> you're not being critical, that is to say discerning, enough in forming your opinion.

History has taught me who *not* to trust when it's someone's word against Cherrypal's.

> You saw some forum post at a cherrypal.com support forum that referred to
> speed and memory

Yes, and you saw it too.

> but it is not the complete picture

Then show me the "complete picture", please.

> and it doesn't back up what you claim.

Let's check that out. I wrote that Cherrypal's "recent cheap product doesn't meet the claimed specs". Cherrypal's claimed specs for the C515 are 800 MHz for the ARM11 CPU and 2 GB for the Flash drive. The forum post says that dmesg shows 500 MHz for the CPU and 512 MB for the Flash drive. You don't need an academic degree in mathematics to see the discrepancies of 300 MHz for the CPU and 1.5 GB for the Flash drive. So in essence, you're wrong in saying that the forum post doesn't back up what I claim.

> You say Cherrypal has engaged in false marketing

Yes, it very much seems that it has done so. And it had done so before as you pointed out a year ago.

> I say it's not that simple.

I'm curious about your explanation.

> The spec as applies to CPU speed in an SoC could mean more
> than the result logged by the poster. It could refer to the effective
> speed of the CPU combined with the other stuff on the chip.

You mean the ARM11 core really operates at only 500 MHz as said in the forum post and Cherrypal added the clock frequencies of other cores of the Telechips SoC to reach the claimed 800 MHz figure? If yes, that would be false marketing on the part of Cherrypal at its best. Clock frequencies simply don't work that way. An Intel Core i7 processor with six cores operating at 3.3 GHz each operates at 3.3 GHz overall, not at 20 GHz. Or to stay more in the context of this site: the MPC5121e with an e300 core operating at 400 MHz, an AXE unit operating at 200 MHz and a PowerVR unit operating at 100 MHz operates at 400 MHz overall, not at 700 MHz.

> the poster's memory measurement depends on a variety of factors,
> like how much is being used for system processes.

You seem to have missed that I only referred to the ARM11 core's clock frequency figure and the Flash drive's size figure. I deliberatly didn't refer to the RAM figure, so your point is moot.

> it marketed a $188 tablet, and who else did that? No-one else. No-one else did that.

Yes, no one else has marketed a $188 tablet. But some have marketed even sub-$188 tablets, going as low as some $100:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6726&forum=11&post_id=78352#78352

Some more, in chronological order with Cherrypal's announcement included:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/06/firstviews-95-android-windows-ce-pc607v-tips-a-craptablet-ic/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/11/92-md500-android-tablet-from-hott-actually-looks-pretty-cool/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/ekens-100-android-mid-reviewed-you-get-what-you-pay-for/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/augens-150-android-tablet-hits-kmart-circular-coming-to-store/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/10/archos-32-internet-tablet-now-shipping-for-150-redefining-th/
----------> Cherrypal announces $188 CherryPad America tablet <----------
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/27/walgreens-now-selling-100-maylong-m-150-android-tablet/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/09/sylvanias-7-inch-android-tablet-now-ready-to-disappoint-swallo/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/14/toys-r-us-black-friday-doorbuster-includes-80-netbook-140-syl/