 |
 |
iPod Touch to be always held back with last year's CPU?
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status:
Offline
|
|
With this year's non-update is it reasonable to think it was done on purpose, with the objective to keep it held back forever and either rise their profit margin or (gasp) lower prices?
Or perhaps Apple is planning an under clocked next gen CPU to make the iPT even thinner (next gen CPU's are due to be unveiled with the soon-to-arrive iPad 3)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
For a iPhone 4 class product in 2011 that costs only $199, I don't see the problem.
I think it was done on purpose, with the objective to keep it lagging behind the latest iPad. Why? Because it's simply not necessary to have the absolute fastest CPU in a $199 iPod, and it makes sense from their business standpoint to keep costs down.
It will go dual-core in 2012... but I suspect it will still be under $200.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug 
I think it was done on purpose, with the objective to keep it lagging behind the latest iPad.
Agreed.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Godfather
Or perhaps Apple is planning an under clocked next gen CPU to make the iPT even thinner (next gen CPU's are due to be unveiled with the soon-to-arrive iPad 3)
I suspect that the next iPad CPU will simply be an "A5+", with only a threadshrink and possibly a slightly higher clockspeed ceiling. While they could add cores to either the CPU or the GPU, I don't think it will happen. Mac laptops still ship with 2 cores, so giving the iPad 4 seems of very limited utility. A beefier GPU is a possibility, but 4 GPU cores puts it on a level with the Playstation Vita, and Apple isn't exactly known for pushing GPU performance to new heights.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think that any product called iPod needs to have the absolute best battery life possible. We tolerate shorter battery life on general purpose cell phones because they do so much for us. The iPod Touch is still at its heart a music device. I'm sure Apple doesn't want to compromise this. A more powerful CPU is not going to make a bit of difference for playing music, but it will probably shorten the battery life.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 3rd and 4th generation iPod touch had the same CPU as the iPhone did at launch...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
A lot of folks (myself included) want something equal to the iPhone without the monthly connect and texting charges. IOW a great camera, great video, facetime, Skype video, with room for music, games, whatever.
For a phone, I've got a phone that makes and receives call well. Don't think I've ever had a dropped call--except with an iPhone at the other end.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top