or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bsimpsen

This makes sense. Microsoft, Sony, Ericson and RIMM don't want Samsung-Android steamrolling through the mobile market, so they let Apple purchase the most useful patents for their existing fight, while taking a license for them. They retain the defensive value of the portfolio while allowing Apple to go after Samsung.
I believe you mistyped your claim that ARM doesn't run iOS.   There have been numerous rumors of MacBook Air chassis running OS X on ARM. It would be hard to believe that Apple was running parallel PowerPC/X86 development of OS X, then forked OS X to ARM for iOS, but did not pursue full OS X on ARM. That would be a lot less work than the parallel PowerPC/X86 projects.   And here's another interesting angle on...
I'd read that Apple has an architectural license, but wasn't sure about an instruction set license. The latter would be ideal, as the license cost is lower and Apple seems to have the talent to design from scratch. This would decouple Apple from ARM's development timeline.
I think it would be good news for both. If Apple is able to improve performance at the same price and/or reduce price at the same performance while maintaining margin, everybody benefits, except the middleman who's been cut out.
They already did field a chip that was much larger than the competition. Analysts were surprised by the large die size of the A5, and reasoned (correctly) that Apple could afford the extra silicon because they'd dispensed with the margins of a Qualcomm or NVIDIA.
Core Audio, Core Animation, Core Image, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenCL, Grand Central Disptach all exist under iOS. Anyone who's developed using Cocoa needn't do much more than recompile. Just as Apple ran parallel development of OS X for PowerPC/X86, they're doing it for ARM. The differentiation of iOS/OS X is functional, not architectural. It's already been reported (take it with a grain of salt, but only a grain) that MacBook Air chassis have been tested running OS X on...
Don't ask me how running Office on Apple hardware is better, ask all those who say Apple is doomed without that capability. I haven't used Office in ten years. I'm simply saying that Apple is capable of addressing that issue, if it is an issue, and many claim it is.
Agreed, Microsoft's move to ARM is reactive. Apple's agglomeration of chip design experts seems proactive to me.
I'd much rather see Apple make Windows compatibility irrelevant by fielding good native applications (or creating an environment attractive enough for others to do so), so I agree that Win RT emulation will probably not be a big deal. While Apple may have seen the ability to virtualize Windows as important during the PowerPC->Intel transition, I don't think they're seeing that now.
Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.   When Apple...
New Posts  All Forums: