or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones - Page 3

post #81 of 230
Well, by Samscum's release time frame, that's next May/June. And? BUT, is Android going to be 64 bit? If so, they had better be able to ship with a 64 bit OS, or are they going to ship with a 64 bit processor and still run 32 bit? It takes Samsung 6 months or so to modify Google's release before they can release theirs. SO, either Google's Kit Kat is 64 bit, or Google has to get off their asses with another release OR Samsung won't have their 64 bit version by May/June.

Scamscum sounds like damage control.
post #82 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Samsung are an embarrassing company. I'm surprised more people in the western world buy into their garbage.

I think they have a portion of their brain that might not be wired properly.  I talked to one person and told them all of the flaws in the platform, and they told me that they didn't care.  Just OS update policies and practices alone is enough not to buy an OEM Android product.

post #83 of 230

From a technical standpoint, 64 bits is not needed for a mobile device. This change is all about bragging rights.

 

Hopefully consumers will wise up to the lack of need for 64-bits and save themselves some money.

post #84 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Yeah I was thinking...Android I don't believe even supports 64-bit processing so whats the use? And, I don't believe there to be any kind of developer kit to make things 64-bit on Android. 
That's part of the issue when hardware and software come from two parties.

Neither one generally wants to be the one to spend the r&d on adding something that isn't supported by the other side. Creating a vicious cycle.

Samsung is so hung up on not being outdone by Apple because they want their stuff to be what beats the fruit that when Apple said they are doing 64 bit, Samsung felt they had to jump in publicly. So now that they have said this, Google will be pushed into work or risk that Samsung will make the changes for them. Which might not be a bad thing from a user point of view.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #85 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post

A 64-bit processor isn't a big deal unless the device has > 4GB of RAM. The fact that either company is using it for marketing purposes at this point is ridiculous. Will it make Apple's life easier to have iOS and OSX both as 64-bit? Sure. But just because 64 > 32 doesn't mean this was a revolutionary move on Apple's part. One day, phones may get more RAM and this move will pay off for consumers. Not right now. Even then, it's highly unlikely that a mobile OS in the next 10 years will allow a single application to address anywhere near 4GB of memory.

Keep in mind that since most Android apps are built entirely in Java, which runs on top of the Java Virtual Machine, all of these Android apps will run in 64-bit mode once the JVM is ported to run in 64-bit mode. They don't need to be rebuilt/resubmitted to the Play store. With Apple, most apps are compiled to native binaries (no VM layer). While this has performance benefits, it's going to be a pain in the ass for developers to migrate from 32 to 64-bit--significantly harder than it will be for Android developers. This is a step that Apple needed to take first. Remember their growing pains around the switch of OSX to 64-bit? Universal binaries vs. 32-bit binaries? Same problem they're trying to solve here.

 

There is a lot more to go with having 64 bit wide register than only addressing more than 4GB of ram.

 

Beside Android is currently years away from being a 64bit OS, the Linux kernel and userland needs to be ported first and than the whole Dalvik VM will all its library needs to be ported.

 

Can I ask you what pains you got from switch OSX to 64bit? The transition cannot have been smoother for Apple. All OSX apps  transparently run on any 32 or 64 bit Intel Macintoshs since OSX executable can bundle multiple arch binary.  Same thing will apply for iOS apps, developer will only need to flip a switch in there Xcode project to generate their 32/64 bits universal apps.   Android is very far from having a similar universal apps solution. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 9/12/13 at 8:40am
post #86 of 230
One step closer to 64 bit OSX on Arm.

My dream machine would have the functionality of OSX on an iPad pro with a wacom digitizer. That way I can run adobe illustrator and photoshop while sitting on the couch. Make it happen 1smile.gif
post #87 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnd0ps View Post

Also, from now on Samsung Executives will wear jeans, sneakers and black turtlenecks to all product announcements

White, after all they wouldn't want to be copying.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #88 of 230
And 64-bit Android will be out when...?
post #89 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by narnio View Post

From a technical standpoint, 64 bits is not needed for a mobile device. This change is all about bragging rights.

Hopefully consumers will wise up to the lack of need for 64-bits and save themselves some money.

I agree a bit. It may be overkill on a phone. But with a tablet perhaps not.

As for the money, if it comes with no overhead to the consumer versus the historical pricing, such as Apple has done, and might improve stability etc. Well why not.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #90 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post

A 64-bit processor isn't a big deal unless the device has > 4GB of RAM. The fact that either company is using it for marketing purposes at this point is ridiculous. Will it make Apple's life easier to have iOS and OSX both as 64-bit? Sure. But just because 64 > 32 doesn't mean this was a revolutionary move on Apple's part. One day, phones may get more RAM and this move will pay off for consumers. Not right now. Even then, it's highly unlikely that a mobile OS in the next 10 years will allow a single application to address anywhere near 4GB of memory.

Keep in mind that since most Android apps are built entirely in Java, which runs on top of the Java Virtual Machine, all of these Android apps will run in 64-bit mode once the JVM is ported to run in 64-bit mode. They don't need to be rebuilt/resubmitted to the Play store. With Apple, most apps are compiled to native binaries (no VM layer). While this has performance benefits, it's going to be a pain in the ass for developers to migrate from 32 to 64-bit--significantly harder than it will be for Android developers. This is a step that Apple needed to take first. Remember their growing pains around the switch of OSX to 64-bit? Universal binaries vs. 32-bit binaries? Same problem they're trying to solve here.

 

 

Yes, that was an awfully difficult transition from a user standpoint.

 

I remember weeping - WEEPING, when System Preferences occasionally had to close and re-open in 32-bit mode.

 

To be honest, I wonder if I'll ever get over the psychological scarring it caused.

post #91 of 230

Here's what the 'raw power' of 64-bit actually means.  Instead of a pointer to a location in memory being 32-bits, it's 64-bits.  Each bit can be 0 or 1 (2 states).  

 

So instead of 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes = 4,194,304 KB = 4,096 MB = 4 GB being the maximum memory address...

 

2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes = 18,014,398,509,481,984 KB = 17,592,186,044,416 MB = 17,179,869,184 GB = 16,777,216 TB = 16,384 PB = 16 EB (exabytes) is...

 

There is no other magical power to this.  It will be 2-3 years minimum before a cell phone has > 4GB of RAM in it.   With virtual memory management by the OS, it can allocate more than the 4GB/16EB limit to processes by swapping 'pages' of memory out to a larger but slower memory mechanism (disk)--think swap files... and so 4GB (32-bit) or 16EB (64-bit) is the maximum amount of memory any particular process can address.

 

Regardless of whether you hate Apple, Samsung, Google, Samsung, or RIM.... none of them is going to let your mobile app allocate 4GB of RAM (virtual or otherwise) because it would put too much strain on the rest of the OS and would be too I/O+battery intensive swapping pages in and out from flash memory... So for the time being, unless your an iOS developer who needs to change their code to support 64-bit addresses, this is buzz word marketing at it's best and you've all had too much Kool Aid.

 

FWIW, if Samsung is ripping off Apple by increasing addressable memory space, then Apple ripped off Windows who ripped off Linux just like Nintendo ripped off Sega who ripped off Nintendo who ripped off Atari.

post #92 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by narnio View Post
 

From a technical standpoint, 64 bits is not needed for a mobile device. This change is all about bragging rights.

 

Hopefully consumers will wise up to the lack of need for 64-bits and save themselves some money.

 

I think most of us forget how CPU intensive every day stuff like encryption, image, sound and video processing can be.  I'm pretty sure without the A7, Apple couldn't add so many feature to the photo apps or do 120fps 720p video on the iPhone 5S

post #93 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post

Keep in mind that since most Android apps are built entirely in Java, which runs on top of the Java Virtual Machine, all of these Android apps will run in 64-bit mode once the JVM is ported to run in 64-bit mode. They don't need to be rebuilt/resubmitted to the Play store. With Apple, most apps are compiled to native binaries (no VM layer). While this has performance benefits, it's going to be a pain in the ass for developers to migrate from 32 to 64-bit--significantly harder than it will be for Android developers. This is a step that Apple needed to take first. Remember their growing pains around the switch of OSX to 64-bit? Universal binaries vs. 32-bit binaries? Same problem they're trying to solve here.


1. You seem to forget the Android NDK. Most games and any application that needs performance use it.

 

2. Porting JVM to 64-bit does not instantly solve all issues as a lot of developers use low-level APIs that are dependent on the underlying architecture, to show mastery.

 

3. 64-bit CPUs and Operating Systems support 32-bit applications, so there is no need to migrate all apps.

 

4. Objective-C is high-level, and most low-level and primitive types (such as those in Core Foundation) are carefully defined. So, most apps will be very easy to migrate to 64-bits. Even Infinity Blade 3* was ported in 2 hours (that's what one of ChAIR's developers said).

 

* I mention a game since game developers are the ones doing low-level hacks, to improve performance.

post #94 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post
 

Here's what the 'raw power' of 64-bit actually means.  Instead of a pointer to a location in memory being 32-bits, it's 64-bits.  Each bit can be 0 or 1 (2 states).  

 

So instead of 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes = 4,194,304 KB = 4,096 MB = 4 GB being the maximum memory address...

 

2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes = 18,014,398,509,481,984 KB = 17,592,186,044,416 MB = 17,179,869,184 GB = 16,777,216 TB = 16,384 PB = 16 EB (exabytes) is...

 

There is no other magical power to this.  It will be 2-3 years minimum before a cell phone has > 4GB of RAM in it.   With virtual memory management by the OS, it can allocate more than the 4GB/16EB limit to processes by swapping 'pages' of memory out to a larger but slower memory mechanism (disk)--think swap files... and so 4GB (32-bit) or 16EB (64-bit) is the maximum amount of memory any particular process can address.

 

Regardless of whether you hate Apple, Samsung, Google, Samsung, or RIM.... none of them is going to let your mobile app allocate 4GB of RAM (virtual or otherwise) because it would put too much strain on the rest of the OS and would be too I/O+battery intensive swapping pages in and out from flash memory... So for the time being, unless your an iOS developer who needs to change their code to support 64-bit addresses, this is buzz word marketing at it's best and you've all had too much Kool Aid.

 

FWIW, if Samsung is ripping off Apple by increasing addressable memory space, then Apple ripped off Windows who ripped off Linux just like Nintendo ripped off Sega who ripped off Nintendo who ripped off Atari.

 

You are wrong on the meaning of 64 bit, you explanation is only a consequence of having 64 bit wide register.  

 

Having a 64 bit CPU means it can calculate number 2^64 wide instead of 2^32 per clock tick which can lead to doubling the speed of some operations in theory.  All of this already have been discuss 10 years ago when Apple as made the first 64 bit personals computer, the PowerMac G5

post #95 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDBA View Post
 

 

I like taking pot shots at Samsung as much as anyone else but let's not fabricate stuff.

The iPhone 5/5C/4S users will all still be running the 32 bit version of iOS7 and apps.

It will take a few years before more than 90% of users will be full 64 bit. Granted, the transition will be much quicker for the iOS user base than it will, for the Android user base but 1 year is definitely not enough time, even for Apple.

 

iOS7 already is 64-bit.

 

Any iOS application that does not resort to low-level hacks (usually games, for performance reasons) will be migrated by simply rebuilding the code.

post #96 of 230

PaulMJohnson, BigMac2 -- The pain around the 32-bit to 64-bit was felt by the developers, not by consumers (unless you were waiting on a developer to update an app you needed).  It works like this.  You have a product that works perfectly.  Then the OS migrates from 32-bit to 64-bit.  Then you need to put a significant amount of work into making your code compatible again.  That Universal Binary thing was basically just a way to put a 32-bit binary and a 64-bit binary in the same file and let the OS decide.  The developers still needed to make their code 64-bit compatible.  

 

I'm not saying the move to 64-bit is a bad thing, but a) it's not a revolutionary Apple idea and b) it's not going to pay any dividends to consumers for a long time in smart phones.

post #97 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Competition based on tearing apart your competitor's product to try and emulate it is not.

The term 'reverse engineering' came about because tearing about a competitor's product is quite common. Americans might be speaking German if the US hadn't reversed engineered the enigma machines hell they even reverse engineered German gas cans. I'm not saying it's right but it happens a whole lot.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #98 of 230
Oh come on guys. Cut Samsung some slack. They're innovative. Now that they announced their plans for a 64-bit phone, they're running around yelling to their "engineers" to find a 64-bit Android OS to copy.. errr... download. 1smile.gif
post #99 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Copycats!

Did you make the same comment when Apple copied the larger screens on typical Android devices for the iPhone 5?

post #100 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post
 

PaulMJohnson, BigMac2 -- The pain around the 32-bit to 64-bit was felt by the developers, not by consumers (unless you were waiting on a developer to update an app you needed).  It works like this.  You have a product that works perfectly.  Then the OS migrates from 32-bit to 64-bit.  Then you need to put a significant amount of work into making your code compatible again.  That Universal Binary thing was basically just a way to put a 32-bit binary and a 64-bit binary in the same file and let the OS decide.  The developers still needed to make their code 64-bit compatible.  

 

I'm not saying the move to 64-bit is a bad thing, but a) it's not a revolutionary Apple idea and b) it's not going to pay any dividends to consumers for a long time in smart phones.

 

Can you elaborate more on your so-called pain felt by the developers?  Because this is not reflecting what developer says about Xcode IDE.  It took 2 hours to port on 64bit iOS one of its biggest game.  Same thing happens on OSX, almost every current apps are universal and transparently run on 32 and 64 bit arch, it require only flicking a switch in Xcode project for developer to maintain both arch with the same codebase and assets. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 9/12/13 at 9:21am
post #101 of 230

Also, Apple now has a 3 year period before all phones offered for sale will all be 64-bit.  OS7 is 64-bit on the 5S and I wonder when Android will be 64-bit?  Samsung????

 

Apple makes these changes to set themselves up for something down the road.  Nothing is by chance here.  That goes for the finger print scanner...presented as a side note almost but where will it be in a year or 2.  The operate on vision for the future not a flash today and gone tomorrow.

post #102 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursadorable View Post

64 bit processor with a 32 bit operating system with a 2 bit user experience.  Way to go Samsung!

IMO ... YOU sir have won the internets today... a 6 out of 5!!!!... upvote!!!!!
post #103 of 230
As much as we like to jump all over Samsung, 64 bit was an obvious progression. The only way we will know if they jumped the gun just to copy Apple is the OS it is released with. Hopefully they'll have Tizen running in 64bit so Android dies. Then Samsung can embarrass themselves by releasing a colourful 64bit S5 with a fingerprint reader that doesn't work much like the facial recognition that some phones tried before.

A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.
post #104 of 230
Originally Posted by CrustyMcLovin View Post
Did you make the same comment when Apple copied the larger screens on typical Android devices for the iPhone 5?

 

So you're blind, then.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #105 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourun View Post

What good is 64 bit hardware without 64 bit software? I think it may take Google a while to get Android at 64 bit so this is another marketing ploy by Samsung. Why doesn't the article mention this? As Apple said others aren't even talking about it.

 

you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves.   The don't have to wait for Google to do it.

 

The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes,  8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.

 

Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size.   I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.'  I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....

 

The proof will always be in the pudding.   Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.   

post #106 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Anything Apple can do, Samsung can do it better by copying and sell it for less. They've been doing that for years and beating the hell out of rivals with that business model. Samsung will likely prove beyond a doubt it can do anything better than Apple can. Samsung is the best product cloner company in the world. Apple doesn't have any plan to go up against a company like that.

Samsung has a huge staff of employees to mass produce things that would take Apple a long time to accomplish. Samsung can basically change direction on a dime with multiple product roadmaps. Samsung doesn't waste a lot of time with long-range product development. They see something successful, they copy it, BOOM, it's done. Samsung doesn't focus on one product at a time and uses a shotgun attack. Samsung may have to use a lot more resources but it usually pays off because it overwhelms rivals and they're beaten into submission.

Apple already got a taste of Samsung's skills last year and it just plain sucked the value out of Apple. Apple got caught with it's pants down. Samsung smartphone sales went through the roof while iPhone sales went into the toilet.

 

Apple invented the modern smartphone concept. Samsung only put big numbers (cores, memory, etc.). So, on the first count you are completely wrong.

 

For Apple and other companies (such as Dyson) it takes time to develop a concept and engineer a product. Samsung only copies it. That's why Apple (and Dyson) sued Samsung.

 

Bigger screen, more RAM and more CPU cores is better benchmarks, does not translate in better user experience. The lagging Android, almost complete lack of animations/transitions in the UI due to poor architecture, etc. are something that will not be solved through adding more cores and higher frequencies.

 

FACT: Throwing more resources at a problem does not solve it.

 

On the sales side you can't be more wrong. Apple actually had great sales despite the lack of new products for Q2 and Q3.

 

To that date, Samsung does not present sales figures split per model/device. Well, they actually don't even present sales data, only shipments. It is obvious that they hide poor sales of S3/S4 by not disclosing that information. They've shipped 100+ million phones, but most of them are cheap garbage that runs old versions Android just to be included in the smartphones category. I would even argue that they saturate the distribution channels, and then disclose those numbers.

 

In short, I don't see how your opinion can be more wrong than it is now.

post #107 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

As much as we like to jump all over Samsung, 64 bit was an obvious progression. The only way we will know if they jumped the gun just to copy Apple is the OS it is released with. Hopefully they'll have Tizen running in 64bit so Android dies. Then Samsung can embarrass themselves by releasing a colourful 64bit S5 with a fingerprint reader that doesn't work much like the facial recognition that some phones tried before.

A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.

 

64 bit _is_ the obvious progression... However the timing of their announcement reeks of FUDishment.   

 

And really... how many people buy a phone because of its internal datapath bandwidth?   

 

eventually, all phones will have a fingerprint reader... just like [almost] every keyboard is QWERTY [or Kanji or whatever]... It's an expected interface standard.

 

Natural selection in the consumer marketplace.

post #108 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selva Raj View Post
 

Actually to do 64 bit computing,there is no need  to have 4gb ram ,if you can control your operating system...

Read pros and cons  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

 

And who has better control of their operating system?

post #109 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD View Post
 

 

Hahaha that's just like saying since silicon was discovered in 1824 and everybody uses this element, everyone should have known since 1824 that samsung would be offering silicon chips. 

 

Even so, why didn't they offer it since everyone knows since 2011?!

 

because there was no smartphones with 8TB of memory or storage? and won't be for some foreseeable time?  

post #110 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post

Surprised they didn't announce a 65-bit processor... 'Cause that extra bit would make it THAT MUCH better than Apple's puny little girly-man of a 64-bit processor.

 

A 65-bit processor would be better.   And I have an amplifier that "goes to 11".  

 

The problem with all this is that Samsung's strategy of copying what others do is actually pretty successful.   Most consumers don't really care who innovated and who developed something first.   All they care about is what they can get,  whether it's available now and how cheap can they get it.     Do you think that most consumers really know the difference between the A6 and A7 processor or the importance of the co-processor? That's why Apple's stock tanked.      Consumers and the stock market only know what they can see.    And what they can see are things like a bigger screen.    

post #111 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

 

you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves.   The don't have to wait for Google to do it.

 

The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes,  8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.

 

Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size.   I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.'  I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....

 

The proof will always be in the pudding.   Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.   

 

If we where talking about an Apps, of course Samsung could ported them self.  But the issue here is more than make android run on a 64 bit CPU, you need to port the IDE and developer tool and gives access to those tool, Samsung doesn't control the Android ecosystem, they can't bypass Google and goes alone without Google for distributing developers tools. 

 

Beside no other OS than OSX as capitalize on multiple arch binary, since Android apps can be Java apps or NDK its even more difficult without braking compatibility to come out with a 32/64 bit universal apps systems.  Even Microsoft doesn't comes out with a solution as good as OSX. 

post #112 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Copycats!

So Apple invented 64-bit? /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #113 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottt732 View Post

A 64-bit processor isn't a big deal unless the device has > 4GB of RAM. The fact that either company is using it for marketing purposes at this point is ridiculous. ......One day, phones may get more RAM and this move will pay off for consumers. ...... Even then, it's highly unlikely that a mobile OS in the next 10 years will allow a single application to address anywhere near 4GB of memory.

 

The iPhone5s was the iterative, minor upgrade.     The iPhone6 will be the "real" upgrade and I think you'll see the benefits there.   And I suspect that memory will be used for running multiple applications at the same time without today's limitations.  And it's just my guess, but I don't think we'll be waiting until next September for the iPhone6...I think we'll see it sooner. 

post #114 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Oh come on guys. Cut Samsung some slack. They're innovative. Now that they announced their plans for a 64-bit phone, they're running around yelling to their "engineers" to find a 64-bit Android OS to copy.. errr... download. 1smile.gif

Actually, they just like to compete on specs. It's easy to do, and a hordes of benchmark geeks will call it "innovation."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #115 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Can you elaborate more on your so-called pain felt by the developers?  Because this is not reflecting what developer says about Xcode IDE.  It took 2 hours to port on 64bit iOS one of its biggest game.  Same thing happens on OSX, almost every current apps are universal and transparently run on 32 and 64 bit arch, it require only flicking a switch in Xcode project for developer to maintain both arch with the same codebase and assets. 

 

Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries].   That's now over 20 years of experience.   It's the reason why moving OSX  to Intel went relatively smoothly.  And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.

 

The closer you are to the iron the harder the port.  with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go.  Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.

 

Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.

post #116 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


So Apple invented 64-bit? /s

 

Yes, along with rectangle, rounded corners.  Jon Ive hard at work. 

 

Some deranged souls here also believe that Apple "MADE" PowerPC. 

post #117 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

For their sake, I hope this is something Samsung has been working on all along, and not something rushed to market based on an artificial deadline (e.g.: CEO sees Apple keynote, writes an email to phone dept calling for 64-bit chips in 6 months). 

You hope for their sake??? Touching. What is up with this caring for the welfare and affluence of big corporations?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #118 of 230
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As such, it's possible that Samsung may not have a major 64-bit smartphone on the market until 2014.

 

Samsung has scheduled their smartphone releases as far from iPhone releases as possible.

Too soon after an iPhone release and there's still too much buzz about the current iPhone.

Too soon before an iPhone release and there's too much buzz about the next iPhone.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place.   So yeah, I'd guess they're on track for a late spring release.

 

But who knows how long it will take Google to port the generic Android release to 64-bits?

And after that, how long for Samsung to port their proprietary apps and weird hacks to the 64-bit OS.

Good luck with all of that, Samsung and Google.  Try not to blow it too bad this time.

(I seem to recall several now-defunct Android handset makers who released unsupported hardware.

Took Google months to enable at least one front-facing camera on some old Android phone.)

 

Oh, and just try copying the M7 motion processor in the 5S. 

Without getting sued, that is.


Edited by SockRolid - 9/12/13 at 10:09am

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #119 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Yes, along with rectangle, rounded corners.  Jon Ive hard at work. 

Some deranged souls here also believe that Apple "MADE" PowerPC. 

And yet highly radiused corners is in vogue these days. Guess Jony deserves credit for all those competitor products for doing the same.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #120 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

 

Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries].   That's now over 20 years of experience.   It's the reason why moving OSX  to Intel went relatively smoothly.  And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.

 

The closer you are to the iron the harder the port.  with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go.  Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.

 

Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.

 

I don't know why you are thinking I'm a Windows developers, I follow Apple IDEs since the Pascal based MPW.  

 

Since the only legitimate way to code on iOS apps is thru the high level Objective-C language, developer never get down to the silicon assembly, and like any POSIX OS, porting an apps on different arch for the same OS only required a recompilation of the same code.  Xcode IDE makes things easier by making multi-segment executable, this tech doesn't yet exist on Windows, Linux or Android 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones