or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

No. On press reports.
Because several companies rushed devices to market between the time the rumors tilted to "likely" and when Apple Watch was announced. The tech press at the time was quite clear about the sequence - just go back and look at August/September articles.
In the specific case of the Apple Watch, that's EXACTLY what happened. But not in this one.
That will be interesting to watch. However it seems that Samsung is using an existing supplier so maybe the patent issue is solved? I don't know but it certainly could be "fun".
Actually, no. TouchID arrived with iPhone 5s in September 2013. That's over a year ago. An "age" in Internet time.
Many people misunderstand what it would be, and think an iOS-based laptop would just be like OS X. Which is quite false. Some others think that an ARM-based laptop (say, MacBook Air) would have to run iOS. Which again is silly. You could have such a laptop and it would run fat binaries (x86/ARM, just like we used to have PPC/x86 fat binaries). And even run x86 binaries if Apple builds Rosetta2. OS X with ARM is no big problem, just a couple of smaller ones. As I have said...
Yes - as I said at the start, Swift in itself is not part of any x86/ARM solution. What the development of Swift shows is that Apple now has the talent to develop a Rosetta2. That wasn't possible ten or fifteen years ago. It is now. 
Maybe I was the first to introduce Swift to the discussion, but I'm prepared to take the fall. My point is not that Swift is a magic solution to x86/ARM issues - it clearly is not. It's that the development of Swift has shown that Apple has the talent and the patience to develop all the pieces necessary for a seamless x86->ARM transition, like the PPC->x86 transition. I haven't looked at the tools for over a year, but Xcode can build for x86 (32/64) and ARM and there are...
Twenty, maybe. A thousand? You should be selling real estate.
 I am not sure how MS plans to run all apps on both x86 and ARM, unless they have fat-binaries. Which they can readily do for MS apps, but you mentioned all apps. That sounds like a Rosetta-style emulation if it indeed means all. My point was different. I am not so concerned with x86/ARM differences, but with iOS/OS X ones. Apple can readily bridge the x86/ARM divide as I described in a recent post. Work on fat binaries, work with developers for "major" apps, stay with a...
New Posts  All Forums: