Don't be ridiculous. My point is that each part of the computer has a name that is agreed upon by people in the industry and who practice the art of computer design and manufacture. RAM is RAM. Flash is flash. And SSD's are SSD's.
And if you have an ARM chip with some sort of controller in it that makes external flash look like a hard drive, you do not have an SSD. You have an ARM CPU and you have flash RAM. These things have real names that every engineer agrees on, and you guys can't just change them because you feel like it.
If you're an expert and want to desolder your iPad and increase it's capacity, you cannot do so by purchasing an SSD. You need to purchase flash memory modules.
By the argument all you obvious non-engineers are making, everything with flash in it could be an SSD (SD card, compactflash card, usb key, etc.) That's simply not true.
Making some big assumptions, there, aren't you? As a matter of fact, I am an engineer. I am not, however, a computer engineer, but rather a mechanical, design for manufacture, machine design, engineer. However, I do have a feel for how these things work "in the industry", and, at least from my perspective, Aiden has it closer than you do.
Aiden, you should know me well enough by now and should know I wouldn't fall for your little strawman argument. Nowhere did I say anything about "official." I never claimed there was an IEEE standard or that some standards organization had issued a formal proclamation. I simply said that engineers agree on the terminology.
I hate to ever point at wikipedia (for obvious reasons), but even wikipedia states: "Every SSD includes a controller that incorporates the electronics that bridge the NAND memory components to the host computer. The controller is an embedded processor that executes firmware-level code and is one of the most important factors of SSD performance"
And, btw, I don't see how the RAM analogy is even close to relevant. Aside from the fact that SSD's can actually be made of RAM, my point is that when you order the part, it has an agreed upon name. The name is the name, even if the part is not user-replaceable.
The flaw with your reasoning is that you're requiring it to be a discrete part to be defined as an SSD. But, in order to properly look at this, from an engineering perspective, we need to ask the question "what makes up an SSD?". The answer (in simplest terms), as you yourself point out, is that there is a RAM memory module (typically flash these days) and a controller. Now, if you're looking at a system layout you can draw a box around a RAM module and a controller, then you've got an SSD. Let's consider the following cases:
- All components on one board and in a traditional HD case.
- The new "blade" SSD components where, essentially, you've only removed the case.
- All the same components are used, but they're all soldered directly onto the motherboard of a computer (this is where, it seems, your definition of an SSD would cease to apply).
- The same memory components are used, but the controller silicon has been integrated into the SoC.
- The same memory components are used, but the controller has been moved away from being "hardwired", and taken into the firm/software running on the main CPU on the motherboard.
From a system layout perspective, each of these cases is essentially identical, and therefore each should be called an SSD.
No, and never was. Pluto is no more a planet than the Ipad is a computer - it shares a few similarities, but doesn't fit the mold.
While I agree that (much to the disappointment of the general public) Pluto isn't actually a planet (if it were, then our solar system would have to be defined as having hundreds, if not thousands, of planets, not the commonly accepted nine - er, eight), I don't agree with your iPad analogy. The iPad is capable of so much, I would argue that it certainly is a computer, in any meaningful sense of the word. Every time computers have changed form factors there has been a transition in capabilities, where the capabilities of the new form factor don't quite measure up to those of the old form factor (think about the introduction of laptops vs. the desktop PC, or, going even further back, the desktop PC vs. the server with dumb terminals). But the term "computer" has always carried forward. So, while the iPad is not a laptop computer, or a desktop computer, or a server computer, it is a tablet computer.
Now, it would be hard to make any reasonable argument to continue to consider Pluto a planet (other than "because we want to", but, then, is that a reasonable argument?).