What's up with the 1 GB RAM requirement ?

[Sanjay Chandra]

Microsoft could set minimum hardware requirement that state that mid-range phones should have 1GB and high-end phones should have 2GB of ram. Or they could disapprove apps that require 1GB of ram.

The manufactures are also to blame. For example take the Lumia 720, which is going to be for sale within the next few weeks. They could have released the phone with 1GB ram and it would not be a significant cost increase.

Smartphones with 1GB or ram have been on the market for over 2 years and 2 years is a long time in smartphone world.

Soon developers will start developing games that need a minimum of 1GB ram and a 1280x720 resolution.

The fault is a combination of Microsoft, phone manufacturers and Developers and not just one of them.

In , SoCs RAM is integrated unlike PCs where RAM can be replaced in slots.

Amount of RAM significantly rises lot of cost of an SoC , that's why even for Apple Line-up , iPhones and iPads have 1 GB RAM because they cost more while iPad Mini and iPod Touch have 512 MB RAM to cut down costs.

Not only that, RAM also effects stand-by time and battery drain during Multitasking (more RAM = more apps in background = more battery drain for same amount of time) which means OEM must also increase the battery capacity if they increase RAM.That's why higher end devices with more RAM always have more capacity batteries.

 

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

In , SoCs RAM is integrated unlike PCs where RAM can be replaced in slots.

Amount of RAM significantly rises lot of cost of an SoC , that's why even for Apple Line-up , iPhones and iPads have 1 GB RAM because they cost more while iPad Mini and iPod Touch have 512 MB RAM to cut down costs.

Not only that, RAM also effects stand-by time and battery drain during Multitasking (more RAM = more apps in background = more battery drain for same amount of time) which means OEM must also increase the battery capacity if they increase RAM.That's why higher end devices with more RAM always have more capacity batteries.

Never realised the price hike was so steep for RAM increases and that it was built into the SoC. The more background processes thing makes sense though. And as such the effect on battery. Good insightful post, cheers! I feel smarter for reading that.

 

[Mirtas]

In , SoCs RAM is integrated unlike PCs where RAM can be replaced in slots.

Amount of RAM significantly rises lot of cost of an SoC , that's why even for Apple Line-up , iPhones and iPads have 1 GB RAM because they cost more while iPad Mini and iPod Touch have 512 MB RAM to cut down costs.

Not only that, RAM also effects stand-by time and battery drain during Multitasking (more RAM = more apps in background = more battery drain for same amount of time) which means OEM must also increase the battery capacity if they increase RAM.That's why higher end devices with more RAM always have more capacity batteries.

Thank you for your informative post. Yet there are many mid-range Android phones (that cost less than the 720) and have more than 512mb of ram. I do not know the costs differences in Soc, but it should not be that significant as these phones are cheaper than WP with similar hardware. The older MSM8225 supports 768mb ram, yet the newer MSM8227 supports 512mb ram. Surely WP hardware manufacturers can choose better hardware, as WP need to gain market share by offering something better than the current market. In terms of basic hardware like CPU/GPU/RAM they are not thing this.

The battery drain argument is actually also being used to support more ram. More RAM = more apps in the background = less stress on CPU to load apps = better battery time. Unfortunately I cannot find any research to support any of the 2 arguments.

In my opinion Windows Phones are lacking behind in hardware and the consequences are that mid-range phones cannot play the latest games. Which goes against the whole idea that WP runs better on slower/older/less hardware.

 

[Angry_Mushroom]

Wrong. Microsoft's store, Microsoft's rules. Welcome to the world of walled gardens. They can do whatever they want, and you'll have to take your lovely idealism to the open plains.

If this is your response, you're saying that we should add performance to the list of flaws in the WP7 → WP8 transition.

To be totally fair. It appears that Google Play and the Apps store for Apple is just as walled a garden as the MS store. That or google has been lying out of its poo chute about reviewing the apps that show up in its store.

Then there's the issue of increasing RAM size. While I sincerely doubt it raises the costs that much, I think the product lineup is a major consideration in hardware specs. Granted my perception might be skewed. (How much of a price increase for half a gig? 50 dollars?) I don't think Nokia wants the 720 and onwards to be too close to the 820. Nokia seems to be balancing their product lineup on a razor thin edge. So increasing their lower end's specs would likely put it too close to the midrange Nokia devices.

 

[ChMar]

Thank you for your informative post. Yet there are many mid-range Android phones (that cost less than the 720) and have more than 512mb of ram. I do not know the costs differences in Soc, but it should not be that significant as these phones are cheaper than WP with similar hardware. The older MSM8225 supports 768mb ram, yet the newer MSM8227 supports 512mb ram. Surely WP hardware manufacturers can choose better hardware, as WP need to gain market share by offering something better than the current market. In terms of basic hardware like CPU/GPU/RAM they are not thing this.

I once was working on a pc version of a multi-platform game. The size of the game was 720 mb and needed a DVD as it's media. The publisher agreed to pay 1 more week of development and to sacrifice some texture and model quality just so it could ship the game on CD media(saving $0.1 per installation media). They didn't even remade the casing or manual to state the difference. Apparently that 1 cent difference per unit was more worth it for them. I expect it adds up in volumes. So I believe this is the case here too. OEMs are willing to same just a tiny fraction of the cost per device by providing less RAM or a bit lower camera. Offering better hw when it is not needed is not what apple or OEMs using wp are willing to do. Those specs war works for geeks not for casual consumer.

To be totally fair. It appears that Google Play and the Apps store for Apple is just as walled a garden as the MS store. That or google has been lying out of its poo chute about reviewing the apps that show up in its store.

Then there's the issue of increasing RAM size. While I sincerely doubt it raises the costs that much, I think the product lineup is a major consideration in hardware specs. Granted my perception might be skewed. (How much of a price increase for half a gig? 50 dollars?) I don't think Nokia wants the 720 and onwards to be too close to the 820. Nokia seems to be balancing their product lineup on a razor thin edge. So increasing their lower end's specs would likely put it too close to the midrange Nokia devices.

Increase in production cost per device means decrease in profits. And this is per unit sold so for a corporation is something truly important.

Wrong. Microsoft's store, Microsoft's rules. Welcome to the world of walled gardens. They can do whatever they want, and you'll have to take your lovely idealism to the open plains.

Do you realise the iPhone 4 was released in 2010? It predates every single retail Windows Phone 7 device, has 512MB RAM, and a chipset worse than the Snapdragon S2 (Mango devices).

If this is your response, you're saying that we should add performance to the list of flaws in the WP7 → WP8 transition.

RAM is not the bottleneck that anyone would expect a game like TR to hit.

Performance optimization has nothing to do with OS. It's about time and budget allocated for the project. Yes the os is 6 month old. And this mean nothing at all. In those 6 month how many apps have the developers pushed? Just 1(I'm not talking about flip the coin or ifart type of apps). So those devs that work(as in full-time job) have the experience of shipping 1 app. Their ability to predict costs or to optimize their overall experience on working with the platform is very limited. Then there is the problem with devices. For a company making apps they now have a large range of devices at their disposal to do testing and optimizations. For wp8 they most probably just have 1 type of device(flagship devices like 8x or lumia 920). You could test using deviceanywhere or a nokia solution for testing using remote desktop techniques. But this costs and is not as easy or useful as testing with your own device.

I believe that when the project manager assessed the time and budget needed for it's project it made some miscalculations. So they were all force to ship without being able to test on lower devices. And fear to launch on all spectrum of devices(in android this proves to be somewhat scary) without testing made them more willing to ship for only flagship devices.

Add to this that TR for example uses a fermium model. For it to bring profit people must buy coins buy in-app purchase. It's more likely that someone who had money for a flagship to be more willing to spend money for in-app purchases. Graphs shows that in emerging country mid-range is selling. So you could expect less ROI from people having mid or low end type of hardware.

So I don't see any reason to be scared about fragmentation in the long run

 

[rbxtreme]

To be totally fair. It appears that Google Play and the Apps store for Apple is just as walled a garden as the MS store. That or google has been lying out of its poo chute about reviewing the apps that show up in its store.

Then there's the issue of increasing RAM size. While I sincerely doubt it raises the costs that much, I think the product lineup is a major consideration in hardware specs. Granted my perception might be skewed. (How much of a price increase for half a gig? 50 dollars?) I don't think Nokia wants the 720 and onwards to be too close to the 820. Nokia seems to be balancing their product lineup on a razor thin edge. So increasing their lower end's specs would likely put it too close to the midrange Nokia devices.

that makes sense on part if Nokia, coz they just don't want to hurt the 920/820 which are placed higher. Think of it like this, people opting for a budget phone stop at a store and the sales guy tells them , this is the 720, 620 and the 520 . He also realizes that why would I pay the difference for half a gig, or a few megapixels, so Nokia makes it easier for him to choose from the 3. Now someone planning on getting a 920 would know that the phone would outperform the budget ones coz there's a premium involved. A majority of people who picked up a windows phone was because they found the OS refreshing and smooth. As an end customer I can't be too bothered about Nokia using this SOC instead of that. All that matters to me is the phone never dies out on me and does what I paid it to do.

 

[Angry_Mushroom]

As an end customer I can't be too bothered about Nokia using this SOC instead of that. All that matters to me is the phone never dies out on me and does what I paid it to do.

Amen to that. In the end that is what matters the most. The OS and the user contentment.

 

[Dave_97865]

If you decided to board the windows phone band wagon, be loyal to it.

I will be as loyal to M.S. as M.S. is to me which is ZERO, NADA, or even negative if that were possible. M.S. doesn't care if I live or go bankrupt or get kicked into the gutter.

I use MS phone because it is the best, and the moment it is the not the best, I will stop using it. Microsoft is doing things right, they aren't whining about the competition, they are looking straight ahead and doing their jobs as they need to be done, for the most part, running business the way business should be run. I respect them but if they fail they're on their own, if they can't make it, with a total of 2 whole competitors in the market.

 

[OzRob]

I will be as loyal to M.S. as M.S. is to me which is ZERO, NADA, or even negative if that were possible. M.S. doesn't care if I live or go bankrupt or get kicked into the gutter.

Well said. Microsoft never asked me whether I wanted it to get rid of ActiveSync in the core Win 8 metro opps during the last round of updates, thereby rendering my calendar useless even though Google hasn't yet switched off ActiveSync at its end.

Microsoft is a very large corporation and will do whatever Microsoft feels is in Microsoft's interests. If those interests align with mine, then that's great for me. If they don't, then so be it. The trouble with brand loyalty is it's only ever a one way street.

 

[rbxtreme]

I will be as loyal to M.S. as M.S. is to me which is ZERO, NADA, or even negative if that were possible. M.S. doesn't care if I live or go bankrupt or get kicked into the gutter.

I use MS phone because it is the best, and the moment it is the not the best, I will stop using it. Microsoft is doing things right, they aren't whining about the competition, they are looking straight ahead and doing their jobs as they need to be done, for the most part, running business the way business should be run. I respect them but if they fail they're on their own, if they can't make it, with a total of 2 whole competitors in the market.

GOOGLE/APPLE all the same

 

[spaulagain]

Well said. Microsoft never asked me whether I wanted it to get rid of ActiveSync in the core Win 8 metro opps during the last round of updates, thereby rendering my calendar useless even though Google hasn't yet switched off ActiveSync at its end.

Microsoft is a very large corporation and will do whatever Microsoft feels is in Microsoft's interests. If those interests align with mine, then that's great for me. If they don't, then so be it. The trouble with brand loyalty is it's only ever a one way street.

Yes they have. Google turned it off in January for any "new" set ups. I imagine that the update to the mail and calendar app required the account to be "reset" and therefore losing the Google Calendar sync as it was seen as a "new" set up to Google. That was the case with Windows Phone too.
This is all Google's fault for being pricks and dropping support so suddenly. MS is working on new integration, but that takes time.

Unless your work uses Google Calendar, why not switch your calendar to outlook?

I don't trust Google services, I've dropped everything of theirs except YouTube and Google Analytics.

 

[Narse77]

+1 on the moving to outlook. It works fantastic for me.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[travisel]

Thank you for your informative post. Yet there are many mid-range Android phones (that cost less than the 720) and have more than 512mb of ram. I do not know the costs differences in Soc, but it should not be that significant as these phones are cheaper than WP with similar hardware. The older MSM8225 supports 768mb ram, yet the newer MSM8227 supports 512mb ram. Surely WP hardware manufacturers can choose better hardware, as WP need to gain market share by offering something better than the current market. In terms of basic hardware like CPU/GPU/RAM they are not thing this.

The battery drain argument is actually also being used to support more ram. More RAM = more apps in the background = less stress on CPU to load apps = better battery time. Unfortunately I cannot find any research to support any of the 2 arguments.

In my opinion Windows Phones are lacking behind in hardware and the consequences are that mid-range phones cannot play the latest games. Which goes against the whole idea that WP runs better on slower/older/less hardware.

I believe this fall with "Blue" WP9 new hardware specs! "Above Android Galaxy S4!"

- Quad-Core Snapdragon 800 series (MSM8974) Adreno 330

- 2GB RAM

- 5" 1080p (441PPI) displays

- 3000mAh battery

- Nokia Lumia 940
- Samsung ATIV S2

1GB RAM (MSM8960) WP8 will become low-end Windows phone this fall.

 

[OzRob]

Unless your work uses Google Calendar, why not switch your calendar to outlook?

It's not me you have to convince of that. I do use Outlook, but my family uses a shared Google Calendar to organise our lives. Lets just say my family's interest in technology is on the low side, and you're a better man than I if you can persuade that lot to move to a different system. Not even the threat of Google invading my privacy would make me want to take on that task.

 

[AngryNil]

I believe this fall with "Blue" WP9 new hardware specs! "Above Android Galaxy S4!"

I'd bet against Snapdragon 800 & 3000mAh batteries. Windows Phone manufacturers have always, for some unknown reason, used smallish batteries. It's nice that Windows Phone can last a day on significantly less juice than an Android device, but the manufacturers seem to just put in smaller batteries so it evens out in the end.

Microsoft has (unfortunately) never chosen the top-of-the-line chipset for Windows Phone.

• 2010: chose S1 over S2
• 2011: chose S2 over S3
• 2012: chose S4 over S4 Pro
• 2013: will likely choose 600 over 800

 

[OzRob]

I imagine that the update to the mail and calendar app required the account to be "reset" and therefore losing the Google Calendar sync as it was seen as a "new" set up to Google. That was the case with Windows Phone too.

This is all Google's fault for being pricks and dropping support so suddenly. MS is working on new integration, but that takes time.

I think the situation with Windows 8 is different to WP8. See this article. It would seem Microsoft have deliberately curtailed calendar syncing, even though it's still turned on at Google's end. If MS is working on integration, why didn't it wait before pulling the plug. Seems like Google aren't the only pr!cks in the room!

 

[ChMar]

I'd bet against Snapdragon 800 & 3000mAh batteries. Windows Phone manufacturers have always, for some unknown reason, used smallish batteries. It's nice that Windows Phone can last a day on significantly less juice than an Android device, but the manufacturers seem to just put in smaller batteries so it evens out in the end.

Microsoft has (unfortunately) never chosen the top-of-the-line chipset for Windows Phone.

• 2010: chose S1 over S2
• 2011: chose S2 over S3
• 2012: chose S4 over S4 Pro
• 2013: will likely choose 600 over 800

It's not MS that does the choosing it's the OEMs. Since the os let's them run on lesser hw it's normal that the choose the cheapest solution. They would do the same on android landscape if lagging would not be a problem or if the market were not so oversaturated with Android devices that they need to go in to the specs race to differentiate and make the head lines.

 

[ChMar]

I think the situation with Windows 8 is different to WP8. See this article. It would seem Microsoft have deliberately curtailed calendar syncing, even though it's still turned on at Google's end. If MS is working on integration, why didn't it wait before pulling the plug. Seems like Google aren't the only pr!cks in the room!

When Google says it will kill EAS then says it will kill CalDAV and then later that it will kill EAS but not now or it will kill calDAV but you can white list it makes sense to move forward and not accept to be blackmailed or to have everything shutoff on a wimp by google.

 

[a5cent]

It's not MS that does the choosing it's the OEMs.

Actually, I know for a fact that this is not quite accurate. MS certifies the OS for each and every chipset it may run on. This group of chipsets is expanded over time, but never large. For WP8 their are currently three such chipsets. OEM's can choose any one of the certified chipsets, but nothing more.

 

[ChMar]

Actually, I know for a fact that this is not quite accurate. MS certifies the OS for each and every chipset it may run on. This group of chipsets is expanded over time, but never large. For WP8 their are currently three such chipsets. OEM's can choose any one of the certified chipsets, but nothing more.

Yes chipset must be certified. But this only means OEMs put up a request for a chipset to go through certifications. If OEMs truly wanted the best chipset they would have had it. Apple, MS, Blackberry are not running on the latest and greatest chipset because there is no such need for it. You can't stay on obsolete chipset of course but running on the latest and most powerful and expensive is not justifiable in all cases. Basically WP8 can run on any hw windows 8 can but for mobile purposes It will never make sense to make an i7 smartphone . I can only imagine the blast I could have to run visual studio on it.