[mwfunk]

It seems way more likely that in the decision to go with a 64-bit CPU vs. 2 GB RAM, the pros outweighed the cons. I mean, who knows, but these kinds of decisions aren't made based on the simplistic criteria you're claiming they are. There are pros and cons (and benefits and compromises) to any engineering decision (and product design decision, and business decision, and marketing decision, etc. etc. etc.).

I could easily see a situation where a bunch of people were sitting around saying, "y'know, we don't absolutely positively NEED a 64-bit processor, but it doesn't cost much more and there might be some performance gains and if nothing else it might be a good bullet point for marketing. On the other hand, doubling the RAM will double what we pay for RAM, it won't help performance, and it will eat into the power budget, and it wouldn't make a good bullet point for marketing. The only downside is that denim_chicken will think we're being nefarious and will tell the world about it on HN."

I have no idea if that's what happened, but Occam's Razor suggests that it's more likely than the combination of pure evil and pure incompetence that you've been postulating here.

[mwfunk]

(none of which means that they aren't going to do exactly what you say they will, either, just not for the reasons you seem to be basing it on)

[corresation]

On the other hand, doubling the RAM will double what we pay for RAM, it won't help performance, and it will eat into the power budget, and it wouldn't make a good bullet point for marketing.

The power consumption angle is a complete and utter non-issue. It generally comes up as an apologetic canard to justify Apple's choice here, but in the holistic sense the power difference between 1GB and 2GB is negligible. Note that the ARMv8 processor, however, is a serious power pig.

However the limited memory should be an issue for people. I personally seriously considered a 5S to replace my GS3, largely for the fantastic camera, but the window of credible life for the 5S is simply too short -- 1GB just isn't enough, and seems especially deficient compared to such a fantastic processor.

[pslam]

The power consumption difference between 1GB and 2GB is far from negligible, both in auto-refresh (active) and self-refresh (sleep) mode.

It's a significant fraction of total power draw when asleep. You also have to account for PMU efficiency being pretty low when running at low current, so minor changes are an even larger difference. There's plenty of publicly available figures you can find to research this - find the "IDD6" self-refresh current in an lpDDR datasheet. Scale to the size of DDR you want, compare with battery rating adjusted for voltage.

[corresation]

It's a significant fraction of total power draw when asleep.

So a device with 2GB should have a significantly smaller standby time than one with 1GB, right, given that, by your claims, it's a significant fraction. Only that isn't true at all, and straight comparisons between, for instance, the GS3 international (1GB) and the GS3 Snapdragon (2GB) shows absolutely no reduction in two-week+ standby time. Of course all else isn't the same (it never is), and there are other power profile changes between them, but it certainly isn't remotely significant of a power draw.

Because in the profile of a smartphone it is absolutely negligible. Your phone is always in radio contact with the cell tower, that absolutely dwarfing all other power consumers. When you turn it actively on, the screen and the CPU absolutely dominate power consumption. There is no case where memory on smartphones is remotely a significant power consumer.

The iPhone has 1GB because that maximizes Apple profits. Every justification are like the hilariously silly claims when the iPhone was 3.5" so many had to justify why 3.5" was the ultimate size and aspect ratio. And it'll immediately shift again once Apple adds 2GB and a 5" screen to the iPhone 6.

[jryle70]

Of course Apple tries to maximize the profit. I fail to find any business that doesn't try to do the same. It's called for-profit after all.

The question is, why doesn't Apple try to earn even more money by keeping the same A6 processor as in iPhone 5? Why bother to upgrade to A7 at all? Also, including an extra GB of RAM would cost Apple much less than upgrading to a whole new processor, don't you think?

[melange]

There is no such thing as an 'ARMv8' processor that can even be a 'power pig'. And you haven't given any reason why 1GB is not enough. You are just making this stuff up.

[corresation]

We are talking about the Apple iPhone 5s. In that context, anyone not a moron knows exactly what I am talking about. Shush, you have zero interesting things to say and are just a defensive blowhard. Maybe Apple will send you a t-shirt or something.

[corresation]

I'll take every down arrow, but it is nonsense that melange isn't sitting in the sub-zero realm as well. Their garbage post was factually wrong, added absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is the classic demonstration of a buyers' defense.

[melange]

Please offer some kind of reference supporting your claim that the arm chip in the iPhone 5s is power inefficient.

[corresation]

You mean the ARMv8 processor that doesn't exist? How about the fact that the iPhone 5S includes a significantly higher capacity battery, but in any CPU usage scenario sees a sometimes significant longevity regression.

[denim_chicken]

But why didn't Apple increase the RAM _and_ upgrade the processor?

[msbarnett]

Because increasing costs and increasing power usage wasn't outweighed by any marketing/sales gains to be had by doing so?