are probably some that are even more "bulletproof" than the U.S.' First Amendment.
its probably all to do with contracts with traditional "ground based" re-broadcasters, etc.
Yeah, it feels like TW simply didn't do their legal homework, and maybe even thought that their content vendors would think it was cool.
It's not *absolutely* the same. The other TV in the home very likely, nowadays, has at least a cable box/DTA/other cable card device attached to it. (In other words, even local stations in analog are gone in some areas already, and will likely be gone in more soon.)
I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.
What I meant was, it is no different as far as TW is concerned.
Most cable companies charge a small fee for each digital converter box; so, I guess that counts as "charging more". The "service" stays the same, but the equipment rental fee goes up.
It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.
Sorry, I meant a "no additional charge" service, if you were already a TW digital cable subscriber. I was thinking in terms of myself, I guess; since I fall into the TW digital cable subscriber category. Although, I don't have an iPad; so I guess it's a $350 minimum for me, eh?
It is called "Bait and Switch".
Need another layer of tinfoil there, buddy.
IIRC, this was a FREE service, for people who where ALREADY SUBSCRIBERS.
Moron.
Methinks that several of the "Channels" first heard about this when it was announced, and SOME of them bitched to TimeWarner that their current agreements didn't cover LIVE streaming of their content.
Why mujst everybody monetize every single little thing? I understand these "networks" have a duty to their stockholders; but they are not getting the big picture. An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home. No more. No less.
And not running Windows does not automagically invalidate the Alt+F4 thing. A number of X11 window managers have that keystroke bound to the usual command, or can be bound that way by user config.
Sorry, I don't use X11 unless absolutely forced to. When I see "Alt+[anything]", I immediately think "Windows". And so do the vast majority of computer-users.
BTW, love your sig! I thought for years that it was "just me" that thought that C++ was a ridiculous language, that didn't deserve to share an alphabetic designation with the mighty C; but after years of reflection, I'm with Sir Linus on this one! I just wish it would die the death it so richly deserves; so it will stop being a fucking bullet-point on job requirements!
Find an earlier ARM device than the Newton, which started development in 1987, and we'll talk. Especially considering that Qualcomm didn't even exist until 1984, and didn't get its first patent until 1990.
My point was never that Qualcomm was the first ARM designer. My point was I consider them to have wider experience. If you haven't been paying attention a lot has happened with ARM since 1984. Apple really has not been involved with ARM much besides the Newton and now the A4/A5.
That YOU know of, that is...
How far back do you think the iPhone/iPad development goes? Well, whatever you guess, add about 3 or 4 years. Remember, Apple actually developed a tablet internally FIRST; then put THAT project on hold to start development of what would become the iPhone.
Being a 30-year embedded developer myself, with several successful industrial product designs under my belt, I would estimate that, if Apple actually ever left ARM development, it was only for about 7 or 8 years, considering the Newton, et al., were not discontinued until Jobs came back in 1994. I would be really surprised to find that the beginnings of what we now call the iPhone/iPad were started any later than 2002-2003 at the latest.
There were also some failed/never-released products, like the first Apple TV (in 1995?), that I think either never were released, or were released in a very small quantities. Who knows if those embedded devices used ARM? I would submit that at least some of them probably did.
But in the end, both Apple and Qualcomm have the engineering talent on board to actually, really, design a CPU from scratch. Neither of them actually do; because it is much easier to license the ARM IP, and then do what they need. And without being actually privvy to their internal engineering departments (which I don't think either of us are!), anything else is pure speculation on both our parts.
But the facts disagree with your opinion, sorry.
Qualcomm designs ARM chips for many other companies and businesses. They also design for their own products. Their markets include smartphones and other mobile devices. Apple only designs chips for their own products. Which company do you think has wider industry experience? Which other facts would you like to discuss? These are simple facts.
The fact that Qualcomm rents-out its design team to other firms doesn't necessarily give them wider experience. Apple has enough projects that will never see the light of day (yes, speculating; but pretty "sound" speculating) that pretty much negates Qualcomm's R&D rent-boy status. Oh, and BTW, I would be willing to bet that, when it comes to "breadth" of projects, that Apple probably designs more different TYPES of products than does Qualcomm. Qualcomm is all about communications designs (and they do a fucking fantastic job at those, which isn't surprising, given their history); Apple designs a wide variety of embedded products. Much wider. And it is designing for DIFFERENT applications that brings depth (and breadth) of experience; not just tweaking chip designs that have already been incrementally improved with a single application, communications, in mind. Understand?
And you've seen the internals of the A4 and A5 chips to know that for a fact, right? Idiot, and an arrogant idiot, at that.
Before you start calling people names, maybe you should have you clicked on that link where it shows the internals of an A4 and the Cortex-A8 core. If that wasn't enough for you, there's always google where others have dissected the A4 chip.
First, I apologize for my intemperate language. However, the fact that the A4's Cortex A8 core is relatively "stock" does NOT mean that Apple COULDN'T have modified it; all it really means is that they were satisfied ENOUGH that i
But all the big interest seems in making the iPad function as a secondary display for your computer, not the other way around.
I can think of a variety of ways in which the current iPad form factor might be useful to me, but they all involve the device working as a "real" computer, rather than just as a media or "app" box like the iPhone. Apple already markets quite a good OS in the form of OS X, which (ignoring flames from detractors) has the advantage of being Unixy enough for my purposes. If Apple would consider dropping OS X on to the iPad and marketing some form of roll-out or foldable keyboard for it, I might seriously consider buying one. But as it stands, it seems Apple is pointing the MacBook Air in my direction, and that just looks like an inadequate laptop.
OS X is different that iOS when you get above he Darwin layer, if I understand the OS architecture. I correctly (I am not an OS X or iOS dev; just a user). I'm pretty sure that Quartz and OpenGL (not to mention GCD and OpenCL) are nowhere to be found in iOS, either. Since iOS is a "windowless" OS, I would imagine all the window-management stuff is out as well. With that in mind, I'm pretty sure that, even disregarding the cross-compiling issues for x86 vs. ARM, that OS X would REALLY suck on something as lightweight in processing-power as the iPad. I don't know where the ARM9 Cortex core is as far as throughput per GHz compared to, say a Core2Duo; but I'm pretty damn sure that you would not have the zippy, fluid experience that people love about the iPad, if it ran bog-standard OS X.
br> In fact, that has been the reason that the iOS devices have been so pleasant for the user; because Apple wisely didn't take the easy way out, and just throw hardware at the problem; instead, they really tightly optimized both the hardware AND OS design.
And that's what sets it apart. I'm sure that Apple looked at the issue long and hard before embarking on the iOS project; and I'm also sure that the very first thing they tried was to recompile OS X for ARM, and give that a go... No one wants to maintain TWO OSes; but at least Apple was smart enough to realize that it was the only practical solution.
> It's plenty if you don't use Windows!
I had a Mac that shipped with 512M. It sucked pretty badly when trying to use MacOS until I finally upgraded the RAM to a civilized amount.
And I've seen PDP-8 systems that had 8 KILObytes of RAM (core) that supported multiple concurrent apps and multiple concurrent users. Just like dick size, it isn't the absolute size that counts (above a certain, really small number), but rather how you use it.
So, what was your point, again?
We have these things called 'stands', which you lean the tablet up against. Both hands free! With a tiny bit of creativity, one could also use a desk, table, or wall in such a way as to act as a stand as well.
Around 50 years ago we also invented these things called 'keyboards', and while you need a specific type of keyboard that has only existed for about a decade to connect it to a tablet, these keyboards do provide a better experience with massive data input.
For iPad specifically, there is a tiny adapter you can buy with a USB port on it. For Android tablets, they typically come with a USB port on the side, though you might still need a mini-to-usb-A adapter depending on what port it has built in.
Then you can use any keyboard invented in the last 15 years or so.
I realize you personally don't care, but this is for others who might read and believe what you have to say.
It's even easier than that for the iPad: Just use any bluetooth keyboard. No adapter needed.
Apple isn't just an ARM licensee, they helped DEVELOP the ARM. There is literally NO ONE on the planet with more ARM experience than Apple.
As for ARM experience, your history is off. Apple worked with VLSI and Acorn on ARM. Acorn spun off the design team into a company that later became ARM. Apple had an integral part in the formation of ARM but haven't done much with the company since the formation.
Also considering a dozen companies are ARM licensees, I would fight it hard to believe that no one has more experience than Apple.
Find an earlier ARM device than the Newton, which started development in 1987, and we'll talk. Especially considering that Qualcomm didn't even exist until 1984, and didn't get its first patent until 1990.
It is my opinion that Qualcomm has much deeper experience than Apple.
But the facts disagree with your opinion, sorry.
For the most part licensees like Apple and TI and Samsung take the core that they get from ARM and build the rest of the system around it. Qualcomm is the only I know that modifies the core for optimization.
And you've seen the internals of the A4 and A5 chips to know that for a fact, right? Idiot, and an arrogant idiot, at that.
If you take a look at any dissection of the A4, it clearly shows where the ARM core is located and it appears to be a stock core design with little modification.
Now you're changing your position to say that there IS modification? Which is it, fucktard?
In the A4 and possible A5, most of Apple's modifications are on everything around the core but not the core itself.
No, they FABRICATED it. They didn't DEVELOP it. It was those people Apple got from the PASemi acquisition that did the development work. It's the difference between designing a photocopier and operating one.
Your timing is off. Apple didn't buy PA Semi until April 2008. The first iPhone was released in June 29, 2007, almost a full year before they acquired PA Semi. Logically Apple would have to be designing the iPhone before June 2007. So somehow PA Semi being owned by Apple designed an ARM chip for Apple two years before they owned them. Not unless Steve Jobs has a time machine.
I didn't say a thing about the original iPhone. It did not use the A4 or A5; but rather a much more "stock" ARM SoC (FABRICATED by Samsung). I think it might have still been slightly customized; but not a from-the-ground-up design like the A4/A5.
Also PA Semi worked with Power architecture not ARM.
That is, until Apple bought them... PASemi was purchased primarily because of their rich experience in LOW POWER (as in current consumption, not "Power" as in PPC) chip design. In fact, they probably had to play catch-up when switching gears to ARM. But engineers of that calibre are usually able to (and obviously did) transfer their special knowledge to another platform. And considering that ARM implementations are often designed with low-power in mind (the TI OMAP microcontrollers being especially current-miserly, IIRC), all the PASemi people had to do was to make sure the rest of the SoC in the A4/A5 was just as frugal on power as the ARM core already was.
From what I recall Apple used a Samsung ARM chip for the original original iPhone (released June 2007), 3G (released June 2008) , and 3GS (released June 2009 and chip designed by Intrinsity). It wasn't until iPhone 4
Oh, I quite agree. If someone has one of those "iPad specific jobs" they should definitely consider buying an iPad.
So, wait. NOW you're saying that there are 65,000 reasons FOR buying an iPad?
That's a pretty large envelope. Are you SURE you want to keep claiming that you can't understand WHY someone would "need" an iPad?
There is practically no one (relative to the population) that NEEDS a computer, either. Or a microwave oven. Or a TV, DVD player, MP3 player, game console, radio, or stereo. Do you? Yet I'll be willing to bet that you own all, or at least some, of these.
If you do, then by your own logic, you're just being stupid, right?
That depends on several other factors, cost for a new fondle slab, utility of the Xoom vs iPad, fit into corporate IT systems, etc. Corporate users probably don't have other priorities, but corporate IT might. I do not have a good feel for what corporate IT feels is their job. At a cost of less than $1000, time spent screwing around with hardware efficiently is fairly short.
Actually, it is pretty much nonexistant. How many "IT people" even bother to open up a monitor or a router (even an expensive one) when it breaks, and then, how many can actually FIX one? Replacing a bad drive or motherboard does NOT equal component-level troubleshooting and repair. And since you simply can't purchase the motherboard in an iPad (or a Xoom, I'll bet!), what in the fuck is there to even "repair"? And if you ARE competent to effect a repair (lets say, like replacing a bad display), then a moment or two with a heat-gun isn't going to be that much of a problem, either.
Also, just because you are an "IT person" doesn't mean you magically understand the HARDWARE you're using any better than the "simple users" do. In fact, in my experience, that skillset combination is actually fairly rare in Corporate IT. Those people are usually DESIGNING the equipment, not playing around hooking it up and configuring it, and have EE, not CS, degrees, and certainly not the typical clue-free MCSE (Must Consult Someone Experienced) droid.
The person who is telling his friends to wait for the Xoom because it is "more serviceable" (his GUESS) than the iPad is simply giving bad advice. Too bad his friends might think he actually has a handle on the subject; because he just doesn't.
Who said anything about reverse engineering for your own benefit? What about getting your product fixed for a reasonable price? You could take an out-of-warranty appliance (TV, radio, microwave oven, washer/dryer) in to a electronics repair shop and get it fixed up when the original manufacturer discontinued service, or maybe you just wanted a better price even if it voided your original warranty, and the repair shop would provide their own warranty plan so you could just take it back to them. What's wrong with doing the same with an iPad or whatever else you want?
Um, and where is that repair shop going to get the nearly 100% CUSTOM components to effect said "repair"?
Think; then post.
Oh, and using a heat-gun to get something apart is well-within the capabilities of any reputable "repair-shop" (and even most tech-savvy users). Anyone else SHOULD really stay the fuck out, because there is absolutely nothing to be gained (and lots of potential for damage) by an unqualified user just poking around in a device containing static-sensitive components.
But, if you were truly experienced in electronics, you would already understand that. I, for one have been an embedded hardware/software developer for over 30 years, and have also worked as a bench tech, repairing a wide variety of consumer electronics.
With that in mind, let me just say in closing that, you sir, are simply full of shit.
Honestly, what difference does it make? You either agree with what he has to say or you disagree. Maybe he's just a Microsoft fanboy These people do exist you know.
Yes, but don't you think it's odd that he hasn't posted in defense of "himself"?
Sounds far too much like a shill.
While I agree that the iPad is a very interesting device, it is still terribly limiting in some respects. It is bound to increase the number of devices you lug around rather than decrease their number.
That is FAR from a "given". There are plenty of people that have STOPPED carrying devices they normally carry once they got an iPad.
There's still the problem of doing everything that Apple refuses to allow. For a web tablet, you simply can't gloss over Flash being banned outright.
Doesn't seem to be bothering people who actually USE the iPad. In fact, quite the opposite. Next?
The fact that one is forced to run an OS not of one's choosing is also very problematic.
And how is that different from ANY Android device, except, perhaps, the Nexus smarphones? You have to jump through some serious hoops (and sometimes it isn't even possible) to run anything other than the version of Android that the manufacturer ships with their devices.
BTW, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from writing your OWN OS for the iPad, except your lack of talent/laziness/time/interest. If you have the chops to replace the OS on your Android, you should be able to write your own replacement OS for the iPad, right?
And which job is that?
Uh, maybe the 65,000 iPad-specific "jobs" that are available on the App Store?
Just because YOU have no imagination, doesn't mean everyone is challenged in that way, too.
But my question remains: What's the hurry? What is it about the tablet that requires you to have one even though by your own admission it is less then what you want?
I'm sincerely interested in the buying impulse when it comes to consumer technology. Two years ago you didn't know you could not live without a tablet. Today, you are so certain you must have one that you'll overpay for something you wish was different.
So, I assume that your iPad just sits there, in perpetual "standby", or do you actually use it for ANYTHING?
If the answer is that it just sits there, in standby, then why didn't you just return it, and save your wife hundreds of dollars; or better yet, buy HER something nice with the money?
However, if your answer is that you DO use it, then how on earth can you question any other person's decision to purchase one?
Either way, your position is totally untenable, and you are nothing but a disingenous troll.
And they're asking several hundred dollars for it? How stupid can people get?
And what, exactly, is it in there that you think YOU can repair or replace? Your TV's remote control is probably also glued together. Wanna know why? Because it makes no sense to waste the cost of fasteners on a non-user-repairable device.
So, who's the stupid one, now?
Oh, and call me when you're the CEO of the 2nd-highest valued corporation OF ANY TYPE, and we'll listen to your OPINIION regarding the stupidity of "people".
Many, many, many CONSUMER products use adhesives in place of conventional fasteners. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you own a few yourself.
Guess that makes you "stupid", too.
Probably because apple subsidizes the (hardware) cost from apps and itunes, something an open system can't do.
Citation, please?
...and copy the sleek design to create a product that is equally appealing to the eyes and twice or three times as powerful?
They don't have $7 billion to buy (pre pay) for millions of the most expensive parts. This gives Apple a heck of a cost of goods advantage.
Um, that's not the total explanation, especially when it comes to chip FABRICATORS like Motorola and Samsung. They SHOULD be able to whip all over Apple when it comes to tablet pricing; but they haven't been able to. Why?
Because it ain't ALL about buying power. The A5 SoC IS apparently all that and a bag of chips, cost/performance-wise. Apple's acquisition of the engineering talent at PASemi is paying off in spades, not their buying power.
so this is why ipad2 is so cheap. tiny 512mb ram. and shitty cameras. no wonder samsung is finding it difficult to compete with its 1gb ram tablet with a 2mp front cam and an 8mp rear cam, 1080p recording, dual core graphics, dual core cpu. only steve jobs suck-ups can call 512mb ample.
Really? Have you ever heard of even the iPad 1 (with its 256 MB) running out of RAM? Find me even one example.