The Apple iPad - Anand's Analysis
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 27, 2010 5:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
The Hardware
Leading up to today’s announcement I desperately tried to figure out what hardware Apple would use for the iPad. I’ve been on a bit of an SoC kick as of late, so you can understand my fascination.
Apple acquired PA Semi back in 2008. Everyone assumed that it’s because Apple wants to start making its own SoCs for the iPhone. Well, the first results of that acquisition are in the iPad.
Apple didn’t devote much time to the SoC in the iPad other than to tell the world that it’s Apple’s own silicon and it runs at 1GHz. The SoC is called the A4. I’ve asked Apple for more details on it, but I’m not holding my breath for a response.
Given the fact that it runs the iPhone OS and nearly all iPhone apps, I’m guessing the A4 is ARMv7 based. It’s possible that Apple engineered its own architecture for the A4, but more likely that it simply took an existing ARM design and modified it to suit its needs.
If Apple wanted to save cost it would’ve gone with a Cortex A8 based processor, or if it wanted more performance it would be something more A9 like. I’m not ruling out a dual-core implementation, but given the entry level cost point I’m assuming that it’s not anything quite as fantastic.
The 1GHz operating frequency implies a 45nm manufacturing process if it’s indeed an A8 or A9-like core. If we look at Apple’s public video, it appears to render a page at Spin.com in roughly 2.7 seconds. My iPhone 3GS does the same in about 7 - 9 seconds, but it also appears to be loading a lot more content on the current Spin.com site. Even if we assume that the 600MHz Cortex A8 in the iPhone 3GS can render the same page in 5 seconds, the speedup is too big to be from a clock speed increase alone.
Based on this data alone (and the responsiveness of the UI from the videos) I’m going to say that there’s a good chance that the A4 is much closer to the A9 in terms of performance. If it’s not an A9 itself, it may be Apple’s own out-of-order design.
Then there’s battery life. Apple is claiming 10 hours of web browsing battery life, which is reasonable given the 25WHr battery, but over a month of standby power. I suspect that the ridiculous standby power is due to the fact that the 3G radio is completely shut off when the device is asleep, but even then that’s very good power consumption. If anything, Apple’s own engineering here was probably spent on making sure that the SoC’s power consumption was as low as possible. By comparison, even the best SoCs in a smartphone today can usually only offer 300 hours of standby power (12.5 days).
Apple’s battery life claims have been unusually reliable as of late, so I would say that we should expect 10 hours of useful battery life out of one of these things.
I’ve spent a lot of time talking about the CPU, but what about the GPU in the A4? Given that Apple is a shareholder in Imagination Technologies (9.5%), I’d say that it’s a pretty safe bet to assume there’s some sort of a PowerVR SGX core in here. Which core? There’s definitely the physical space to include something ridiculous, but I’m guessing it’s something relatively controlled - perhaps an SGX 535 or SGX 540 at the most.
A4 in the next iPhone?
I've been racking my brain over the past several months trying to figure out what Apple will use in the next iPhone. I figured it could be as simple as a 45nm Cortex A8 shrink, or as ridiculously sweet as a pair of Cortex A9s. With the iPad being based on Apple's own A4 SoC design, I'm guessing we'll see it (or a derivative) making an appearance in the 4th generation iPhone.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
155 Comments
View All Comments
Dex1701 - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Yes, I absolutely think that people make knee-jerk decisions when they purchase things based on branding, visual appearance, the fact that their friend "has one", etc. If you don't think this is true I think you should talk to some marketing people about how that works.Being able to do SSH is great (I can do that with Android or WinMo too), but that is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, our people that run our email and scheduling systems won't support iPhone because it can't support policy enforcement through Exchange. I can also customize the entire OS and UI of the phone to meet my needs. We have people whose phones look and function COMPLETELY differently depending on what they're using them for and are running the same OS.
The iPhone SDK is nowhere close to having the kinds of tools available that allow me to develop business apps quickly. WinMo, .NET CF, and Linux have so many more useful development tools and built-in functionality to exploit available out-of-the box than iPhone that the only real reason you'd use iPhone for business applications is because you have a lot of employees that already own one.
I was at a meeting at a restaurant last week with a colleague and someone from outside the company who had an iPhone. I had my Touch Pro 2 with me (which can dual-boot WinMo and Android...yes, dual-boot). Both parties needed to access resources that weren't on-hand. I switched on the wifi router on my phone, allowing all three of us instant access to my fast HDSPA connection. My colleague and I opened remote desktop on our laptops (I was using a lowly netbook) and had full access to our high-end workstations at the office and our entire office network from the restaurant in seconds. The guy with the iPhone showed us some kind of motorcycle game. We were very impressed.
WinMo is dead? This just goes to show how out of touch you are with the way businesses use mobile devices. Your comment about "could not do anything significant" enforces that and goes to show that you haven't seen a WinMo device in years. Android is very young, but not that much younger than iPhone, and has the advantage of being completely reconfigurable...I mean, you can completely customize and rebuild the ROM/OS it runs on with a little know-how and minimal effort (in development team terms).
I'm still waiting for a good argument against using folders. The fact that you can come up with two situations in which an index is a better alternative to folders doesn't refute the fact that a folder hierarchy is better in a million other situations. Again, you're thinking like an end-user rather than an engineer.
I don't see why you think my comment about Apple's multimedia tools in contradictory. I never said that Apple's products were bad, although I don't doubt that a REALLY devoted Apple fan would hear "in many cases there are reasons to go with other products besides Apple's" would hear, "Apple sucks!" My entire post was in response to the "there's no reason to buy anything but Apple products" tone of your comment. I will say that Apple designs most of their consumer products to force you into proprietary technology, push you into spending money in their online stores (App Store and iTunes, specifically), and generally make more money off of you after the initial purchase. However, the main point I was making is that there are better (and almost always cheaper) alternatives to Apple's products in a lot of situations. The fact that iPhone is a great fit for what you use your phone for doesn't change that. iPhone is a great product...my mother has one. It's just not for me. Power users aren't Apple's primary demographic at the moment, and that's fine.
HotFoot - Monday, February 1, 2010 - link
Maemo 5. I love it.Oh yeah... and root access, for those who know what to do with it.
vol7ron - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
The one thing that Apple still has me on is the casing. I love the feel of the device, the size, weight, and glass.But, like you said, the lack of functionality might move me back to Windows or Android. The funny thing with the Pad is that with all the screen real estate it still only has a 4 column springboard. What a waste.
That, and the fact that there is no flash player for the browser. Wasn't the "internet in your hand" one of, if not THE, big selling points? What good is a self-claimed internet device, that doesn't deliver the full internet? That is censorship at its worst.
dagamer34 - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I can't think of any recent Apple product that was actually a runaway success on it's first iteration.iPod: Needed Windows support, iTunes on Windows, version that didn't cost $399.
MacBook Pro: First-gen devices got rather hot, hardware problems, didn't initially release with Boot Camp
Apple TV: Only useful if you purchased all your movie content through iTunes.
iPhone: $499/599 price point, no 3rd party apps
iPad: No multi-tasking, no front-facing camera
And the successful products of today:
iPod: Best selling version is $149/$199.
MacBook Pro: Windows support out of the box, long battery life
iPhone: Prices start at $99, 140,000 3rd party apps
And the failures:
Apple TV: Still just a front for the iTunes Store.
As such, the success/failure of an Apple product is best judged not when it's released, by maybe 1-2 years after the fact.
jamesadames12 - Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - link
http://www.asdpoolsupply.com/pages.php?pageid=11">http://www.asdpoolsupply.com/pages.php?pageid=11vol7ron - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
Agreed.But this isn't really a tablet, or a PC. It's just a more functional eBook reader, which the lowest model is still over-priced at $499, though on initial release, I'd say it is much less expensive than I would have thought Apple to price it at. Still the lowest version value should be ~$250 and the upper (64GB version) should be $499. The 3G should be in all devices at no additional cost - the service fees were fine and reasonable, however AT&Ts network should be better.
As for the device, Apple should have built in some rubber hand grips.
hypopraxia - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
Hmmm... Anything not to complain about? First off, you must be smoking one of those funny cigarettes. You know, the ones with crack in them? The price range that you mentioned is ridiculous. The MSRP for current generation iPod Touches are as follows: 32GB for $299, 64GB for $399. The iPad destroys these in every way except for amount of flash memory. At your proposed price points, the iPad encroaches upon the iPod Touch and becomes its direct competitor. Making a direct competitor of yourself is just not good business. As far as the extra charge for the 3G radio, of course it is going to cost more to put more silicon/radios/antennas in the device. To believe otherwise is simply childish and shows one's naïveté. If you want a lower price point, you'd be looking at a subsidy and that locks you into a contract with one of the telcos. And yes, AT&T does have lousy 3G coverage/penetration/reliability (I live 30 minutes outside of a 3G zone), but for heaven's sake, just try to look at the world in a more positive light, people will like you more.In other news, flamebaiters rile up blog readers into refuting false logic. Full story at 10.
vol7ron - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
"Anything not to complain about?"Yes, the casing's form-factor is good. Though, still thicker (.5") and heavier than I'd like, it's a move to almost a perfect size. On the other hand, I think the screen should almost meet the dimensions of the case. Other than that, they kind of blundered on what could be an excellent product - it's just another iPhone/iPod with a bigger screen, the hardware isn't much better.
-----
"The price range that you mentioned is ridiculous. The MSRP for current generation iPod Touches are as follows: 32GB for $299, 64GB for $399."
The price that you mentioned is ridiculous. You make a good point: iPods are overpriced. Your logic is flawed if you want to base your price on something that of itself is overpriced. Especially, given the fact that it's almost the same product... and 16GB for $499, do you really think that's worth it? I'm at capacity on my 32GB phone, 16GB is not a lot of space for something that supposed to be more functional.
-----
"...the iPad encroaches upon the iPod Touch and becomes its direct competitor"
There are so many reasons why that should not be the case, but based on the functionality (or lack there of) of the iPad, you might be right. The only true thing as of now that sets the two products apart is the fact that the Touch is more mobile.
-----
"Making a direct competitor of yourself is just not good business."
Nonsense. It happens everyday - there are so many examples but I'll just list the food industry as one: eg Pepsi/Pepsi Max/Diet Pepsi - as for the computer industry, I would be upset to see Dell with only one laptop option. In this example they are different flavors of a similar product and there could be a synergistic effect that spurts larger demand.
-----
"of course it is going to cost more to put more silicon/radios/antennas in the device"
Yeah, except for the fact that less silicon is being used. The fact that they're producing the processors in-house probably makes it a little cheaper too. As for your antennas/radios comment...that's absurd. You must be smoking something if you really think that costs a lot. There are only three things that would be driving the cost of the iPad: 1) the screen - nice touch sensitive screens are $$. 2) The SSD - only because the costs are still high. 3) Research & Development. Other than that, it's all aethetic value, which I'm sure when all is factored together, they could sell the upper model at $499 and still make a pretty profit.
-----
"If you want a lower price point, you'd be looking at a subsidy and that locks you into a contract with one of the telcos."
Seriously? Is that what happens to you? You do realize that telecoms provide a service and not the product. When I buy my computer I don't look for a better deal by signing a contract with Verizon or Comcast.
-----
"just try to look at the world in a more positive light, people will like you more."
I think people would like you more if you had a higher IQ. You have got to start having an idealistic view on how things should be and not how they are, otherwise the products that we'll be fed will be crap for some time to come. I don't buy crappy products just because they are on the market. I expect more if I'm going to spend my hard-earned dollars. Maybe that's how you should be thinking. Stop thinking that products/services are just $$, instead put them into terms of work. Think about how many hours you'd have to work, or what projects you'd have to complete to make the $$ for that. I put lots of time and energy into what I do and I consider my time spent important.
-----
Figures that should be:
iPod Touch - $99 (or do away with it and only sell service-free phones)
iPhone - $99 + service (minimum starting size 99GB)
iPad - $199-$699, this ranges the iPad as it is now compared to a fully-functional PC
You tell me that's wrong, I'll tell you, you have no vision.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - link
This is Apple your talking about here, their profit margins are high. The products they design aren't meant to be cheap.Just because you think something should be cheaper, doesn't mean it will happen.
This is also the first generation of this product mind you, in 1 or 2 generation you might get the 16GB version at 399 USD, which would make it a little more competitive.
vol7ron - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - link
Right. I'm not trying to down the product, per say, but am trying to say that it's not leading up to potential.For pricing, I agree with the fact that Apple has high margins. I also feel their hardware meets a certain high quality standard. Regarding the make/casing, there's nothing that appears "cheap" when it comes to any of their products. The cases are in tact, the plastics and glass are strong and durable.
My big concern with the pricing is that the product is essentially the same as an iPhone/iPod Touch. The OS is using the same framework and aside from it being triple the width and double the height, the casing/screen is the same. The only difference is probably the internal processor (and larger battery?). Mind you, what spurted the price argument for me was the fact that Apple had made a big deal about it in the first place. If you're going to make a selling point out of something, it's going to be put under scrutiny. If they had marked it off at $1K, I wouldn't have made a big deal about how much the iPad is similar to an iPhone and therefore should cost less, instead I would have just written it off as another overpriced Apple product.
I would think for such a new product that there would be a little more distinction to take advantage of the larger factor. For instance, even the home screen only has a 4 column springboard - there's so much wasted space.