Next-Gen iPhone & iPhone Nano Speculation

[Jubei]

Polycarbonate isn't much of an innovation, and HTC's shape/color with their early designs was quite different from Nokia's. It's pretty clear to most observers that the design philosophy of the 8X is ripped from Nokia's line. It doesn't warrant any lawsuits or compensation (which Nokia is unfortunately pursuing), but the aping is very clear. I think the look of the 8S is just as good while being distinct, so I don't see why HTC felt such a direction for the 8X was necessary.

It's all meaningless anyway, like trying to claim brownie points for starting a fashion trend.

Again. Look at this phone

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aUPwYVUwYKg/Tb-6j9rA-rI/AAAAAAAAABI/dfy1rY9kXOU/s1600/htc-max-4g.jpg

And now look at the 8X

http://www.areamobile.de/assets/handies/htc/8x/htc-8x-und-htc-8s-hands-on-01.jpg

Its clear as day that its an evolution of a design they started years before Nokia. The curved glass and curved back design started long before the 8X. The only thing that makes it look like a copy is the colour choices. And i believe Paul Thurrot or Tom Warren (cant remember wich one) reported way before this that Microsoft specifically asked for those colours because they wanted the phones to stand out in stores. That deal was included in the partnership deal between HTC and MS for WP8

But again, this has gone off topic and its a pointless discussion since regarding HTC One and Apple, HTC already agreed to a cross licensing deal so there is no issue here

 

[Mintmaster]

Its clear as day that its an evolution of a design they started years before Nokia.

It really isn't. The One X/S is an evolution of that design. The 8X and 820, on the other hand, have symmetrical borders with rounded corners and bright matte colors. That's a natural evolution of the Lumia 700/800, not HTC's earlier design. And yes, color choice is part of design and always have been, especially when only one manufacturer has made such a palette choice since the smartphone era started, if not longer. The 8X looks too much like the 820 and too different from the 8S/OneX/OneS/Max for me to believe HTC coincidentally came up with such a similar design, particularly when the less "fun" and more classy looks/feel of the OneX/S was so well received.

Anyway, as you said, it is a pointless discussion.

 

[tangey]

eetimes have done an article on apple's Soc dev history.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4407258/Apple-s-A-series-family--More-than-a-hobby

Ignoring the mistake in the graph on page 2 that shows iphone5 using both A6 and A6X, they have some interesting measurements of the graphics area.

the 544MP3 in the iphone5 takes 16mm2...5.3mm per core.
The 554MP4 is 35mm2.....8.75mm per core.

 

[Rys]

They're not quite right on the GPU areas, but it's not wildly incorrect either.

 

[Ailuros]

They're not quite right on the GPU areas, but it's not wildly incorrect either.

NVIDIA marketing claims in its T4 slides 37.3mm2 normalized to 28nm for the A6X

 

[Rys]

Hilariously wrong.

 

[anexanhume]

From the rogue thread:

I'm guessing you are working out the 544MP2, as the G6100 is quoted in the graph @ 300Mhz.

Also, the graph axis is "relative" Gflops performance, so I don't think it is indicating an absolute figure, but assuming its linear, then top of G6100@300 bar looks about x1.5 of 544mp2@250

Ok, so in terms of FLOPS, I believe the 543 is equivalent to the 544.

So A5X is 543MP4 @ 250 MHz, so a G6100 @300 MHz is 75% of the A5X's 543MP4. That means it's 37.5% of the A6X's 554MP4. (also, MP3 @ 333 in A6 == MP4 @ 250)

So, G6100 -> G6400/G6430 is 4x. 4x times 37.5% is 1.5 again. So, any bets the A7X has a G6400/G6430 at 300 MHz, while the A7 has the G6200/G6230 around that frequency?

 

[ltcommander.data]

http://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surprise/

In an interesting twist, Apple's newest SoC is in the Lightning Digital AV Adapter. The adapter actually has a built in ARM SoC with 256MB of LPDDR2. Panic thinks there aren't enough pins in the Lightning connector to directly output HDMI so Apple appears to be sending a compressed video stream from the iOS device and decoding it on the adapter which is why the final output is not full 1080p and has artifacts. I suppose alternatively they could also be multiplexing/demultiplexing the HDMI signal to accommodate the lack of pins. It's sad that the still selling 4th gen iPad Touch only has as much RAM as an AV adapter.

 

[idsn6]

It's sadder that the Lightning port is seemingly so gimped.

 

[pcchen]

I think they should design it to near USB 3.0 bandwidth, that'd be good enough for 1080p60. It'd still need a demultiplexer (as HDMI has more pins than USB), but at least it'd be straight forward. Maybe in the future.

 

[ltcommander.data]

I think they should design it to near USB 3.0 bandwidth, that'd be good enough for 1080p60. It'd still need a demultiplexer (as HDMI has more pins than USB), but at least it'd be straight forward. Maybe in the future.

Didn't Anand find that the flash memory used in mobile devices isn't currently fast enough to saturate USB2.0? If that's the case, seeing device syncing would be the most common use-case for the Lightning connector, I guess Apple thought basing it around USB2.0 would be sufficient in the near term. A USB3.0 based Lightning 2 will probably come when flash memory speed jumps, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[french toast]

This is totally stupid... why not just go with 11 pin MHL micro usb like everyone else.

 

[Grall]

why not just go with 11 pin MHL micro usb like everyone else.

Because then you can't hit 3rd party peripheral manufacturers with license fees when they want to make gadgets for your gadget.

...But yeah. Sad, really. And understandable at the same time, from a certain perspective.

 

[pcchen]

This is totally stupid... why not just go with 11 pin MHL micro usb like everyone else.

AFAIK MHL (out) is only 5 pins. The 11 pins connector seems to be Samsung only (which allows simultaneously using both USB and MHL).

 

[anexanhume]

Because then you can't hit 3rd party peripheral manufacturers with license fees when they want to make gadgets for your gadget.

...But yeah. Sad, really. And understandable at the same time, from a certain perspective.

Completely this. It's frustrating if you want an affordable portable DAC for the iPhone.

 

[Grall]

There's such a thing as external DACs for the iPhone? ...Why? What's the purpose of something like that?

 

[Helmore]

There's such a thing as external DACs for the iPhone? ...Why? What's the purpose of something like that?

For leet credzz with the audiophilez man....

Nah, some people just want something a little better than what the DAC in the iPhone has to offer. Personally I think that's a little overboard to do for portable audio, but I'm not the one having to haul around all that extra gear. A good DAC for 'stationary' gear I can understand though, even if I don't have it as I don't have the money for it.

 

[wco81]

Eh I hope it's just durable. I use an adaptor with existing cables and peripherals.

Obviously they're emphasizing Airplay, not wired connections.

As for why proprietary, it's probably more about locking in users than making developers pay. It is a nice design though, even if bandwidth limited.

 

[Pressure]

So, you want a better DAC to playback your compressed audio?

Just grab something with AirPlay and the music is fully digital until it hits your output.

Or get one of the earlier iPod Classics with one of the better Wolfson DACs in it.

 

[Grall]

For leet credzz with the audiophilez man....

THAT I'll believe...!

Nah, some people just want something a little better than what the DAC in the iPhone has to offer.

Don't really see the point in that. iPhone is a playback device you typically use when you're out and about; being out and about means extraneous noise intruding on the listening experience (traffic noise, wind, other people talking and so on), negating completely any possible benefit an external DAC might have and then some. You'd just be wasting money buying something like that, not to mention the extra hassle of having to carry yet another device with you in your pocket.

What's in the iPhone is just fine for the purpose it's supposed to serve. If anyone disagrees I reserve the right to be extremely sceptical to say the least...

A good DAC for 'stationary' gear I can understand though, even if I don't have it as I don't have the money for it.

I really don't, as you'd basically need better-than-human hearing to really enjoy one. It's a pointless waste of money provided your audio gear is at least half decent.