I figured they would keep the same case design after watching last years behind the scenes videos on how these were made. All that tooling had to costs tens of millions.
If that 40% CPU performance improvement is on single core performance, it is incredible, even more so if the A10 has not moved to 10nm. Intel needs to be very worried. Apple should just buy global foundries and go straight for Intel
Would it make sense for their dual-core S2-series SIP to also use the big.LITTLE philosophy since most common tasks (at least with me) on the Watch are simple?
Maybe it's just two of their custom low-powered cores from the A10 Fusion, rather than some generic Cortex thing. Doubt they have the power budget in there to use one of their "big" cores.
Funnily enough, the ARM instruction set does have a "TINY" mode. Rather than 32 bit instructions, its all 16 bit. The idea is to increase code density at the expense of performance. You can switch between TINY and normal mode in mid-codestream.
So they have millions of unsold cases that they have to fill with the new internals?? And no mention of how the luxury version has sunk without a trace?
1) Why assume that the casing would change every year?
2) I highly doubt that Apple would have manufactured millions casings without any sales.
3) Once we get a teardown, I bet we'll find some internal differences to the casings, just like we see every other year with the 'S' series despite the external casing looking the same as the previous year's model.
1) Because a common complaint is that the Watch is too thick 2) If that was true, why did the Apple supply chain suffer a massive destocking of iPhone 6S parts last year. And why was the Apple Watch widely on sale at $50-100 discount last year. It was designed and costed on x number sold to justify the investment in machinery, and pricing. Failing to reach these levels would impact cost prices and margins. 3) Here you may be correct...
1) There are a lot of "common" complaints, but thickness isn't a reasonable one when traditional watches are often considerably thicker (and heavier).
2) The price dropped because interest waned to a point that dropping the price was advantageous to their bottom line, not because they made millions upon millions of extra Watch casings. I don't even know how you think your rationale would remotely make any sense. Do you think that the original iPhone had millions and millions of cases which is why they dropped the price and the 4GB model months after it first went on sale?
Wow, really impressed with this. It was more exciting than the iPhone release for me. It finally addresses consumers in the sports category who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for Garmin's and FitBit's. It will be interesting if this helps the Apple Watch recover or if it's too little, too late.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
14 Comments
Back to Article
Morawka - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link
I figured they would keep the same case design after watching last years behind the scenes videos on how these were made. All that tooling had to costs tens of millions.I'm really digging the white on white.
whiteiphoneproblems - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link
Interesting that they've upgraded the processor of the original "Series."osxandwindows - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link
Nice. Will you guys be doing a preview on the new a10?Speedfriend - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
If that 40% CPU performance improvement is on single core performance, it is incredible, even more so if the A10 has not moved to 10nm. Intel needs to be very worried. Apple should just buy global foundries and go straight for Intel0iron - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link
(that’s 164 feet for the three countries that do not use metric units) - LOL. Myanmar (Burma), Liberia and the United States are those three.I guess I have an answer why anandtech use metric system!
solipsism - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
Would it make sense for their dual-core S2-series SIP to also use the big.LITTLE philosophy since most common tasks (at least with me) on the Watch are simple?klagermkii - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
Maybe it's just two of their custom low-powered cores from the A10 Fusion, rather than some generic Cortex thing. Doubt they have the power budget in there to use one of their "big" cores.solipsism - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
Think of it as little.TINY. :Dstux - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
Funnily enough, the ARM instruction set does have a "TINY" mode. Rather than 32 bit instructions, its all 16 bit. The idea is to increase code density at the expense of performance. You can switch between TINY and normal mode in mid-codestream.Speedfriend - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
So they have millions of unsold cases that they have to fill with the new internals?? And no mention of how the luxury version has sunk without a trace?solipsism - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
1) Why assume that the casing would change every year?2) I highly doubt that Apple would have manufactured millions casings without any sales.
3) Once we get a teardown, I bet we'll find some internal differences to the casings, just like we see every other year with the 'S' series despite the external casing looking the same as the previous year's model.
Speedfriend - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
1) Because a common complaint is that the Watch is too thick2) If that was true, why did the Apple supply chain suffer a massive destocking of iPhone 6S parts last year. And why was the Apple Watch widely on sale at $50-100 discount last year. It was designed and costed on x number sold to justify the investment in machinery, and pricing. Failing to reach these levels would impact cost prices and margins.
3) Here you may be correct...
solipsism - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link
1) There are a lot of "common" complaints, but thickness isn't a reasonable one when traditional watches are often considerably thicker (and heavier).2) The price dropped because interest waned to a point that dropping the price was advantageous to their bottom line, not because they made millions upon millions of extra Watch casings. I don't even know how you think your rationale would remotely make any sense. Do you think that the original iPhone had millions and millions of cases which is why they dropped the price and the 4GB model months after it first went on sale?
flgt - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
Wow, really impressed with this. It was more exciting than the iPhone release for me. It finally addresses consumers in the sports category who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for Garmin's and FitBit's. It will be interesting if this helps the Apple Watch recover or if it's too little, too late.