MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 01, 09 - 02:39 pm Comment from: Predrag

..."every time somebody upgrades an iPhone to a 2G to a 3G to a 3GS, the old device becomes an iPod for somebody else"...

That statement assumes something that is definitely far from true. People who have upgraded their original iPhone E (for EDGE) to 3G have handed the EDGE one down to someone else, who activated it on AT&T (or whichever carrier was available in their market). Same thing happened to 3G owners upgrading to 3GS in the past ten days. Old iPhones don't become iPods. They remain iPhones, on a data plan, making phone calls and surfing web on a mobile network. The number of old iPhones no longer on AT&T (in the US), or any other carrier, is negligible. That's because even the oldest possible iPhone is still less than 2 years old (or will be, in two hours, exactly two years old). As such, it is still far superior to all other smart phones out there. That is because it is a far cry from its old self, having been updated several times over the past (almost) two years.

Jul 01, 09 - 02:43 pm Comment from: jarrettdailynews

Off topic, but if you have gone over to precentral.net yet and read the forum posts you are missing out. People are returning their pre's 3 and 4 times.

some responses are " Did they let you pick through the boxes until you found one that wasn't flawed " That is paraphrased.

Seriously, I had some great laughs. My idea of a product is this, I pull it out of the box and it works. The next one I pull out works also. Strange I know.

Moving parts raises the level of possible defects.

So open a new tab and head over to precentral.net. Very funny stuff.

Last time I heard optimistic talk like this from 3D game developers towards Apple was when the PowerMac G5 Dual Core was released. Then the Intel switch occured.

The performance ability of the iPhone is, like the G5 processor, going to hit a thermal wall.

Given the reports of some overheating issues already, my guess what you see is going to be it and no more.

Next processor, Intel Dual Core Atoms and a backpack heatsink.

Jul 01, 09 - 02:59 pm Comment from: Demon

You always end up with one of two possibilities you design software that pushes the old tech and the new just crash through it and you wait for enough of the user base to upgrade the hardware before you move on or you design software that will not run on the old tech and pushes the new tech.
Game console and PC Game designers typically have gone the route of going with the new tech in hopes that the user base will upgrade the their older hardware quickly.
iPhones and iPods though will not fully follow the old Game designer model. But, Apple needs to keep advancing the tech or it will get stagnant. Game consoles are a good example of this the console tech is not advanced for 5 to 8 year cycle then the console makers come out with a new console that is full of cutting edge tech and all the game designers need to rush their software to get new versions that use the new tech. always abandoning their old titles that will not in most cases run on the new hardware.
Game designers would be very happy if Apple adopted that hardware strategy, Apple is unlikely to adopt a game console strategy for the iPhone and iPod touch as it is not the best model to maintain a leadership position in either market. Apple will keep it leadership position with it's current incremental improvement model. Game designers will just need to adjust to Apple. As Apple is not going to adjust to them.

The iPod hardware is not just for games.

Jul 01, 09 - 03:09 pm Comment from: aka Christian

@judy

People who post on this site who follow this more closely than I do have been surmising that the next iteration of the iPhone, or perhaps the one after that, will feature Apple's custom chips made by PA Semi, which they acquired a while back. Those chips should run cooler than current ones, giving us more power, longer battery life, and less cookware.

Jul 01, 09 - 03:12 pm Comment from: thethirdshoe

@judy

You're forgetting PA Semi.

Jul 01, 09 - 03:33 pm Comment from: deepdish

Hey Id and Carmack, give me a lite version of your new Doom iPhone game before I spend $10 on it.

$10 is to much for me to test drive it. I like the lite versions so I can make sure I like it before I buy it.

Can't game developers write for the modern hardware and employ automatic toggles that "dumb down" the game settings for older hardware? It seems that they could build apps with legacy code to continue supporting the old hardware while adding new code to take advantage of new hardware capabilities. Of course, I'm no programmer, so I don't know the difficulties of this. But I do know that on my desktop games I can modify the game settings to run optimally on older hardware vs newer, more powerful hardware. What's the difference?

@ Judy:

The reports of overheating iPhone 3GS appear to be exaggerated or may even be due to improper usage. One such incident was a guy who put his iPhone 3GS under his pillow with it playing music while he slept. I'm guessing he didn't bother to set it to Airplane Mode either, so the radios and WiFi were still searching networks. Guess the guy didn't think his iPhone needed any air to breathe or cool down. There may be other factors as well.

Just because a few units may have gotten overheated does not mean another solution for a faster processor or for heat dissipation can't be found. But to think that Apple won't improve the hardware specs of the iPhone 3GS with the next model is ridiculous.

Software developers are always pushing hardware's envelope, so hardware capabilities must increase. Does anyone really think game developers are going to say, "Well, we think the current iPhone graphics are good enough, so we're not going to try to make them any better." Didn't think so.

As for old iPhones, they're not being used for the latest, greatest games. Most older iPhones are going to spouses who would like an iPhone, but who don't care about games or at least not advanced 3D games. If state-of-the-art games are that important to a buyer, he'll get the most advanced iPhone he can get.

Jul 01, 09 - 03:48 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Predrag

His statement was exactly true, as it relates to a hand-me-down iPhones in families who can't afford to add another line.

And what difference does it make, because as far as we're concerned it's about the console, not voice plans.

If you've read enough comments from John Carmack, he never says anything without complaining. Ever. He's always ungrateful and critical. To hear him saying anything good is a screaming compliment. Don't get me wrong. John's a smart guy, and smart people are often demanding. But he whines. A lot. And after a while, I grow tired of his rants.

There. I feel better now.

3D game developers got dependent upon drastic increases in CPU and GPU performance and therefore could reach for the sky in advancing their game quality.

This is not the case with the iPhone, it's a small portable device with no fan and limited battery life.

Apple won't even enable multi-tasking on the iPhone!! Why? Heat issues?

Maybe there might be something coming from PA Semi, but Intel is the 900 lb gorrilla in the room. If they can't do it and IBM can't, it's pretty much a done deal it can't be done or else they would have been all over it by now.

Wouldn't it cause even more upheaval if Apple/PA Semi came out with a processor for all new MacBook Airs and sent MacBook Pro's with Intel processors to the "soon to be discontinued" dumping ground?

What about that? Another processor switch coming?

judy: The performance ability of the iPhone is, like the G5 processor, going to hit a thermal wall.

No. That is not how this works.

The G5 was more or less abandoned by IBM; Normally it would have become a lot more power-efficient through the progressive switching to newer chip technologies as is the case with Intel, for instance.

The resulting technology dividend can then be used to make the chip faster at the same power level or less thirsty at the same performance level.

The 3GS CPU and GPU have been made more efficient through a better design while improving the production technology but for most applications keeping the power consumption about even or even improving on its predecessors but requiring a lot less time for the same operations.

So if that course was proceeding exactly like that, the iPhone would consume less and less power and provide more and more performance at the same time.

Jul 01, 09 - 04:08 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

I agree with Carmack, in that the 3GS allure is too great to ignore and yet developers who have already committed their resources to the earlier iPhones, can't necessarily afford to divert resources to play in both spaces. Enter the fourth dimension.

Carmack looks like an ass in the eyes of his customers if he robs peter to pay paul and the work's spread thin. Lose, lose.

If there were other phones out there just like the iPhone, then the whole platform would devolve into another Moore's Law contest of speed then outcome the turtles with Pentium chips on their backs, and the developers are hung out to dry once again.

Off topic

EU Caps roaming fees

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/07/01/eu.caps.now.in.effect/

Does this mean that ATT cannot charge their rediculous $1.20 per minute fees in Europe?

The G5 was more or less abandoned by IBM; Normally it would have become a lot more power-efficient through the progressive switching to newer chip technologies as is the case with Intel, for instance.

Intel also hit the thermal wall with single processors and thus came out with multi-cores, lower clock speeds and hobbled buses and other methods to reduce heat. (The G5 had the extra burden of being a RISC processor.)

This forced software writers to try to multi-thread their code, which for 3D game applications doesn't work to increase performance as the thread changes constantly. No performance boost, but a net performance reduction in multi-core processors.

There hasn't been any great leaps of processor power since the Duo processor G5 really, that was one mean bitch of a computer too with unrestricted bandwidth and direct access to the rest of the computer. But too hot for a laptop.



The resulting technology dividend can then be used to make the chip faster at the same power level or less thirsty at the same performance level.

That can only go so far, Grand Central is going to usher in either quad core Intel processors or something from PA Semi. The Intel switch in my opinion is only a temporary solution, else why didn't Apple lock OS X to their hardware?


So if that course was proceeding exactly like that, the iPhone would consume less and less power and provide more and more performance at the same time.

Not going to happen, Apple's fetish is slim = stylish and it helps sell computers, but Intel's roadmap is not going to pan out for much longer. Why didn't Apple use Intel processors in the iPhone?

I suspect Apple is about to throw us another processor switch, they don't worry about being compatible with the rest of the world, they just sell consumer devices and as long as people can email and surf the web, that's enough for them.

Jul 01, 09 - 04:58 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Demon

But, Apple needs to keep advancing the tech or it will get stagnant.

I disagree. Apple leads the pack and can set its own pace. The buffer between them and their competitors is huge, where fit and finish is concerned. All those years of refining and rewriting the book on Human Interface Design is paying off in spades for Apple, whereas its competitors are still dicking around with phones!

The iPhone is a slicker than snot and speed need not be an issue. Apple should continue to grow the platform outward for a while and give third-party hardware manufacturers time to catch up and developers time to catch their breath.

For the moment, Apple is in a race with themselves. After Vista stumbled out of the OS race, Apple took a breath, reassessed the future, and then they cut the fat from the cat. They can do the same for iPhone and iPod.

Aside from that, I agree with everything else you said.

Carmack is a tool, go back under your rock

@ judy:

Apple won't even enable multi-tasking on the iPhone!! Why? Heat issues?

This has been discussed quite a lot, and not only is your speculation incorrect, but the iPhone does indeed allow multitasking for a limited number of built-in apps. Please read up further on this subject before commenting out of ignorance.

(The G5 had the extra burden of being a RISC processor.)

Intel's chips have essentially been RISC processors for a while now too. Not a factor.

"Why didn't Apple use Intel processors in the iPhone?"

If you don't know the answer to this, it's clear that you haven't done your homework, and are again commenting out of ignorance.

judy: Intel also hit the thermal wall with single processors and thus came out with multi-cores, lower clock speeds and hobbled buses and other methods to reduce heat. (The G5 had the extra burden of being a RISC processor.)

It was much more difficult to increase performance on a CISC CPU, but Intel put the necessary resources into it and managed to get astonishing speed increases out of the decrepit x86 architecture (basically by wrapping a hardware CISC emulation layer around a RISC core).

The G5's potential simply wasn't exploited properly, even if it had its own limitations as well (such as the rather wide, fixed instruction format).


judy: There hasn't been any great leaps of processor power since the Duo processor G5 really, that was one mean bitch of a computer too with unrestricted bandwidth and direct access to the rest of the computer. But too hot for a laptop.

a) Intel operated more on continuous roadmap, hence no isolated "big leaps".

b) The G5 was far from unrestricted. It was quite good for its time, but its frontside bus and memory controllers would have needed some work to really compete, along with improved CPU revisions.

c) The G5 lagged far behind the Intel line on the manufacturing process after its excellent beginning. IBM had rather different priorities and Apple wouldn't foot the bill alone, so it was left stagnating while Intel began their Centrino path which eventually led to the Core architecture.


judy: That can only go so far, Grand Central is going to usher in either quad core Intel processors or something from PA Semi. The Intel switch in my opinion is only a temporary solution, else why didn't Apple lock OS X to their hardware?

Nothing to do with that. Why should they? It would open them to criticism of abusive practices, would prevent enthusiasts having a peek before switching and it could make Macs potentially incompatible to Windows and Linux.


ping: So if that course was proceeding exactly like that, the iPhone would consume less and less power and provide more and more performance at the same time.

judy: Not going to happen, Apple's fetish is slim = stylish and it helps sell computers, but Intel's roadmap is not going to pan out for much longer. Why didn't Apple use Intel processors in the iPhone?

Hence the hypothetical case in my post. Apple will probably continue to squeeze more effective functionality out of the improved chips at the same or similar battery capacity.


judy: I suspect Apple is about to throw us another processor switch, they don't worry about being compatible with the rest of the world, they just sell consumer devices and as long as people can email and surf the web, that's enough for them.

Extremely unlikely. A CPU switch basically requires a practical emulation layer like Rosetta which preserves most of the users' investment in older software. It may be a long-term option (Jobs probably sees it that way), but definitely not in the near term, neither on the iPhone nor on the Mac again so soon after the Intel switch.

If both Intel and AMD should fail Apple to a point where their CPUs stopped being viable, that would probably force Apple's hand, but that case is extremely unlikely.

So PA Semi wil certainly provide ARM CPUs/SOCs for the iPhone platform (and possibly for the smaller iPods as well), but apart from the plausible "iPad" they will not cross over to the main Mac line. That performace gap is still far too wide at this point.

I think he is wrong in that phones don't have the life span of computers. I just handed my original phone down but its getting pretty beat up at two years old. Most phones are ready for the trash in 3 years.

If I was starting a new gaming project that was going to be ready in '10, I would base it on the 3GS. If I was going to have a game ready for this month, then I would stay with the 3G as my performance target.

@ping

good conversation

Apple always complains about being a victim of it's suppliers roadmaps, perhaps they decided to do something about it.

Perhaps it's Intel's cache poisoning issue...


@gabriel

take a cue from ping

Many people here believe that PA Semiconductor will provide the competitive advantage over other smart phones with Intel(or other chips).
What type of technology have PA developed and are they in the marketplace in any other segments?

Jul 02, 09 - 09:47 am Comment from: quietly, please

@MINI: PA Semi chips are a favorite of embedded systems manufacturers in the national security market. PowerPC chips are wicked fast and straightforward to program, and are integral parts of a large number of military systems.

@Judy: what PA Semi brings to the game that IBM and Intel don't is simply this: They (now) work for Apple. Exclusively for Apple. They aren't Intel, which has to be concerned with developing products suitable for myriad manufacturers. They don't have to have 100-milliion-die production runs to amortize their development costs. PA Semi simply has to design chips that make Apple products rock. In quantities of 1 million or 10 million - the silicon they design will be purpose-built to optimize the things Apple needs to make the iPhone (and any other product) the coolest thing in the world. It's a very different customer base than those experienced by Intel and IBM, and it changes the design constraints very radically.

judy: good conversation

Indeed. My pleasure.

judy: Apple always complains about being a victim of it's suppliers roadmaps, perhaps they decided to do something about it.

I think that's a significant part of the reasons.

"quietly, please" has made good points as well. PA Semi can operate in a very different way from the separate controller manufacturers, and they can provide special mechanisms the other manufacturers would not be interested in.

And, of course, there's the issue of Apple being able to keep new CPU designs in secret.

If PA Semi can deliver what Apple wants, it may turn out to be one of the most productive investments Apple made so far.

MDN word: "fear" - yeah, I wouldn't want to be Apple's competition either!

APPLE = FISHER PRICE
Need to think at grade school level. Can only do 1 thing at a time. Have to buy new hardware to get cut and paste. LOLOLOL

GET A REAL PHONE!!! HTC CLEARLY LEADS THE PACK.
PERIOD.

Funny how I have had cut and paste, for many years now, as well as everything else the iDrone does and more.

AND I DIDNT HAVE TO GIVE APPLE 1 DOLLAR.

START THINKING FOR YOURSELF, STOP BELIEVING COMMERCIALS, AND STOP THINKING THAT SHINY AND PRETTY MEANS THAT IT IS THE BEST.

EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE OPENING YOUR HOLE AND SPEWING OUT MINDLESS CRAP BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN iDrone AND THAT MEANS YOU ARE COOL NOW.

KEEP GIVING APPLE YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS FOR A DEVICE THAT UNDERPERFORMS, CAN DO ONE THING AT A TIME, IS MADE LIKE CRAP, RESTRICTS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR DEVICE, AND DOESNT GIVE A CRAP IF THEY SELL YOU A BRICK AS LONG AS YOU BUY ANOTHER BRICK NEXT YEAR.

MORONS

To MORON:

You clearly have no idea about the iPhone, let alone actual knowledge or experience.

It seems some extraneous obsession and/or insecurity is your driving force.

I hope you'll get well again.

Ah, and CAPS LOCK can be switched off again by tapping it again. Just thought you needed the hint.