<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Technik News&#187; Apple</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.technik-news.de/category/apple/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.technik-news.de</link>
	<description>Das Blog zu IT, Mobilfunk &#38; Internet</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:06:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Apple &#8211; Neues Rechenzentrum geplant</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/12/06/apple-neues-rechenzentrum-geplant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/12/06/apple-neues-rechenzentrum-geplant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technik-news.de/?p=1066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Der US-Technologiekonzern Apple will einem Bericht der Zeitung &#8220;The Oregonian&#8221; ein neues Rechenzentrum in Prineville im US-Bundesstaat Oregon bauen. Das Projekt soll unter dem Namen Maverick laufen und im Dezember soll entschieden werden, ob das Rechenzentrum tatsächlich gebaut wird oder nicht. Es sei eine Anlage mit 31 Megawatt Leistung gebaut, die sich auf eine Fläche [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Der US-Technologiekonzern Apple will einem Bericht der Zeitung &#8220;The Oregonian&#8221; ein neues Rechenzentrum in Prineville im US-Bundesstaat Oregon bauen. Das Projekt soll unter dem Namen Maverick laufen und im Dezember soll entschieden werden, ob das Rechenzentrum tatsächlich gebaut wird oder nicht. Es sei eine Anlage mit 31 Megawatt Leistung gebaut, die sich auf eine Fläche von 647.488 Quadratmetern befinden soll. Die Steuervergünstigungen, die niedrigen Energiekosten und das milde Klima sollen für den Standort sprechen.<br />
<span id="more-1066"></span><br />
Die steuerlichen Einsparungen sollen für Apple bei einigen Millionen US-Dollar jährlich liegen. Der Staat Oregon hat in ländlichen Regionen so genannte &#8220;Enterprise Zones&#8221; eingerichtet, wo Steuervergünstigungen bestehen. Das Rechenzentrum würde sich nur wenige Kilometer von der Anlage des sozialen Netzwerks Facebook befinden. Laut dem Zeitungsbericht soll das neue Rechenzentrum für iTunes und die iCloud genutzt werden. In Maiden im US-Bundesstaat North Carolina hatte Apple für 1 Milliarde US-Dollar eine Rechenanlage gebaut und auf dem dortigen Gelände soll nun ein Solarkraftwerk entstehen. Nach Konzernangaben sollen 8 Milliarden US-Dollar innerhalb der nächsten zwölf Monate investiert werden, davon sind 7,1 Milliarden US-Dollar für die neue Firmenzentrale und die iCloud eingeplant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/12/06/apple-neues-rechenzentrum-geplant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apple iPad beherrscht Tablet-Markt</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/10/13/apple-ipad-beherrscht-tablet-markt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/10/13/apple-ipad-beherrscht-tablet-markt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tablet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technik-news.de/?p=1009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Das Tablet Apple iPad ist nach einem Bericht der Webseite AppleInsider basierend auf einer Studie der Marktforschungsfirma Comscore für 46,8 Prozent des Online-Traffics verantwortlich. Das Apple iPhone hat einen Anteil von 42,6 Prozent am Webtraffic. In den USA kommen 7 Prozent den Zahlen zufolge durch iOS-Geräte zustande und zwar werden entweder Nachrichten gelesen oder der [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Das Tablet Apple iPad ist nach einem Bericht der Webseite AppleInsider basierend auf einer Studie der Marktforschungsfirma Comscore für 46,8 Prozent des Online-Traffics verantwortlich. Das Apple iPhone hat einen Anteil von 42,6 Prozent am Webtraffic. In den USA kommen 7 Prozent den Zahlen zufolge durch iOS-Geräte zustande und zwar werden entweder Nachrichten gelesen oder der eigene Status in sozialen Netzwerken aktualisiert. Die Tablets mit dem Betriebssystem Google Android scheinen auf dem US-Markt nur eine geringe Rolle zu spielen.<br />
<span id="more-1009"></span><br />
Der stärkste Konkurrent des Apple iPad ist das Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 aber für dieses besteht in Europa und Australien bereits leider ein Verkaufsverbot. Laut Apple hat es eine zu große Ähnlichkeit zum iPad 2 und darf deshalb nicht verkauft werden. Apple fürchtet zudem einen Milliardenverlust, wenn das Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 verkauft werden sollte. In Deutschland kann das Android-Tablet nicht mehr gekauft werden aber ist gebraucht dennoch erhältlich. Der südkoreanische Hersteller Samsung kündigte nun an das Tablet in einigen Punkten zu ändern womit das Verkaufsverbot umgangen werden soll.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2011/10/13/apple-ipad-beherrscht-tablet-markt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bug found on the new iPod Nano</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/bug-found-on-the-new-ipod-nano/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/bug-found-on-the-new-ipod-nano/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPod]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nano]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I could not resist, having video on an iPod the size of the new Nano was just too tempting…so I got one. As soon as I connected it to iTunes, it prompted me to install the software update that was made available a couple of days ago, after that it synced music &#38; videos, and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could not resist, having video on an iPod the size of the new Nano was just too tempting…so I got one. As soon as I connected it to iTunes, it prompted me to install the software update that was made available a couple of days ago, after that it synced music &amp; videos, and off I went.</p>
<p>Much to my surprise, this afternoon it started behaving erratically &#8211; whenever I pressed the fast forward or rewind buttons, the iPod would keep skipping in the same direction until either the end or the start of the song was reached respectively. One annoying thing is that the skip steps are much bigger than on the previous Nano, and so it makes the process less accurate. Combined with this bug, it’s unusable. The only way to stop it is to pause, and resume playback, and since the steps are so large, it’s a hit-and-miss proposition.</p>
<p>Here is a short video showing the behavior.<br />
<embed width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ycWA292SC0A"></embed></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/bug-found-on-the-new-ipod-nano/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The E on the iPhone does not necessarily indicate EDGE coverage</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/the-e-on-the-iphone-does-not-necessarily-indicate-edge-coverage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/the-e-on-the-iphone-does-not-necessarily-indicate-edge-coverage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Engadget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WiFi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It actually indicates GPRS attachment status, the capability (or lack thereof) of sending and receiving data, be it over plain old GPRS, or the faster EDGE. I was going to comment on the original Engadget blog post, but after seeing a few pages of comments already, I doubt they would have noticed it. This is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It actually indicates GPRS attachment status, the capability (or lack thereof) of sending and receiving data, be it over plain old GPRS, or the faster EDGE. I was going to comment <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/18/hands-on-with-the-o2-iphone/" target="_blank">on the original Engadget blog post</a>, but after seeing a few pages of comments already, I doubt they would have noticed it. This is where they get it wrong:</p>
<blockquote><p>You’ll notice the iTunes WiFi Store icon, and an O2-UK network symbol up top. If you look carefully, you’ll see that the E logo for EDGE is missing: we guess that 30% network coverage on O2 don’t quite stretch inside the Apple Store.</p></blockquote>
<p>A bit further down, they mention this again:</p>
<blockquote><p>O2 iPhone on the left, unlocked US iPhone on the right (running on T-Mobile’s UK network). Note that the O2 iPhone doesn’t show the EDGE logo, but the unlocked phone on T-Mobile does. You can probably guess at what we’re getting at here: O2’s EDGE coverage sucks.</p></blockquote>
<p>In this particular side-by-side photo, T-Mobile’s coverage is marginally lower than O2’s, but they should both be capable of sending GPRS traffic. Another reason they get this wrong is that the waves icon ‘overwrites’ the E symbol while the iPhone is connected to a WiFi network, so you could still have GPRS/EDGE attachment in the background, so-to-speak. In my particular case, the iPhone is happily registered on Vodafone Spain, and is attached to GPRS (no EDGE here at all), showing the E while I’m not in range of WiFi.</p>
<p>The iPhone also does something very clever &#8211; when you open an application that requires a data connection, it will start a GPRS attach and session, while it asks you if you want to join any of the nearby WiFi networks (if any). In case you say no, the alternative data connection is already established, cutting down on extra waiting time before you start seeing content on your screen. This may seem stupid to Europeans, by default stuck with hugely expensive pay-as-you-go data (50 Euro cents per 250kB!!), but with the original AT&amp;T voice + data plan, it does not really matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/18/the-e-on-the-iphone-does-not-necessarily-indicate-edge-coverage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>O2 must be crazy</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/17/o2-must-be-crazy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/17/o2-must-be-crazy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iTunes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telefonica]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=358</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And Telefonica, who owns them, just as much. If the rumors are true, they will be surrendering around 40% of revenue (not profit, revenue) from each client using an iPhone, in exchange for an exclusive distribution deal in the UK. What is going to be the likely problem for end users here? Traditionally, when you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And Telefonica, who owns them, just as much. If the rumors are true, they will be surrendering around 40% of revenue (not profit, revenue) from each client using an iPhone, in exchange for an exclusive distribution deal in the UK. What is going to be the likely problem for end users here? Traditionally, when you buy a phone in Europe that is tied to a contract, you have to sign the papers before you can even smell the phone, and thus are bound by the terms. In the US, you can just buy the phone at the store, take it home, and get the contract set up with AT&amp;T through iTunes there while sipping a coffee.</p>
<p>Unlocking your $400 iPhone is now possible, and so you’re no longer bound by an AT&amp;T contract. In Europe, however, you may be able to unlock the phone just the same, but you will have to stay with the contract or pay the cancellation fee. Either way, operators stand to have better deal than AT&amp;T.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/17/o2-must-be-crazy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apple is against Bluetooth, but why?</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/14/apple-is-against-bluetooth-but-why/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/14/apple-is-against-bluetooth-but-why/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bluetooth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MacBook Pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First day with my shiny new iPhone, unlocked to work on Vodafone’s network &#8211; so far so good, pretty much loving it. Until I looked at the Bluetooth specs. Basically, this thing is only useful for mono headsets and carkits, and that’s it. The iPhone has been certified under Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR, as can [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p>First day with my shiny new <a href="http://www.apple.com/iphone">iPhone</a>, unlocked to work on Vodafone’s network &#8211; so far so good, pretty much loving it. Until I looked at the Bluetooth specs. Basically, this thing is only useful for mono headsets and carkits, and that’s it.</p>
<p>The iPhone has been certified under Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR, <a href="http://programs.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=12975" target="_blank">as can be seen in the BQB documents</a>, but the PICS detail only handset and audio gateway profiles, with required signaling profiles such as RFCOMM, pretty much the bare minimum for a working Bluetooth hands-free system. What about the ton of other profiles, for example, A2DP, FTP, DUN…? Not included. The iPhone uses a CSR BlueCore4 Audioflash, which has 6MB of onboard FLASH memory, and could be upgraded provided that there is a host controller with access to the SPI port on the BC4. It seems that the iPhone uses <a href="http://www.oi-us.com/Dynamic/SinglePage,intLangID,1,intCategoryID,9.html" target="_blank">Open Interface’s</a> <a href="http://www.oi-us.com/Uploads/File/Bluemagic_Brief.pdf" target="_blank">BLUEmagic 3.0 stack</a> [PDF], which would imply an external host controller.</p>
<p>Now I’m starting to get confused &#8211; you usually choose a FLASH BlueCore if you intend to run software on it, be it CSR’s own stack, or a customized version of it. If you intend to use a host-based system, where the stack is handled by an external processor, you can buy way cheaper BlueCore ROM chips &#8211; and we’re talking between $1 and $3 a piece in savings. This may not seem much, but when multiplied it by Apple’s sales, you have a hefty sum. Below is a graphic that illustrates the differences between a host-based HCI system (left) and a standalone or ROM implementation (right):</p>
<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-354" title="bt_profile_diagram_hci" src="http://www.technik-news.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/bt_profile_diagram_hci.png" alt="bt_profile_diagram_hci" width="718" height="465" /></p>
<p>The big question still is &#8211; why is Apple so Bluetooth-unfriendly? Did they have certification problems and rushed through the bare minimum specs to claim Bluetooth compatibility? This seems strange as the iPhone was certified by CETECOM, which probably is the most experienced lab on Bluetooth certification in the world. Same applies to MacBooks and Mac Pros, they feature a few more profiles like FTP, but not A2DP. Hoping for a firmware update to fix this mess, over and out.</p>
<div><br style="clear: both;" /></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/09/14/apple-is-against-bluetooth-but-why/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apple to offer all-you-can-eat subscriptions to iTunes?</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/07/02/apple-to-offer-all-you-can-eat-subscriptions-to-itunes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/07/02/apple-to-offer-all-you-can-eat-subscriptions-to-itunes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iTunes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looking at how Universal Music Group has decided not to renew their contract with the iTunes music store (which is by the way the third largest music retailer in the U.S., not just online, but globally!), I predict two things will happen: Apple will offer a subscription-based model, where you pay a weekly or monthly [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking at how Universal Music Group has <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/02/universal_snubs_apple/" target="_blank">decided not to renew their contract with the iTunes music store</a> (which is by the way the third largest music retailer in the U.S., <em>not just online, but globally!</em>), I predict two things will happen:</p>
<ol>
<li>Apple will offer a subscription-based model, where you pay a weekly or monthly fee, and can download as much as you want from their catalog. Right now, iTunes imposes the price they buy their music at, and it has been patently obvious that many labels were not at all happy with the $0.99 a song pricing scheme.</li>
<li>UMG will see their music pirated like no other label. If people cannot even get their music from a convenient and easy to use source, for a one-could-argue reasonable price, they will find ways to get it from other sources. There are alternatives to piracy, such as <a href="http://www.mp3search.ru/" target="_blank">MP3Search.ru</a>, which provide songs at $0.19 a piece, DRM-free, and they have a very extensive repertoire (albeit sometimes not as complete as iTunes’).</li>
</ol>
<p>Will this prediction come true? It depends on how much it would hurt iTunes to lose Universal, and I think it would hurt a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/07/02/apple-to-offer-all-you-can-eat-subscriptions-to-itunes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Modern electronics and battery life (or the lack thereof)</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/06/18/modern-electronics-and-battery-life-or-the-lack-thereof/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/06/18/modern-electronics-and-battery-life-or-the-lack-thereof/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battery life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WiFi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m pretty amazed at the latest gadgets coming out from the R&#38;D departments of consumer electronics companies, such as Nokia and Apple &#8211; the N95 is a super-duper, do-it-all, cellphone (sorry, Nokia wants us to call it a ‘multimedia computer’), featuring multiple bands, HSDPA 3G (Europe only), WiFi, GPS, and a 5Mpixel camera, apart from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;">I’m pretty amazed at the latest gadgets coming out from the R&amp;D departments of consumer electronics companies, such as <a href="http://www.nokia.com/" target="_blank">Nokia</a> and <a href="http://www.apple.com/" target="_blank">Apple</a> &#8211; the <a href="http://www.nseries.com/" target="_blank">N95</a> is a super-duper, do-it-all, cellphone (sorry, Nokia wants us to call it a ‘multimedia computer’), featuring multiple bands, HSDPA 3G (Europe only), WiFi, GPS, and a 5Mpixel camera, apart from a wide array of software tools for blogging, posting pictures online, navigation and more. What price does this device pay? A meager 950mAh battery, which lasts less than a day under normal use, considering ‘normal’ as actually using the functionality it offers. I guess you can get more if you turn off the GPS, WiFi, don’t use the camera, and make almost no calls…but then what good are all the bells &amp; whistles for?</p>
<p>The iPhone case is even more interesting, as the device has not been released yet, but <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/18/iphone-delivers-up-to-8-hours-of-talk-time/" target="_blank">Apple has already reported an increase in battery life</a> with respect to the initial quoted value. The iPhone will have 8 hours of talk time, and some 250 hours of standby time, with 5 hours of video and 24 hours of audio playback. <a href="http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL" target="_blank">Apple’s stock has jumped $3 since the announcement</a>, something that will make losers in the fake email crash happy.</p>
<p>Let’s try to make a simple breakdown of power consumptions, and see if manufacturers are being overly optimistic.</p>
<p><strong>WiFi</strong></p>
<p>One of the biggest power drains, as there is no built-in power management into the WiFi protocol, contrary to GSM and 3G. When transmitting over GSM, a phone makes calculations from data received from the network and its own measurements in order to adjust RF power to the minimum required to reach the cell’s base station. Thus, in areas of good coverage, a phone can be consuming far less power than in rural areas with more spotty coverage. While on a 3G network, the rate of adjustment is even higher. WiFi chipsets in mobile phones have basically two settings, “high” and “low”. Most times, unless you are sitting right next to the access point, and without any major interference, the setting the phone will use is “high”.</p>
<p>Assuming that the WiFi chipset used by the Nokia N95 and the iPhone use little power, for example, by fitting the <a href="http://www.nanoradio.com/" target="_blank">Nanoradio solution</a>, the power consumption would stand at 130mA in transmit mode, 53mA in receive mode, and 50uA in standby mode. Assuming we are receiving 80% of the time, for example, by browsing the web, the average consumption would stand at around 68mAh. The N95’s battery would last 13 hours, if it had to power the WiFi chipset alone.</p>
<p><strong>GPS</strong></p>
<p>Even though GPS technology has advanced a lot since the early days, GPS chipsets can draw upwards of 80mA. Special trickle-power configurations (which also impact performance) can reduce this to 50mA or so. Thus, the N95’s battery could power the GPS for around 19 hours.</p>
<p><strong>Processor</strong></p>
<p>The Nokia N95 features an ARM11-based <a href="http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?templateId=6123&amp;navigationId=11990&amp;path=templatedata/cm/product/data/omap_2420" target="_blank">Texas Instruments OMAP2420</a> running at 330MHz, featuring 2D/3D video acceleration on top of whopping performance. What does this mean in electrical power terms? Even though this processor features SmartReflex technology, which reduces static leak currents (a good technical overview <a href="http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/wtbu/smartreflex_whitepaper.pdf" target="_blank">is available here [pdf]</a>), the net current drawn is around 30mA. The N95 battery could power the main processor for around 32 hours.</p>
<p><strong>Display</strong></p>
<p>The display on the N95 is very good, beautiful, 16M colors, 240×320 pixel resolution. It is also power hungry, taking around 30mA, thus, the battery could also power the display for around 32 hours.</p>
<p><strong>Phone</strong></p>
<p>Assuming that you talk 5% of the time on the phone, the average power consumption by the phone subsytem alone would stand around 20mA, resulting in a battery life of 47 hours.</p>
<p><strong>Adding things up</strong></p>
<p>So far, we have seen how much the battery could keep running each individual system on the phone, but adding things up, we have a power consumption of about 100mA (taking into account that we are not using everything at once, I halved the figures). This results in around 9.5 hours of operation, more or less an average day. This ties in with most users’ experiences, as shown in many reviews done so far on the N95.</p>
<p>The iPhone, being much thinner, wider and taller than the N95, probably won’t have that much larger battery capacity &#8211; why does Apple give the figures they do, I can only blame on the marketing department. This is not as uncommon as it seems, R&amp;D provides a set of carefully calculated and actually measured results, then the marketing guys take them and multiply them by two. Anyone who has used a modern, high-end phone or PDA, will attest to the fact that quoted battery life figures differ from reality by far. I don’t know of many companies that can raise their stock $3 by simply increasing the value of the battery life in one of their products &#8211; this shows how much hype there is around the iPhone (of which I’ll most definitely get one…they are soooo sexy!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/06/18/modern-electronics-and-battery-life-or-the-lack-thereof/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The weirdest MacBook Pro problem so far</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/04/17/the-weirdest-macbook-pro-problem-so-far/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/04/17/the-weirdest-macbook-pro-problem-so-far/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MacBook Pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Almost a year since I got a 17″ MacBook Pro, not one of the earlier problem-prone models, so it should have worked out better &#8211; half way through the year though, a series of darker spots, like soot smudges, started appearing on various places of the screen. I am waiting for parts to arrive before [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Almost a year since I got a 17″ MacBook Pro, not one of the earlier problem-prone models, so it should have worked out better &#8211; half way through the year though, a series of darker spots, like soot smudges, started appearing on various places of the screen. I am waiting for parts to arrive before taking it in and have it fixed, otherwise you can be laptop-less for days or weeks, and now the machine has developed a new symptom. After resuming from sleep, the display is all corrupted, with top third of the display one solid color, and the bottom two thirds another, plus an annoying flicker. If I close the lid, flip it upside down, and open the lid again, the display goes back to normal. The problem can be consistently reproduced, but I really cannot imagine what combination of electrical and/or software problems are causing this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2007/04/17/the-weirdest-macbook-pro-problem-so-far/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Apple iPhone may not fail</title>
		<link>http://www.technik-news.de/2006/12/23/why-the-apple-iphone-may-not-fail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.technik-news.de/2006/12/23/why-the-apple-iphone-may-not-fail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer gear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.am/?p=171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reading an article in The Register by Bill Ray, he thinks the Apple iPhone will fail, actually, fail badly. I somewhat doubt his conclusions. The main argument to support his analysis is that since network operators have to like the phone, then Apple has to do a good job convincing them. Remember the ROKR? It [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading an <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/23/iphone_will_fail/" target="_blank">article in The Register by Bill Ray</a>, he thinks the Apple iPhone will fail, actually, fail badly. I somewhat doubt his conclusions.</p>
<p>The main argument to support his analysis is that since network operators have to like the phone, then Apple has to do a good job convincing them. <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/phone.html?pg=1&amp;topic=phone&amp;topic_set=" target="_blank">Remember the ROKR</a>? It was rather a failure due to the fact it could only be loaded with iTunes music over cable, and thus mobile operators were left out of attractive data chargers levied when buying music directly from the phone. There was even speculation that Apple allowed it to launch on purpose, to protect their audio player market.<br />
Where Bill goes wrong in my opinion is that the handset market is heavily controlled in the US, but not in Europe &#8211; go to any shop in the latter and you will have a very large variety of handsets to buy unsubsidized. Why? Because a lot of people value the ability to switch operators as they see fit, without having to enter into contracts involving their soul. In the US, there isn’t a culture of operator hopping, but rather of staying with one just to get a phone $50 or $100 cheaper.</p>
<p>One thing I have never understood is why people get themselves tied into a two year contract for a $50 saving. If they worked out how much they could save by moving operators taking advantage of special offers, they may think twice.</p>
<p>There is a very large number of paths Apple could follow, first, they have a nice distribution network with excellent shops placed in key areas, second, they have a large and loyal crowd of followers, who would probably not mind paying an unsubsidized device, and third, there are already a number of MVNOs and fixed-line operators that are willing to take a bite from the large networks. As for the subsidy, I wonder…are iPods subsidized by anyone? Apple costumers are used to pay for quality, and in my view, the iPhone will be no different.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technik-news.de/2006/12/23/why-the-apple-iphone-may-not-fail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

