I already have a computer for the real heavy duty stuff. The app store has been a success on the iPhone with it's slow processor. I'm finding that I wait on the network more than the processor anyway! I also wouldn't do any real high end photo editing on the iPad either. This device is for kicking back and ding the things you do on your iPhone but with a better visual experience. It's the first one.. The next one will most likely be faster but really, I have a dual 30 inch SSD RAID Mac Pro for the real stuff... The iPad has it's niche.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's A4 Processor is Based on Cortex A8, Not A9?
- Thread starter t0mat0
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I already have a computer for the real heavy duty stuff. The app store has been a success on the iPhone with it's slow processor. I'm finding that I wait on the network more than the processor anyway! I also wouldn't do any real high end photo editing on the iPad either. This device is for kicking back and ding the things you do on your iPhone but with a better visual experience. It's the first one.. The next one will most likely be faster but really, I have a dual 30 inch SSD RAID Mac Pro for the real stuff... The iPad has it's niche.
Remember how much better PowerPC was over the competing x86 processors of the times?
I remember the ads that said that - but I don't remember many
objective, commercial benchmarks that demonstrated the
advantage for PPC (outside of a few hand-tuned AltiVec demos
in the G4 and later years).
I understand. I want a Windows 7 one for the programs I use, so even with the specs, I won't be getting a Tegra 2 slate. Unless the Windows 7 ones can't output 1080p video.
The first iPad will be a development platform and debug device. A year later when iPad V2.0 hardware is released the device will have several new features and be supported by a substantially evolved chipset. The "old" chips or a variant of them will go into iPod Touch 2011 ans iPhone 2011.
If you buy this first device as an early adopter I strongly suggest you treat it like an original EDGE iPhone. The coolest thing you ever touched up to then, still functional all these years later, but that in no way makes you NOT want to buy the latest doo-dad anyway.
Good thing its only $200 for the iPhone and $650 for the iPad so as a gadget geek it is an affordable expense. The new AT&T data plan makes it less costly to use full features as well.
I have a "family" of cell enabled devices. May I have a family plan for MY OWN devices on my ONE BILL?
Forget the fiends and family, I want MY tech!
Rocketman
If you buy this first device as an early adopter I strongly suggest you treat it like an original EDGE iPhone. The coolest thing you ever touched up to then, still functional all these years later, but that in no way makes you NOT want to buy the latest doo-dad anyway.
Good thing its only $200 for the iPhone and $650 for the iPad so as a gadget geek it is an affordable expense. The new AT&T data plan makes it less costly to use full features as well.
I have a "family" of cell enabled devices. May I have a family plan for MY OWN devices on my ONE BILL?
Forget the fiends and family, I want MY tech!
Rocketman
I have zero interest in the ipad but I agree with you on C. B is a valid point though. Multitasking is a "computer thing" only if you've never used something other than an iPhone. EVERY OTHER SMARTPHONE on the market can multitask. So the fact that the ipad, which SHOULD be more capable than the iPhone, still can't multitask is a serious problem in my book.
It's just an extension of the iPhone... So what other devices will be faster, but the developers will develop apps for this before your other devices because of the integration Apple has provided and most of the people who buy this stuff don't worry about benchmarks... they have the $$ to blow on a device to have around the house to grab information quick and use it to control devices over their network which it will be excellent for. Just go benchmark something!
A slightly less pessimistic and critical view might be, "proof of concept".
Greed in this case is definable. The corporation that manufactures this device has a margin target on hardware sales. It appears that based on projected demand surveys that the lowest and highest end devices will be most popular, the margin is likely to work out to around 40%. The corporation at issue has been operating on margins from 29-35% overall, so some of their products were obviously higher to make up for such "products" as iTunes store, retail distribution, and R&D. They don't seem to spend a lot on advertising and trade shows.
Rocketman
I for one still want one. In fact I don't think one will be enough soon after our family of six get its hands on the first one. And the way I see it is that the iPad was designed to run single thread applications, where clock speed counts. Not the number of cores.
And the price of the iPad is key to success. Not the number of cores or whatever CPU is used. Also. It might be a toy to some, but it will soon be an essential device for people like me.
The only thing we here are waiting for is the day that Apple changes the website, which can't be soon enough as most people won't give a BEEB about the CPU in the iPad.
And the price of the iPad is key to success. Not the number of cores or whatever CPU is used. Also. It might be a toy to some, but it will soon be an essential device for people like me.
The only thing we here are waiting for is the day that Apple changes the website, which can't be soon enough as most people won't give a BEEB about the CPU in the iPad.
Wow. No one believed me when I said PA didn't have time to do a full design. Until I start getting some respect around here I ain't spilling any beans
Why the hell did Apple spend a billion dollars just to take two off the shelf components (Cortex A8 & PowerVR 535) that (1) are already in the current iPhone and (2) are already offered as a SoC platform by plenty of companies?
Sounds like PA Semi didn't actually do anything.
Sounds like PA Semi didn't actually do anything.
The CPU choice itself won't affect sales. If people see it's capable of doing the things they want, they'll buy it. The people who are "outraged" over this are the same ones complaining about lack of a camera, onboard USB port, and full OSX. They wouldn't be buying one anyway.
I'll laugh when people don't notice it being "slow".
Thats for damn sure. Nobody has yet to give me a reason why this thing could not have been released in 2007, and it sure as hell looks like it was. This just does not pass for an Apple device made in 2010. should have been released 3 years ago alongside the iphone and ipod touch. i love how apple is pretending like ipad is its own entity, when its so obviously not, its an ipod touch. and until they release a second and third revision, it wont be. This thing is as crippled as a first gen iphone, without video recording and mms. oh btw, they now allow video recording apps for the first gen iphone, why didnt they allow them 3 years ago?
I remember the ads that said that - but I don't remember many
objective, commercial benchmarks that demonstrated the
advantage for PPC (outside of a few hand-tuned AltiVec demos
in the G4 and later years).
Indeed. I designed PowerPC processors and x86-64 processors. PowerPC wins only in a textbook.
They didn't spend a billion dollars. The NY Times didn't say Apple spent a billion dollars. Enough with the billion dollars nonsense already.
Wow, that is seriously pathetic. I just keep getting less and less impressed by the technology in there. And they brag about a CPU that's not really custom, and not even Cortex A9 based?
Come on people!
As long as the processor of the iPad does its job aka running the machine, and running it well it is F´N unimportant what the Hardware is.
Why don´t people get it. It is not about specs or anything it is about the freaking software that runs on top of it. This 10" device plays 10 hours of Video continuously! Runs smooth like hell (go to youtube watch them Hands On sessions).... Just look at iWork running on it at impressive speed.
So it is about software...
This is aimed at the mass consumer market! This is not a computer. It is an iPad.
Shouldn't we all reserve judgement over the iPad's performance until we've actually seen third party apps run on it, that are written specifically for the iPad? As far as I could tell from the official demo it looked plenty fast to me? High quality video playback, 3D gaming, photo managing, animations, it all looked very smooth. The reporters who got to try the thing also seemed to agree that the iPad is very fast. No one called its performance "a joke".
That's true. Apple only paid ~$280M for PA Semi. And in the words of Randy Moss, it was "straight cash homie."
The only people who think Apple spent a billion are some NYT reporter and their editor. There is literally no other evidence of that other then a comment that "new chips can cost up to a billion to design" (paraphrasing because I dont want to look it up) in a fluff article on processor design.
Apple is tightfisted with their horde of cash, if they spent a billion it would be for something that has serious long term potential to save them money and differentiate their products. Assuming they spent that on a single custom chip made from existing designs is a little silly.
I think you've made an important point here. Even though I feel underwhelmed by the iPad presentation we saw recently, I agree that this platform could well signal the future. I also think that the days of needing a full computer to do a lot of the heavy work is slowing, and we'll see the device or mobile device take the lead. For example, using an iPad plus a combination of some of the emerging software-as-a-service options (say dropbox, spotify, photoshop.com or iwork.com and host CRM software) is going to satisfy a lot of the middle ground functionality needed for both corporates and individuals.
The building of more cloud services (and massive data centres) with embedded functionality means we need less big spinning hard drives and heavy processing power (often underutilised) to be on our desks all the time. Some tasks might need it for a while yet, but the shift is on.
I've been building my own home network with NAS drives to hold music and video but yet even as I do it, I know that the dollars spent on it is going to be made redundant sooner rather than later and replaced with a simple model of a couple of thin client type devices (iPad) and the data and some of the processing being streamed from somewhere like here to wherever I am.
The future is a light weight device and platform model which will involve more subscriptions and more trust but this is offset by lower maintenance costs and continuous improvements in functionality. If the service providers and manufacturers get the balance right it really will change the way computing is done.