WWDC 2010 Discussion Thread

[Terpfen]

I don't know about that — they were using Intel's IGPs for how long?

As long as they were sufficient for the graphical demands of the platform--at the time, primarily Quartz Extreme, Core Image, and video playback. More to my point, Apple emphasizes battery life and ambient temperature over raw 3D performance in their designs, so they go with low- and mid-range GPU options. Could they sell a notebook with an SLi GPU setup, or an iMac with a 5870? Sure. Will they? Nope, because battery life and temperature trump graphics performance. They can make a product with high graphics performance, but they can't make a product with high graphics performance, great battery life, and relatively moderate operating temperatures, so they won't sell something like that. Like I said, hierarchy of priorities.

By all accounts, Apple has canceled more products than they've released under Jobs.

All I'm saying is that they have the capability to do it and do it well.

They have the capability to do it, yes. But their definition of "well" is different than your definition of "well."

Considering iPhone 4 supports 802.11n, we're not talking about a big speed discrepancy here either.

We are talking about packet loss and gigabytes of data. A cable is still faster and more secure. I'd wager that Apple would prefer to transition to USB3 or Light Peak for syncing rather than use a wireless connection.

 

[phide]

As long as they were sufficient for the graphical demands of the platform--at the time, primarily Quartz Extreme, Core Image, and video playback.

For video playback, yes, they were sufficient. For desktop rendering and other animation services, they were not. I think we've all used a Mac with an Intel IGP at some point, so we all know how well that works.

We are talking about packet loss and gigabytes of data.

Not necessarily. When I sync my iPhone, I'm very rarely transmitting gigabytes of data. Sometimes mere kilobytes or tens of megabytes of data. Apple could advise for utilizing wireless sync when speed isn't of critical importance and wired sync for all other scenarios.

A cable is still faster and more secure.

Wireless keyboards and wireless mice are far more prone to issues than their wired variants, yet the iMac ships with both a wireless keyboard and mouse — standard. I personally have had issues with the Magic Mouse not properly connecting after being turned on, which I resolved by adding it as a favorite BT device. Apple already shipped one firmware release to address Magic Mouse connection issues.

If you want to argue against wireless iPhone syncing on the basis of Apple not wanting to introduce issues with reliability, you may as well throw that one out. If Apple were particularly concerned with the reliability of wireless devices, they likely wouldn't even offer Bluetooth keyboards and mice, let alone ship machines with them as standard equipment.

By the way, what do you think of the screws on iPhone 4? The ones you claimed Apple never uses? And the separate volume buttons and seams that you claimed didn't jive with Ive's industrial design?

 

[Terpfen]

For video playback, yes, they were sufficient. For desktop rendering and other animation services, they were not. I think we've all used a Mac with an Intel IGP at some point, so we all know how well that works.

OS X's desktop did not suddenly render slower when Apple switched over to Intel graphics in 2005.

Not necessarily. When I sync my iPhone, I'm very rarely transmitting gigabytes of data. Sometimes mere kilobytes or tens of megabytes of data. Apple could advise for utilizing wireless sync when speed isn't of critical importance and wired sync for all other scenarios.

You're forgetting about initial setup. When you first get an iPhone, or a replacement iPhone, most everyone has a few gigs of music and video to transfer over to the device. That takes a while. It would be longer on wireless. People already complain about how long it takes to backup and sync an iPhone without adding any new information; the whining would reach astronomical proportions were the wires removed from the process.

If you want to argue against wireless iPhone syncing on the basis of Apple not wanting to introduce issues with reliability, you may as well throw that one out. If Apple were particularly concerned with the reliability of wireless devices, they likely wouldn't even offer Bluetooth keyboards and mice, let alone ship machines with them as standard equipment.

You do realize that this comparison completely fails, right? The data transmitted from a wireless keyboard to a receiver is microscopic in size and infrequent in nature. It does not take a lot of bandwidth or a lot of reliability for a wireless keyboard to tell its computer-connected receiver that the user just typed a series of keys, for example. And don't even get me started on how many people complain about lag time on wireless mice.

So, to reverse your premise here, if you want to argue for wireless iPhone syncing on the basis of competitors having it and therefore Apple needs it as well, you need to demonstrate the advantages of the technology besides the facade of convenience.

By the way, what do you think of the screws on iPhone 4? The ones you claimed Apple never uses? And the separate volume buttons and seams that you claimed didn't jive with Ive's industrial design?

Oh, look. Someone must feel like they're losing an argument, because they've suddenly switched topics to sound holier than thou, (intentionally) fudging details in the process.

My problems with the iPhone 4 photos Gizmodo posted had to do with the fit and finish of the unit, and concern over the gaps in the metal band. The band gaps were explained in the Stevenote, while the fit and finish indeed changed on the final version of the iPhone 4--for example, the material on the band on Gizmodo's phone doesn't appear to be stainless steel as the final iPhone 4 has. There's also a very slight weight difference (Gizmodo's weighed 3 more grams than the 3GS, the final iPhone 4 weighs 2 grams more than the 3GS) and there are cosmetic alterations to some elements of the phone, like the volume buttons.

So when I said Gizmodo had a prototype iPhone, I was right. They had an unfinalized device that was used to field-test new features, like the metal band acting as an antenna, the glass back (and if you'll recall, I said the flat backing on the Gizmodo prototype made sense if the rumors about having a glass backing were true, which they were), and the extensive under the hood changes.

And when I say that Apple won't implement wireless sync just because its competitors go that route, I'm right, too. If they implement wireless sync, they'll do so because they've found a way to add it while satisfying higher priorities, probably battery life on the phone and reliability of connection.