[anexanhume]

Originally Posted by Helmore

There have already been some demos on show floors of TI's OMAP 5 SoCs and Samsung's Exynos 5250. The OMAP 5 demo wasn't at production ready frequencies though and there was really little info about the frequencies that the Exynos was running at during their demo. I think we can expect both of them to be ready by the end of the year, but I'm not sure whether we will actually see products that use them before the end of the year. And another thing, neither of them use Rogue, but they're both Cortex-A15 dual cores.

Yes, and as far as I know, ST is the only one to have even announced a Rogue product.

[wco81]

Even RAM would help. This iPad 3 is constantly reloading tabs, tho otherwise snappy.

Speculation on the iPad Mini is A5, probably running on 32 nm, just like the new iPad 2?

At least in tablets, if lower price points drive higher volumes, then the adoption of newest SOCs for tablets may slow down.

[anexanhume]

Originally Posted by wco81

Even RAM would help. This iPad 3 is constantly reloading tabs, tho otherwise snappy.

Speculation on the iPad Mini is A5, probably running on 32 nm, just like the new iPad 2?

At least in tablets, if lower price points drive higher volumes, then the adoption of newest SOCs for tablets may slow down.

Even with the iPad mini potential customers I think the market will exist for the "big kids" and the 500+ tablets.

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by anexanhume

Even with the iPad mini potential customers I think the market will exist for the "big kids" and the 500+ tablets.

And even if for tablets Apple starts producing a dedicated low-cost tablet rather than just reusing last year's models, they are likely still using as many parts from last year's model as possible. That keeps up pressure to invest and push technology for each year's top-tier model, because they have to aim high enough now so that the tech is still viable to reintroduce in a new lower-end product next year.

I do wonder, after all the costs and sales are added up, whether it'll work out that this year's $500+ tablets subsidizes next year's sub-$500 tablets or whether it'll be next year's sub-$500 tablets subsidizing this year's $500+ tablets. No doubt Apple aims for all their products to be profitable, but it'll be interesting to see which is the main profit center.

[iwod]

Originally Posted by Helmore

There have already been some demos on show floors of TI's OMAP 5 SoCs and Samsung's Exynos 5250. The OMAP 5 demo wasn't at production ready frequencies though and there was really little info about the frequencies that the Exynos was running at during their demo. I think we can expect both of them to be ready by the end of the year, but I'm not sure whether we will actually see products that use them before the end of the year. And another thing, neither of them use Rogue, but they're both Cortex-A15 dual cores.

What are its production freq anyway? 1.5Ghz? We dont need that. Dual Core A15 1Ghz would do for me

[RudeCurve]

Early iPhone 5 reveal...looks nice..it's basically an elongated iPhone 4/4S with slight modifications to the speaker openings, docking connector and metal back...I'm glad they're sticking to the timeless and iconic design. I think the small hole openings for the speakers and the oval dock connector are a throwback to the Titanium PowerBook G4 which Jonathan Ive also designed. Anyway I think I'll upgrade in Nov.

[Ailuros]

http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-n...quad-core--LTE

or ?

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-n...quad-core--LTE

or ?

I think they are mostly clueless and just guessing.

"It will most likely contain 4 ARM Cortex-A9 cores or possible 4 ARM Cortex-A15 cores..."

Doesn't reek of confident or inside information.

I'm still unconvinced that a quad ARM Cortex-A9 is of any use when they could use a dual ARM Cortex-A15 if performance was a priority.

Still I want them to set the bar for the competition over the next year, like the Apple A5 and A5X did.

[Ailuros]

Could be my memory is weak, but weren't there also rumors for a quad CPU prior to the iPad3/A5X release? It ended up being a quad core GPU after all heh...

[tangey]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Could be my memory is weak, but weren't there also rumors for a quad CPU prior to the iPad3/A5X release? It ended up being a quad core GPU after all heh...

Unless they want most of the high end graphics games to become immediately unavailable to the iphone5, then the chance of it being Mali are zero. Also there is zero reason for a change in graphics ip.

As I've said previously on this thread, I think it *is* likely that they'll go quad core cpu, given this phone has to last for another 12 months, some phones are already quad core, and by this time next year all top end phones will be quad A9 or dual A15. So from marketing it makes sense, and also that previously outed quad A9 output screen can not be disregarded.

[Ailuros]

I personally wouldn't mind a quad A9 at all in the upcoming iPhone5, especially considering how small each core usually is. I'm just trying to figure out where those rumors originated from.

[Jubei]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Could be my memory is weak, but weren't there also rumors for a quad CPU prior to the iPad3/A5X release? It ended up being a quad core GPU after all heh...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/09...xcode-but-why/

I believe this is the original rumor that started the speculation about future iDevices having quad-core CPUs

[Laurent06]

Originally Posted by Jubei

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/09...xcode-but-why/

I believe this is the original rumor that started the speculation about future iDevices having quad-core CPUs

This is completely stupid: support in LLVM doesn't mean anything.

EDIT : Found this : http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/01/ipad-3...l-lte-options/
IIRC that was were quad core rumors started from.

[tangey]

This is the source of the rumour that apple were working on a quad core soc for ios6

http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/01/ipad-3...l-lte-options/

Darn...I see laurent06 beat me to it.

[wco81]

The other recent rumor is that they'd have a "global" LTE radio.

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by wco81

The other recent rumor is that they'd have a "global" LTE radio.

Which is a lot more important. I mean, the new iPad doesn't work at LTE speeds anywhere in Europe.

It needs to support 800 Mhz and 1800 Mhz LTE.

[ltcommander.data]

I wonder if it's too much to expect a bump in the flash memory capacity stack? The base memory on launch has been 16GB for 4 years now since the 3GS and since then we've moved from a 640x480 video camera and a 480x360 pixel screen to a 1080p camera and Universal apps with Retina iPad assets included. The iPhone 5 really ought to start with 32GB flash, be available with 64GB flash, and maybe even offer a 128GB option if Apple wants to keep the 3 capacity product line started with the iPhone 4S. Especially if the SoC turns out to be a not as exciting die shrink A5, large flash memory capacities will stand out solidly on specs sheets and is something Apple is better positioned to offer than their competitors given Apple' reported has such large flash buying power and contracts.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/07/...-and-new-nano/

For the iPod Touch, the latest rumours suggest Apple will introduce 2 new models. A low-end tweaked model based on the current design which I presume will retain the current 3.5" screen, bump the flash memory to 16GB, and retain the A4 but probably bump the RAM to 512MB to match the iPhone 4. And a new design for the high-end models, these presumably coming with 4" screens and 32nm A5. Last time Apple had a split generation product line with the 8GB 2nd gen ARM11 iPod Touch alongside 3rd gen Cortex A8 iPod Touch it caused confusion between users and developers on what was meant when apps required 3rd gen devices. This time may be a little better since the iPhone 4 will also continue selling for A4 support will last longer, but it'll eventually come up again when Cortex A9 is increasingly required for apps and this blurred "5th gen" iPod Touch product line confuses users.

EDIT: On flash capacity, I hope Apple doesn't introduce any more 8GB devices. An 8GB iPhone 4S or a 8GB iPad Mini just wouldn't be worth it since the lack of storage would hamper the user experience.

[anexanhume]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

I wonder if it's too much to expect a bump in the flash memory capacity stack? The base memory on launch has been 16GB for 4 years now since the 3GS and since then we've moved from a 640x480 video camera and a 480x360 pixel screen to a 1080p camera and Universal apps with Retina iPad assets included. The iPhone 5 really ought to start with 32GB flash, be available with 64GB flash, and maybe even offer a 128GB option if Apple wants to keep the 3 capacity product line started with the iPhone 4S. Especially if the SoC turns out to be a not as exciting die shrink A5, large flash memory capacities will stand out solidly on specs sheets and is something Apple is better positioned to offer than their competitors given Apple' reported has such large flash buying power and contracts.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/07/...-and-new-nano/

For the iPod Touch, the latest rumours suggest Apple will introduce 2 new models. A low-end tweaked model based on the current design which I presume will retain the current 3.5" screen, bump the flash memory to 16GB, and retain the A4 but probably bump the RAM to 512MB to match the iPhone 4. And a new design for the high-end models, these presumably coming with 4" screens and 32nm A5. Last time Apple had a split generation product line with the 8GB 2nd gen ARM11 iPod Touch alongside 3rd gen Cortex A8 iPod Touch it caused confusion between users and developers on what was meant when apps required 3rd gen devices. This time may be a little better since the iPhone 4 will also continue selling for A4 support will last longer, but it'll eventually come up again when Cortex A9 is increasingly required for apps and this blurred "5th gen" iPod Touch product line confuses users.

EDIT: On flash capacity, I hope Apple doesn't introduce any more 8GB devices. An 8GB iPhone 4S or a 8GB iPad Mini just wouldn't be worth it since the lack of storage would hamper the user experience.

Apple jumped from 32GB to 64GB when NAND process allowed them to, as they only use one NAND chip in the iPhone. I don't think a process jump has occurred to allow 128GB in a single chip yet. They could use two 64GB chips for the iPad and iPod touch though.

[wco81]

With the volumes they ship, they'd be hard pressed to double the storage and not enjoy the profitability.

I guess they'd say with the cloud, you don't need as much local storage.

There's not going to be a lot of breathing room for iPod Touch, what with $200 7-inch tablets from the competition and wherever the iPad Mini will slot, price-wise.

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by anexanhume

Apple jumped from 32GB to 64GB when NAND process allowed them to, as they only use one NAND chip in the iPhone. I don't think a process jump has occurred to allow 128GB in a single chip yet. They could use two 64GB chips for the iPad and iPod touch though.

You're right. I forgot about the iPhone 1 NAND limitation.

Originally Posted by wco81

With the volumes they ship, they'd be hard pressed to double the storage and not enjoy the profitability.

I guess they'd say with the cloud, you don't need as much local storage.

True. But with their component pricing power I still think this is one area that they can differentiate themselves from the competition.

Originally Posted by wco81

There's not going to be a lot of breathing room for iPod Touch, what with $200 7-inch tablets from the competition and wherever the iPad Mini will slot, price-wise.

In terms of functionality and portability there definitely is still room for a dedicated mp3 player. Although as you say, a price drop would be useful to clarify the product positioning. Personally I'm looking for a line-up by year-end along the lines of the following:

$0 8GB/A4/512MB 3.5" iPhone 4
$99 16GB/A5/512MB 3.5" iPhone 4S
$199 32GB/A6?/1GB 4" iPhone 5
$299 64GB/A6?/1GB 4" iPhone 5

$49 4GB iPod Shuffle
$99 8GB iPod Nano
$129 16GB iPod Nano
$149 16GB/A4/512MB 3.5" iPod Touch
$249 32GB/A5/512MB 4" iPod Touch
$349 64GB/A5/512MB 4" iPod Touch
$449 128GB/A5/512MB 4" iPod Touch

$299 16GB/A5/512MB 7.85" iPad Mini
$399 32GB/A5/512MB 7.85" iPad Mini
$499 64GB/A5/512MB 7.85" iPad Mini
$499 32GB/A5X/1GB 9.7" iPad
$599 64GB/A5X/1GB 9.7" iPad
$699 128GB/A5X/1GB 9.7" iPad
(All with $130 cellular options)

Pushing the iPod Nano and iPod Touch below the psychological $100 and $150 price barriers respectively should help spark some renewed interest in those devices. The introduction of a 128GB iPod Touch model means the iPod Classic can finally be retired although they admittedly aren't price equivalent. I believe those price points and capacities for the iPod Touch work out quite well against the Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire HD, and Nexus 7.

I don't see Apple bothering to fight down in the $199 region with the iPad Mini. They can do quite well starting with 16GB of flash memory at $299 while focusing on the larger screen area and larger app store against $199/$249 7" tablets. The 8.9" Kindle Fire HD is going to be harder to argue against spec/price-wise, but the iPad Mini is expected to ship first and in more markets so Apple might just focus on brand and operational execution to hold/gain marketshare. There's been rumours Apple might refresh the 2012 iPad to incorporate the new dock connector and at the same time take advantage of a 32nm SoC shrink and display tech improvements to reduce device thickness and improve battery life. I'm thinking it's too soon for such major changes and it wouldn't leave much left to introduce in H1 2013. (I don't see Apple wanting to permanently bunch up all iPad, iPhone, and iPod releases together in Sept/Oct). However, a 64GB iPad Mini would seem to look too good when sharing the $499 price point against a 16GB Retina iPad especially given it's portability advantages being thinner and lighter. So I can see Apple bumping the storage capacity on the Retina iPad while otherwise keeping the design the same and offering $100 gift cards to recent buyers.

[Rys]

It's very disconcerting to read US-centric on-contract pricing for the iPhones in your list. What do you think about the off-contract prices?

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by Rys

It's very disconcerting to read US-centric on-contract pricing for the iPhones in your list. What do you think about the off-contract prices?

I presented it that way since I believe that's how Apple typically announces them although I should have noted that it's on contract pricing. Are the wholesale prices carrier's pay for the iPhone before they apply subsidies directly related to the off-contract prices consumers pay? It's possible off-contract pricing/wholesale device pricing would decrease slightly ($50), mainly to satisfy carrier complaints about the cost of subsidies and stop those reports of carriers trying to push customers to Android phones over iPhones. Realistically, off-contract pricing will likely remain the same at $375 8GB iPhone 4/$549 16GB iPhone 4S/$649 32GB iPhone 5/$749 64GB iPhone 5 especially if the new design and potential increased storage increases the BOM and ASP is already dropping if Apple only offers a 32GB and 64GB iPhone 5 with no higher tier 128GB option.

[Pressure]

Well, it's definitely a new SoC.



Say hello to Apple A6 and Qualcomm MDM9615M.

[Jubei]

Anand claimed A6 is dual-core Cortex A15 in the live blog. Im guessing the GPU is a 543MP4

[Laa-Yosh]

I was expecting the leaks to turn out to be an elaborate counter-intelligence operation from Apple that they were running to mislead everyone including the competition. I'm kinda disappointed that it all turned out to be 100% accurate