Thread: FINALLY figured out why RIM doesn't repartition the App memory......

The reason is simple (I came to this realization reading the Storm2 spec sheet over on CB)

S2 is listed as having 256MB of Flash memory, and 2GB of something called eMMC

By the logic, one could assume the following:

S1 has 128MB of Flash memory, and 1GB of eMMC

eMMC is a low-cost memory technology which uses a MultiMediaCard controller (once a popular flash memory standard in some digital cameras). It is an older technology, and a relatively slow technology. (eMMC stands for Embedded MultiMediaCard). It's main advantage is its small size (the memory and controller fit into a ball-grid-array chip) - higher speed versions are not all that slow, it can run up to 52MB/sec; however i'm sure the version RIM is using is much slower.

The "Flash" memory, on the other hand; is likely the expensive Single Level Cell design (used in high-end flash drives and SSDs) - that is why there is so little of it. What it boils down to is this: the eMMC memory is more suited to media storage than running apps. Apps would likely launch unacceptably slow from the eMMC memory, especially as they become more complex.

I'm sure RIM COULD allocate the eMMC to app storage; after all PPC devices can use SD cards to store apps. However, if you are using a slower, less expensive SD card, app loading performance can be downright painful. Perhaps RIM just wants to maintain relatively quick loading times, and thus only allow apps to run from the smaller Flash memory.

Great post!

great post i never really looked at it like that

Makes sense... after loading the OS (which uses about 80ishmb of the flash) whats left is all we got for our apps... and if they went to the eMMC for more mem, we'd all bitch n complain bout how slow it was!

I started thinking about it, and it started making sense. It's sort of like looking at a netbook computer with an SD card slot and a SSD hard disc. The SD card would be painfully slow to boot an OS from, whereas the SSD would be a whole lot faster. I sort of figured that the Storage memory would use something slower as there is alot more of it. The App memory is sort of like the hard disc. The Storage memory is sort of like the slow external USB drive you back your music and pics up to.

Now, the only mystery remaining is this:

How much SYSTEM RAM does the S1 have vs. S2? That would explain the fact that people have reported the S2 to "feel" faster than the S1 though they share the same processor.

Originally Posted by Drukan

Makes sense... after loading the OS (which uses about 80ishmb of the flash) whats left is all we got for our apps... and if they went to the eMMC for more mem, we'd all bitch n complain bout how slow it was!

Actually, i'm afraid what would happen is we'd have the 4.7.0.75 fiasco all over again:

We'd be looking at the busy indicator more often than we'd be using the device...... :laugh2:

Very interesting post, I appreciated your rationale and the thought you put into this. I wish someone would perform a tear down so we could find out if you are correct.

rim could give us more flash memory for apps. half the flash memory goes to the os...we cant download our hearts out like the iphone which i believe uses 16gb and 32gb of flash memory.

yea but we can run more apps at the same time and iphone doesn't so all depends on what you want on your phone.
thanks for the post that makes sense.

nice post. it would be nice if we could have a choice as to where to download the apps to though. we could put the less used apps on the sd card and the frequently used apps on the flash memory. RIM could put in a "warning" message stating that apps loaded on the sd card would load considerably slower than apps loaded on the flash memory...give us more control over our berrys.

Originally Posted by catstide

nice post. it would be nice if we could have a choice as to where to download the apps to though. we could put the less used apps on the sd card and the frequently used apps on the flash memory. RIM could put in a "warning" message stating that apps loaded on the sd card would load considerably slower than apps loaded on the flash memory...give us more control over our berrys.

Yea, PDA's do this to keep the phone memory usage down. When i was on WinMo/PDA i would install all the app that weren't on my Today screen (home screen) and the phone ran fine. Really surprised RIM doesn't do this.

Originally Posted by P3Designs

Very interesting post, I appreciated your rationale and the thought you put into this. I wish someone would perform a tear down so we could find out if you are correct.

Looking at this pic of the Storm's motherboard over on CB:

Blame the Accelerometer!!!.... - BlackBerry Forums at CrackBerry.com

You'll notice the memory IC in the second pic at the upper lefthand corner of the board. It states that the IC contains 3 different types of memory:

MoviNAND - the eMMC memory I was referring to. It is by no means slow (up to 52MB/sec) in its high-end configuration; but i'd be willing to bet that RIM is using the 1.8v x1 bus width configuration in the Storm (power savings and cost savings) - It's biggest advantage is high densities (up to 32GB). Also remember that the 52MB/sec spec is generally measured transferring one large file. A scenario which doesn't happen very often on a BlackBerry - so actual memory performance is likely to be much slower.

SAMSUNG Semiconductor - Products - Fusion Memory - MoviNAND

OneNAND - Acheives 2.8MB/sec performance in apps (actual performace vs. theoretical maximum). Available in 128MB and 256MB densities (sound familiar?) - optimized for copying from NAND flash to DRAM. Also has an integrated OTP block for enhanced security (could lead some merit to RIM saying they disable running Apps from anything but App memory) - unfortunately, only goes up to 256MB; that's why there is so little of it.

SAMSUNG Semiconductor - Products - Fusion Memory - OneNAND

Mobile DDR - a small-form factor version of the same DDR RAM we all know and love from the PC world. The actual system RAM, if you may. Unfortunately, the actual amount of Mobile DDR inside of the Storm (or Storm2) seems to be an elusive spec to hunt down.

So it would appear that the memory limitations are both a limitation of the technology, and a security limitation. If the MoviNAND doesn't support the OTP block, then it's highly unlikely that RIM will ever allow apps to run from it; as security is their middle name.

The iPhone likely has no need for an OTP block, so Apple is simply using 8, 16, 32, or 64GB of MLC Flash memory (same type found in consumer USB flash drives) for application storage. The parts breakdown for the 16GB iPhone 3GS shows the total component cost for the MLC flash to be $24; around what one would pay for an average consumer 16GB flash drive. Crazy enough, this is also the most expensive component in the 3GS.

Thanks...great info!

GREAT POST!!! It all makes sense...

Well this is just sad then. To think that we are limited to 128 MB of app memory space is horrid.

Meanwhile all those happy IPhone campers are out there playing with 150 MB GAMES!!!

Originally Posted by Dave12308

The iPhone likely has no need for an OTP block, so Apple is simply using 8, 16, 32, or 64GB of MLC Flash memory (same type found in consumer USB flash drives) for application storage. The parts breakdown for the 16GB iPhone 3GS shows the total component cost for the MLC flash to be $24; around what one would pay for an average consumer 16GB flash drive. Crazy enough, this is also the most expensive component in the 3GS.

I'm not sure how you meant the "crazy enough" comment, but if I take it literally, then no, it's not really far fetched. It's the only reason why any iPod with double the memory capacity of the next highest is anywhere from $50 to $200 more. Although, the prices tend to be fairly arbitrary at times (latest-gen 8GB iPod Touch is only $100 cheaper than the 32GB which also has performance enhancements and voice control), implying that Apple has been able to cheapen the cost of flash memory components enough that they will make a huge profit regardless.

Originally Posted by Mapex

I'm not sure how you meant the "crazy enough" comment, but if I take it literally, then no, it's not really far fetched. It's the only reason why any iPod with double the memory capacity of the next highest is anywhere from $50 to $200 more. Although, the prices tend to be fairly arbitrary at times (latest-gen 8GB iPod Touch is only $100 cheaper than the 32GB which also has performance enhancements and voice control), implying that Apple has been able to cheapen the cost of flash memory components enough that they will make a huge profit regardless.

I said "crazy enough" because I figured with flash memory prices being at the low point they currently are; the actual device chipset would be the most expensive component. Admittedly, I am more familiar with component pricing in the PC world, but generally the CPU tends to be more expensive than the hard disc. With the iPhone's chipset encompassing the CPU, GPU, and baseband processor; I figured it'd be by far the most expensive part.

Originally Posted by MrTruckincowboy

yea but we can run more apps at the same time and iphone doesn't so all depends on what you want on your phone.
thanks for the post that makes sense.

thats true...forgot about that.

Great Post... Thanks..
A question, can you safely remove any Operating system files to increase free memory?
If so million dollar question... which files.
Cheers

Originally Posted by Dave12308

Looking at this pic of the Storm's motherboard over on CB:

Blame the Accelerometer!!!.... - BlackBerry Forums at CrackBerry.com

You'll notice the memory IC in the second pic at the upper lefthand corner of the board. It states that the IC contains 3 different types of memory:

MoviNAND - the eMMC memory I was referring to. It is by no means slow (up to 52MB/sec) in its high-end configuration; but i'd be willing to bet that RIM is using the 1.8v x1 bus width configuration in the Storm (power savings and cost savings) - It's biggest advantage is high densities (up to 32GB). Also remember that the 52MB/sec spec is generally measured transferring one large file. A scenario which doesn't happen very often on a BlackBerry - so actual memory performance is likely to be much slower.

SAMSUNG Semiconductor - Products - Fusion Memory - MoviNAND

OneNAND - Acheives 2.8MB/sec performance in apps (actual performace vs. theoretical maximum). Available in 128MB and 256MB densities (sound familiar?) - optimized for copying from NAND flash to DRAM. Also has an integrated OTP block for enhanced security (could lead some merit to RIM saying they disable running Apps from anything but App memory) - unfortunately, only goes up to 256MB; that's why there is so little of it.

SAMSUNG Semiconductor - Products - Fusion Memory - OneNAND

Mobile DDR - a small-form factor version of the same DDR RAM we all know and love from the PC world. The actual system RAM, if you may. Unfortunately, the actual amount of Mobile DDR inside of the Storm (or Storm2) seems to be an elusive spec to hunt down.

So it would appear that the memory limitations are both a limitation of the technology, and a security limitation. If the MoviNAND doesn't support the OTP block, then it's highly unlikely that RIM will ever allow apps to run from it; as security is their middle name.

The iPhone likely has no need for an OTP block, so Apple is simply using 8, 16, 32, or 64GB of MLC Flash memory (same type found in consumer USB flash drives) for application storage. The parts breakdown for the 16GB iPhone 3GS shows the total component cost for the MLC flash to be $24; around what one would pay for an average consumer 16GB flash drive. Crazy enough, this is also the most expensive component in the 3GS.

as far as i know, and your post supports me, the "secure" nand thats limited in size contains the OS and the apps, which are loaded into RAM on boot. (i asume that before the security check), then the mentioned check, surely controlls that the info loaded matches the one on the secure nand, or something like that.

rim COULD make insecure apps not meant for the enterprise "storable" on the large nand, and only load them to RAM when needed, but that would be really not blackberry, surelly slow to open apps, and.. blablabla :P

Excellent thread...

@gabrimen