Has Apple Lost Its Cool? Its Chief Says No

[frahse]

"Has Apple Lost Its Cool? Its Chief Says No"
By JENNA WORTHAM, NYT
May 28, 2013, 10:39 pm

"RANCHO PALOS VERDES, Calif. — It has been a rough year for Apple. The company has battled fierce competitors like Samsung, come under scrutiny for tax avoidance and watched in dismay as its stock price took more dips and turns than a roller coaster.

In a keynote interview on Tuesday evening at D: All Things Digital, a technology conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, paused in thought for a second when asked whether the company was in trouble and had lost its cool.

“Absolutely not,” he said.

He said the company was still capable of — and currently working on — technology and devices that would transform the industry as broadly and meaningfully as previous products like iTunes and the iPhone have.

“We’ve always suited up and fought,” he said."

Just the fact that the question is being asked shows things are Not all Apple Rosy Red in Cupertino!

more:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...ef=global-home

[athlonkmf]

Thing is, people expect Apple to shock the world with every release.
But truth is, they've always strived to perfect their current products first. Complete gamechanging hardware like the iPod, iPhone and iPad didn't came shortly after each other.

And like Tim Cook said, Apple has always been competing against competitors who wins in quantity. The ratio iOS vs Android is far more favorable to OSx vs Windows.

[Prestidigitweeze]

At first glance, I thought you'd pasted an article from The Onion.

"Have you lost your cool, Apple?"
"Absolutely not."
"That settles that. Now, tell me what to buy."

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by athlonkmf

But truth is, they've always strived to perfect their current products first. Complete gamechanging hardware like the iPod, iPhone and iPad didn't came shortly after each other.

They could have; only Apple wanted to milk its base by releasing its products in baby steps. Case in point is the iPad mini. Why was it released without a retina display?

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They could have; only Apple wanted to milk its base by releasing its products in baby steps. Case in point is the iPad mini. Why was it released without a retina display?

Parts availability and time to market?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

At first glance, I thought you'd pasted an article from The Onion.

They *have* become something of a farce lately.
The media does seem to have turned on them. An overreaction to the collapse of the RDF, perhap?

[athlonkmf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They could have; only Apple wanted to milk its base by releasing its products in baby steps. Case in point is the iPad mini. Why was it released without a retina display?

Do you realize that retina requires double the energy to run it? And that's the reason why the iPad 3 had doubled the batterypower, while having the usage time compared to previous generation?

Unless they have a way to reduce the backlight and other energyrelated-problems in a costeffective way which CAN be produced in large quantities, a retina mini would be too much of a compromise.

And according to the latest rumours, the parts are now ready for mass production. Should Apple have waited till everything's in place before releasing a mini? Well, seeing the sales numbers, no.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by athlonkmf

Do you realize that retina requires double the energy to run it? And that's the reason why the iPad 3 had doubled the batterypower, while having the usage time compared to previous generation?

Unless they have a way to reduce the backlight and other energyrelated-problems in a costeffective way which CAN be produced in large quantities, a retina mini would be too much of a compromise.

Why? The iPad mini screen is smaller than the iPad's, by definition, hence the Retina screen would draw correspondingly less power. Why, if it isn't a compromise on the larger device, must it necessarily be one on the smaller?

Note that the much smaller iPhone has a Retina screen.

Graham

Originally Posted by Graham

Why? The iPad mini screen is smaller than the iPad's, by definition, hence the Retina screen would draw correspondingly less power. Why, if it isn't a compromise on the larger device, must it necessarily be one on the smaller?

Note that the much smaller iPhone has a Retina screen.

There are several factors entering the picture. Apparently the retina displays use lower power semiconductors, which would explain why Apple gets away with retina displays on iPhones.

It's also worth considering that more pixels means that the CPU and the GPU have to do move more data around the system. The CPU and GPU will also have to do more number crunching in the case of rendered or compressed graphics. Thus more power is consumed there.

There may also be factors related to the LCD itself. I don't know enough about the technology to be sure. Yet higher pixel counts will mean more transistors (assuming it's based on the same technology). Depending upon how the power consumption per transistor relates to pixel density, there could be an increase in power consumption here. There are also other design considerations that may create an impact.

While it is probably that a smaller retina display will use significantly less power than a large retina display, it is unlikely that it uses less power than lower density displays of the same size. And that is what matters. The smaller case of the mini means not just a smaller display that uses less power than it's larger counterpart, but it means less volume to store the battery in. There are also complicating issues on this front. One is that the PCB probably won't shrink as much as the screen/case does (i.e. it probably uses more space proportionally if you want to maintain features and performance). The volume of the case also shrank more rapidly than the size of the screen, since the iPad mini is thinner than the iPad.

[hidari]

Apple is Best
Android is Best
Windows is Best.
?????????? How about more choice...... than these three????

[athlonkmf]

Originally Posted by Graham

Why? The iPad mini screen is smaller than the iPad's, by definition, hence the Retina screen would draw correspondingly less power. Why, if it isn't a compromise on the larger device, must it necessarily be one on the smaller?

Note that the much smaller iPhone has a Retina screen.

Graham

You're comparing the iPad mini with the regular iPad.
The iPad mini is smaller, but more importantly, much thinner than the regular iPad. Therefor less volume for the battery.
The screen dimension is maybe 30% smaller, but the pixel count would remain the same AND this with >50% less battery-volume. AND just like the iPad3, it'd need double backlights. Also, the GPU needs to be just as powerful.

[John F]

Originally Posted by hidari

Apple is Best
Android is Best
Windows is Best.
?????????? How about more choce...... than these three????

Do you live in Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, Mexico, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Spain or Venezuela?

http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/02...th-firefox-os/

[hidari]

Love Firefox... my main Browser.... Live in Japan....

[frahse]

It is pretty clear to me that Apple needs to get MC Hammer to sing "You can't touch this" in an advertisement.

"Yo, I told you
(You can't touch this)
Why you standin' there, man?
(You can't touch this)
Yo, sound the bell, school is in, sucka
(You can't touch this)"

That would answer any questions.

[hidari]

Remember Apple.... cliches... It just works, no viruses, it's so simple....yet...I have friends who love Apple that have had problems with all the cliches above...