Quite a few retailers have shown recently they can't be trusted with CC data. I'm looking at you: Target, Home Depot, Albertsons, Neiman Marcus, Subway, etc. If
Pay means the stores don't have the CC data to lose, then so be it.
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.
Sapphire Displays for iPhone 6 Missed by 'Weeks' Due to Yield Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quite a few retailers have shown recently they can't be trusted with CC data. I'm looking at you: Target, Home Depot, Albertsons, Neiman Marcus, Subway, etc. If
Pay means the stores don't have the CC data to lose, then so be it.
yeah i lost a bit on lqmt as well haha... but this time i'm not selling, rather doubling down over the year.
I wonder if the switch had anything to do with the 3-4 week shipping delay we're seeing on the iPhone 6 Plus.
In case any of you are interested, here's the full list of iPhone 6/6 Plus ship times for US, UK and Canada:
http://iphone-inventory.blogspot.ca/2014/09/iphone-6-pre-order-tracker.html
In case any of you are interested, here's the full list of iPhone 6/6 Plus ship times for US, UK and Canada:
http://iphone-inventory.blogspot.ca/2014/09/iphone-6-pre-order-tracker.html
It's faster in single threaded tasks, but there are a few highly parallel benchmarks the A7 is slower on. Since Apple gimps RAM the A7's two core disadvantage is accentuated.
Once some of the latest Android designs hit the market in the next year, they will CRUSH the iPhone in performance. Think about quad cores running in excess of 2GHz. There will even be octocore Android devices.
My theory (more like WAG) is that Apple focused more on efficiency for the A8 so as to avoid a marketing problem with the A8 having higher performance than a quad core A9 in some instances. In a quad core A9, each core will likely have to be slower than the A8 cores if efficiency is to be maintained and the same 20nm process is used.
Whatever Apple's roadmap proves to be, it leans towards effiecency in lieu of performance due to the puny battery capacities imposed by Ive's design anorexia. Android devices will reign in both performance and battery life since they are content with "thin enough".
Except for the fact that few apps are actually optimized for parallel use. You're assuming that said Android devices will use said 'octocore' chips, which they won't. You're right in saying that Apple is leaning towards efficiency, but not by sacrificing performance. First off, forget about Samsung's marketing BS - they're devices don't last more than 10 hours anyway and they slow down after 6 months. They (and others) don't have Metal which is designed to take advantage of A7/A8's 64-bit architecture, and even if iPhone has 1 GB of RAM, it only needs 1 GB. I've used Android on multiple devices - 2 GB didn't save them from cripplingly slow load times and just general performance.
It all comes down to this: Android devices need quad-core/octo-core (I haven't even heard of any Android device that uses the latter) and at least 2 GB of RAM to potentially beat an iPhone's dual-core 1 GB specs. Now that's sad. BTW, more RAM = less battery life.
True, but RAM is a comparatively trivial driver of power usage. Things like the LTE radio and display suck up far more juice.
This is true. I honestly would rather have a .2mm thicker phone with better battery life than a thinner phone for less (6+ vs 6), but my point about RAM was simply an addendum.
I'm with you on the battery life issue. I don't think RAM is solely an issue of profits, I think Ive & Co are destructively obsessive minimalists. Minimalism is feature unto itself, rather than being a means to an end.
So... my prediction of how goes the iPhone 6S :
- Sapphire screen
- iOS 9
- Quad-Core A9 processor - Twice as fast as A8, More energy efficient
- M9 coprocessor
- 2 GB of RAM
- 13 megapixels camera
- Minimum of 32 GB
The 'S' version are a pass for me. 2 year upgrade with a complete redesign (3,4,5,6) warrants an outlay of hundreds. Minor changes ('s') do not.
This is a phone we're talking about. How many commonly used apps require or even benefit from parallel processing?? This is why Apple focused on single core performance and efficiency.
I have a lot (LOT) of friends and family members who own iPhones. I have yet to hear any of them complain about the performance or battery life of their iPhones. The few that complained about battery life, were happy once I showed them how to close open apps.
Tech geeks often forget that most of the world doesn't know or care about the processing power until it noticeably inhibits or slows them down.
So... my prediction of how goes the iPhone 6S :
- Sapphire screen
- iOS 9
- Quad-Core A9 processor - Twice as fast as A8, More energy efficient
- M9 coprocessor
- 2 GB of RAM
- 13 megapixels camera
- Minimum of 32 GB
Most if it I agree except quad core a9. It'll be dual again. And prolly like a 10 mp camera.
Sapphire Displays for iPhone 6 Missed by 'Weeks' Due to Yield Issues
We all know the Sapphire is mainly for the Apple Watch!!!! So why start speculating things that are a long way off happening. I'm looking forward to my Apple Watch which should be in time for my birthday lol with it's Sapphire display as confirmed by Apple in last Tuesdays Keynote
We all know the Sapphire is mainly for the Apple Watch!!!! So why start speculating things that are a long way off happening. I'm looking forward to my Apple Watch which should be in time for my birthday lol with it's Sapphire display as confirmed by Apple in last Tuesdays Keynote
Obviously they don't complain, because Apple doesn't approve sluggish apps (the App Store approval process won't let a developer write a slow app and then wait for hardware to catch up). Thus a fast iPhone isn't about current software, it's about creating possibilities for future software.
Another other issue is that Apple so far has used essentially the same SoC across the iPad/iPhone ranges. It's a lot easier to imagine how a tablet could benefit from extra cores.
Apple could be caught with their d*** in their hand if the performance gap widens so far that new killer apps only run well on Android and so aren't even released for iOS. Due to shrinking marketshare, the day is already approaching when iOS has fewer useful Apps, so there's no reason to bring it on sooner with inferior hardware.
I actually believe Apple will go quad core on the 6S. I mentioned this before so if it's a repeat post to this thread I apologize; my theory is that Apple only did a 25% performance boost on the A8 because they want to avoid a situation in which the dual core iPhone 6 has noticably faster single thread performance than a quad core 6S. It also makes sense to enhance efficiency before adding more cores since quad cores generally suck more power.
To reiterate, the current iPhone has sufficient performance now. The question is whether Apple ups their game in a year or so when Android devices are slated for extreme performance gains. I'm not convinced Apple is ready for the upcoming iOS v Android war on any front, but hardware performance will be the greatest challenge for Apple due to their business strategy and industrial design anorexia.
1GB RAM is a limitation - maybe the most obvious example is surfing with multiple tabs open. There's only so much CPU caches and iOS optimizations can do. Since Android's Linux underpinnings aren't so radically different from iOS's Unix foundation, I highly doubt that 1GB of iRAM equal 2GB of Android RAM. Frankly I find that argument in need of a pitcher of Kool Aid.
As for Android devices needing more performance, that's an old argument about to be rendered obsolet when ART replaces Dalvik in Android L. Speed and responsiveness of ART beta are already close to that of iOS and are expected to match it with the final release.
I welcome this new competition in the mobile space. Apple know their market share is rapidly shrinking, and the iPhone 6 is one response. I hope soon they respond as forcefully on the iOS front with more versatility and better design.
Better camera, faster CPU, ~1.4x more pixels (nearly 3x more on the Plus), faster LTE, storage up to 128 GB with 64 GB costing what 32 GB did, a 1400:1 contrast ratio vs 800:1, 802.11ac wireless, "reachability," display zoom, wider viewing angles, and iOS 8 with support probably for iOS 11.
You were really holding out for the sapphire display? Why, exactly? I mean, it sounds nice just because it has the word "sapphire" in it, but it's not like it's leaps and bounds above GG 3.
That said it is of course your choice.
Poor GTAT lol.
----------
That's a really good question.
----------
I think this is true. I find Ive endlessly irritating. Very nicely said, by the way.
Not allowing poorly optimized software is a bad thing?
How? Real-life examples of how the current implementation is limited...?
Keep dreaming. How quickly people forget how the chip world's collective jaws dropped when the A7 came out. It's been a year and Android isn't even 64 bit yet.
Okay. Nothing controversial about what you're saying here. More efficiency is always a good thing.
Why are you convinced that your concerns about the future are being overlooked by Apple? People have been saying what you've been saying for years now. Apple *always* eventually shows themselves to be one step ahead, if not out in public, then behind closed laboratory doors.
And why do you believe that Android devices are "slated for extreme performance gains"? You have examples?