NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: Jeff Liebermann on 8 Aug 2010 22:48 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:06:15 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Not so fast for the electronics and guts. Instead, a vendor arrives >>with a revolutionary new chip, that either adds features, reduces >>size, reduces power consumption, or otherwise is sufficient >>justification for a new design. Once product released and samples >>distributed, literally everyone in the biz starts using the same chip. >>Apple uses the Qualcomm 1GHz SnapDragon chip, but so does HTC. >>(Samsung uses their own Hummingbird chip). So, it takes a while for >>new electronics to appear, but they appear at almost the same time. > >The problem with that thesis is that there are often (usually?) multiple >possible components in the pipeline with staggered availability times. True. Extra credit for purchasing wanting to have multiple sources for all components in case someone fails to deliver or perform. Last to deliver is software and firmware, where programmers are often forced to work with emulators instead of the real product. Of course, when everything is done, everyone in upper management has to put their personal mark on the product, so that they can brag that "I did this". I once worked on a 7 month project, where the design was completed in exactly 2 weeks and essentially frozen a week later. No joke... it was 2 weeks and that was fairly typical. Selecting the color took longer than the design. Get it right the first time was a requirement. We were ordering parts even before the prototype was done. Incidentally, last minutes changes by management added another 6 weeks to the project. >Snapdragon (lower case "d") is a notable and relatively rare exception. >"Do we go with component Q today (and for the rest of the product life), >or wait for component T in two months?" Worse, the longer an arbitrary >product cycle (as in the case of Apple), the greater the chance that a >cool component won't be available on your arbitrary release cycle. Not really. I was designing in components with nothing more than a science fiction preliminary specification on some key components. Betting the company on the ability of a vendor to deliver is quite common. Like just in time delivery, such development relys on everything coming together and happening almost simultaneously. Apple went with Qualcomm Snapdragon for the baseband processor chip because nobody else had anything close (that they were willing to sell). Even Motorola Droid went with Snapdragon. >My friends at Motorola tell me current design cycles have been shortened >considerably. See <http://goo.gl/lzKY> for example. Also ><http://www.mpdigest.com/issue/Articles/2007/oct/Agilent/Default.asp> >And <http://goo.gl/evVj>. Many more. Two of those articles are on various design tools. The other is from National Semi pushing their power management chipset. I'm sure there are many more selling their tools in order to speed up the design cycle. Some of them actually work. What has changed since I was playing designer is the elimination of the prototype cycle. The devices are just too small and complexicated to assemble a prototype by hand. The designers therefore rely on CAD tools and simulations to design their devices on the computer, and then go directly to a small production run. That also shakes out some of the manufacturing bugs at the same. My guess(tm) is without these tools, the 2 year iPhone cycle would have been more like 2.5 years. If the design cycle is only 2 weeks long, what are they doing for the rest of the time. Optimization, cost cutting, bug fixing, meetings, production jigs and fixtures, documentation, FCC type certification, various safety approvals, packaging, distribution, warehousing, etc. >I think it's a good bet that the arbitrary Apple yearly release cycle >inhibited significant changes, part of the price Apple pays for that >long and arbitrary cycle. Maybe. I have no inside info one way or the other. Incidentally, Apple ordered a mess of CDMA Snapdragon chips from Qualcomm. Bring on the Verizon iPhone. <http://fonefrenzy.com/2010/08/08/apple-submits-cdma-chipset-orders-to-qualcomm-iphone-4-headed-to-verizon/> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Christopher A. Lee on 8 Aug 2010 22:51 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:48:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:06:15 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>Not so fast for the electronics and guts. Instead, a vendor arrives >>>with a revolutionary new chip, that either adds features, reduces >>>size, reduces power consumption, or otherwise is sufficient >>>justification for a new design. Once product released and samples >>>distributed, literally everyone in the biz starts using the same chip. >>>Apple uses the Qualcomm 1GHz SnapDragon chip, but so does HTC. >>>(Samsung uses their own Hummingbird chip). So, it takes a while for >>>new electronics to appear, but they appear at almost the same time. >> >>The problem with that thesis is that there are often (usually?) multiple >>possible components in the pipeline with staggered availability times. > >True. Extra credit for purchasing wanting to have multiple sources >for all components in case someone fails to deliver or perform. Last >to deliver is software and firmware, where programmers are often >forced to work with emulators instead of the real product. Of course, >when everything is done, everyone in upper management has to put their >personal mark on the product, so that they can brag that "I did this". >I once worked on a 7 month project, where the design was completed in >exactly 2 weeks and essentially frozen a week later. No joke... it >was 2 weeks and that was fairly typical. Selecting the color took >longer than the design. Get it right the first time was a >requirement. We were ordering parts even before the prototype was >done. Incidentally, last minutes changes by management added another >6 weeks to the project. With proper emulators the software and firmware should be ready when the prototype units are built. I used to work for a plug compatible mainframe manufacturer and we had several full architectural simulators.
From: Larry on 8 Aug 2010 23:15 awkward <awkward(a)cpr.invalid> wrote in news:lfeu56pbq9oahrfibqe37cpju8d3lvkl09(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:37:12 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >>In article <3fbu561l244eqcrnn26ugahc2bfhd095af(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! >> >>so is all caps. > > So is no caps. ;-) > > Wow! You guys been goin' at it all day! That may be a new record on one thread! -- http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?! Larry
From: Todd Allcock on 8 Aug 2010 22:01 At 08 Aug 2010 11:15:03 -0700 nospam wrote: > In article <dort569htld5nn7m8j8juqilmv2sq71a75(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > Really? Which ones (specific models that have significant market share) > > aren't in the same class as the iPhone (all models) in your opinion? > > other than the likes of the droid x and htc evo, most of them. having a > screen that can't be seen in ordinary daylight is a huge, huge > drawback. > > > Vague statements, like much of what ZnU wrote (e.g., "accelerometers > > that don't really work"), aren't terribly persuasive, > > why not? if the accelerometer doesn't work, that's a flaw. you don't > get to dismiss it because you don't consider it a big deal. > > > not to mention > > pegging the irony meter with "unremovable apps bundled" ;) > > what's ironic about that? iphones ship with some software, most of it > useful, but they don't ship with crappy demoware, such as a nascar app. > > > -- and "old > > versions of the operating system" would seem to define many earlier > > iPhones out of the class as well. > > nope. *all* iphones other than the original, which is 3 years old and > about 5% of total install base, can run the latest firmware. there are > some issues with the iphone 3g and ios 4 and apple is looking into it. > > that's very different than phones bought eight months ago that will > never get froyo, and even the t-mobile g1 is *still* listed on their > web site, a nearly two year old phone that is even more hobbled. most > android users are still waiting for the 2.2 update. > > > You seem to be defining the class as > > iPhone 4 and any other phones that exactly match it, of which there > > aren't any! ;) > > so which other phones have a high resolution display, gyroscope, a > wealth of excellent third party apps, easy to use high quality video > chat that doesn't require third party software (qik and fring suck in > comparison), excellent battery life, to name just a few? So you get to define the category/class based on the hardware Apple happened to pack in an iPhone 4? No gyroscope? How about the 3G and 3GS? No compass? iPhone 2G? And what's a "high-res display?" VGA (640x480) and above? That leaves out all iPhones but the 4- the circa 2004 HTC Universal had a VGA screen. Why not just define the class as "phones with fruit silkscreened on the back whose names start with a lowercase-i" and be done with it?
From: Ted Nelson on 9 Aug 2010 00:14
In article <agmu56h8nf7gc6ol3rthl2drol2abndrvt(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >actually, the bumper solved the problem by 100% --- > > But only for those happy with a bumper, so not 100% overall. > I personally don't like the idea of a bumper or skin -- > my phone (T-Mobile myTouch 3G, aka HTC Magic) doesn't need one, > and I prefer to keep it naked in a holster. In other words, > count me in the percentage for whom the bumper solves the problem by 0%. but those already have a built in bumper so what is the difference? |