Funny Minion Tummy Dance
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Apple is thought to be planning the release of two new phones on 10 September, including a much-anticipated cheaper iPhone, dubbed the iPhone 5C.
As well as an incremental update to the current iPhone 5, expected to include fingerprint-detecting technology, the iPhone 5C would be Apple's first lower-end phone. Historically, Apple has fulfilled the needs of the low-end market by offering previous years' models at cut-down prices.
Industry suppliers have been told to expect the new device in mid-September, but a leak to news site All Things D claimed the launch is set for 10 September.
At a recent earnings call, Apple's chief executive Tim Cook reiterated that plan to investors. When asked about the potential of a low-cost iPhone to first time smartphone buyers, he replied that the number attracted by the iPhone 4 was "very, very impressive. We want to attract as many of these buyers as we can".
He added that "where iPhone 5 continues to be the most popular iPhone by far, we are really happy to provide an incredible high-quality product with iPhone 4 running iOS 6 to as many first-time smartphone buyers as we can."
However, there have long been hints that the company was considering going in a different route, perhaps modelled on the iPod product line. During an earlier call in January of this year, Cook pointed to the line as the model of how it thought about low-cost devices, saying: "I think we've had a great track record here on iPod, doing different products at different price points and getting a reasonable share from doing that."
Each tier of iPod is a very different product from the others, to the extent that the iPod Shuffle and iPod Touch have barely anything in common.
Apple may have switched gears due to a weakness in Chinese sales, or a move to unify the shape of the iPhone line. In July, Cook discussed the slowdown in China, but argued that it was "continuing to invest in distribution, we're going to double the number of retail stores there for the next two years and we're continuing to lift iPhone point of sales and iPad sales, both of which are currently lower than where we would want them or need them today".
Additionally, there is a renewed impetus to unify the product line around the iPhone 5's 16:9 screen, the biggest change in form factor since the original iPhone in 2007.
Technology analyst Benedict Evans of Enders Analysis argues that although "a cheaper iPhone has been discussed almost since the original launch in 2007", costs have fallen and the market developed "to the point that it now makes sense for Apple to offer a $200-$300 [unsubsidised] model".
That change boils down to three things: for the first time, Apple could make such a phone (which would be $100 cheaper than an iPhone 4) without having to compromise its sense of design; the fact that the low end of the market in major territories is now big enough to take notice of; and the need for the company to have a critical mass of users to ensure that programmers still think of developing for iOS before competing platforms.
As with the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4S, few extra features are expected for the new top-end iPhone. Instead, a speed boost and improved camera will likely be paired with exclusive software features. The major exception is the possibility of a fingerprint sensor mounted in the home button of the phone. Apple acquired fingerprint security firm AuthenTec last year, and the initial beta of iOS 7 contained settings for a sensor.
When asked for comment, Apple reiterated that it "has not announced a press conference".
Hyperloop
Hyperloop
When the California “high speed” rail was approved, I was quite
disappointed, as I know many others were too. How could it be that the
home of Silicon Valley and JPL – doing incredible things like indexing
all the world’s knowledge and putting rovers on Mars – would build a
bullet train that is both one of the most expensive per mile and one of
the slowest in the world? Note, I am hedging my statement slightly by
saying “one of”. The head of the California high speed rail project
called me to complain that it wasn’t the very slowest bullet train nor
the very most expensive per mile.
The underlying motive for a statewide mass transit system is a good one. It would be great to have an alternative to flying or driving, but obviously only if it is actually better than flying or driving. The train in question would be both slower, more expensive to operate (if unsubsidized) and less safe by two orders of magnitude than flying, so why would anyone use it?
If we are to make a massive investment in a new transportation system, then the return should by rights be equally massive. Compared to the alternatives, it should ideally be:
Unfortunately, none of these have panned out. As things stand today, there is not even a short distance demonstration system operating in test pilot mode anywhere in the world, let alone something that is robust enough for public transit. They all possess, it would seem, one or more fatal flaws that prevent them from coming to fruition.
Constraining the Problem
The Hyperloop (or something similar) is, in my opinion, the right solution for the specific case of high traffic city pairs that are less than about 1500 km or 900 miles apart. Around that inflection point, I suspect that supersonic air travel ends up being faster and cheaper. With a high enough altitude and the right geometry, the sonic boom noise on the ground would be no louder than current airliners, so that isn’t a showstopper. Also, a quiet supersonic plane immediately solves every long distance city pair without the need for a vast new worldwide infrastructure.
However, for a sub several hundred mile journey, having a supersonic plane is rather pointless, as you would spend almost all your time slowly ascending and descending and very little time at cruise speed. In order to go fast, you need to be at high altitude where the air density drops exponentially, as air at sea level becomes as thick as molasses (not literally, but you get the picture) as you approach sonic velocity.
read more at
Hyperloop-Alpha.pdf
The underlying motive for a statewide mass transit system is a good one. It would be great to have an alternative to flying or driving, but obviously only if it is actually better than flying or driving. The train in question would be both slower, more expensive to operate (if unsubsidized) and less safe by two orders of magnitude than flying, so why would anyone use it?
If we are to make a massive investment in a new transportation system, then the return should by rights be equally massive. Compared to the alternatives, it should ideally be:
- Safer
- Faster
- Lower cost
- More convenient
- Immune to weather
- Sustainably self-powering
- Resistant to Earthquakes
- Not disruptive to those along the route
Unfortunately, none of these have panned out. As things stand today, there is not even a short distance demonstration system operating in test pilot mode anywhere in the world, let alone something that is robust enough for public transit. They all possess, it would seem, one or more fatal flaws that prevent them from coming to fruition.
Constraining the Problem
The Hyperloop (or something similar) is, in my opinion, the right solution for the specific case of high traffic city pairs that are less than about 1500 km or 900 miles apart. Around that inflection point, I suspect that supersonic air travel ends up being faster and cheaper. With a high enough altitude and the right geometry, the sonic boom noise on the ground would be no louder than current airliners, so that isn’t a showstopper. Also, a quiet supersonic plane immediately solves every long distance city pair without the need for a vast new worldwide infrastructure.
However, for a sub several hundred mile journey, having a supersonic plane is rather pointless, as you would spend almost all your time slowly ascending and descending and very little time at cruise speed. In order to go fast, you need to be at high altitude where the air density drops exponentially, as air at sea level becomes as thick as molasses (not literally, but you get the picture) as you approach sonic velocity.
read more at
Hyperloop-Alpha.pdf
Monday, 12 August 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.PNG)
