or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android

post #1 of 222
Thread Starter 
Apple's shift to 64-bit mobile devices in iOS 7 came as a surprise, but the company's information outlined for developers indicates that the shift to 64-bit mobile apps will bring significant benefits in the short term, something Google's Android appears challenged to replicate even in the long term.

iPhone 5s


Met with much skepticism



There's no shortage of pundits and self-described experts asserting that Apple's shift to a 64-bit architecture is either a hoax, a pointless marketing ploy that will deliver no real benefit, or an inevitable shift that everyone will eventually follow anyway at some point, and therefore neither newsworthy nor deserving of any credit.

Reports have frequently tried to harmonize all this skepticism by basically asserting that the move to 64-bit in itself will have no real immediate benefit on the iPhone 5s, while acknowledging that it might have some use later for other devices, such as in the next crop of iPads.

Brooke Crothers, writing for CNET, carried a subhead stating that "the company's move to a 64-bit chip is necessary. And it's meaningful that Apple got there first," but even his report concluded, "Do all apps benefit from a 64-bit processor? No. Many, if not most, apps won't see any meaningful benefit."

Stephen Shankland, also writing for CNET, was more forcefully dismissive of Apple's 64-bit announcement.

"Don't swallow Apple's marketing lines that 64-bit chips magically run software faster than 32-bit relics," his subhead warned, adding "64-bit designs don't automatically improve performance for most tasks."

An even more incendiary report by Joel Hruska of ExtremeTech insisted "the 64-bit A7 chip is marketing fluff and won?t improve performance."

ExtremeTech 64bit A7


These opinions are at odds with what Apple is telling iOS developers in its Cocoa Touch 64-bit transition guide."An app that supports 64-bit processing almost always gains improved performance when compared with a 32-bit app running on the same device" - Apple

"An app that supports 64-bit processing almost always gains improved performance when compared with a 32-bit app running on the same device," the company states in relation to Cocoa Touch development on iOS.

Even if Apple were simply blowing marketing smoke about the value of a 64-bit CPU on a mobile phone, lying in private to its developers about the merits of adding 64-bit support to their apps would serve no purpose; it would actually be quite counter productive.

If the 64-bit A7 brought no real immediate advantage to App Store apps, Apple would really be better suited having its third party partners working on other strategic advancements, of which there are many. Initial skepticism by members of the media is clearly in error, as was the case with the original iPad at its launch three years ago.

Not all 64-bit transitions are identical



Some confusion about the benefits of moving to 64-bit architectures may be related to the fact that for PowerPC, the 64-bit transition didn't initially do much for many apps besides inflate their memory use.

However, that was because PPC originated as a scaled down version of IBM's 64-bit POWER architecture, a design that gave it plenty of registers from the start. PPC also existed as a 32-bit platform for just over a decade before scaling back up to 64-bits with the G5. That relatively young transition to 64-bit didn't require a major architectural overhaul.

AIM PowerPC


For Intel's x86, however, the move to 64-bit x86 processors also brought with it a solution to a long-standing issue of being "register starved," because the x86 family had originated as a 16-bit architecture that was incrementally enhanced into a 32-bit CPU. By the time 64-bit PCs arrived, the x86 design was nearly 25 years old.

Road to Snow Leopard


Like Intel's x86, ARM's existing chip architecture similarly benefits from new 64-bit hardware features that come as part of the 64-bit package, because the ARM architecture is also now approaching its 25 year anniversary and subsequently due for a architectural leap on the high end.

Apple notes that its new A7 has twice the general purpose and floating point registers (both of which act as small scale storage for addresses and data within the CPU, preventing software from having to access external RAM as frequently) of its 32-bit predecessors.

At the same time, anyone who's been around long enough to remember the PPC and x86 desktop transitions to 64-bit should also remember that Macs and PCs of the era were commonly shipping with less RAM (256-512 MB in the PowerMac G5, for example) than today's iOS devices now have, making the argument that you need at least 4 GB of RAM before you can realize any benefit from a 64-bit architecture particularly bizarre.

Road to Snow Leopard
Apple's 64-bit OS X transition


And now, from the horse's mouth



"Among other architecture improvements," Apple states, "a 64-bit ARM processor includes twice as many integer and floating-point registers as earlier processors do. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. "Generally, 64-bit apps run more quickly and efficiently than their 32-bit equivalents" - Apple

"Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. In a 64-bit process, pointers are 64 bits and some integer types, once 32 bits, are now 64 bits.

"Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. Generally, 64-bit apps run more quickly and efficiently than their 32-bit equivalents. However, the transition to 64-bit code brings with it increased memory usage. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app?s performance."

iOS 7 & managing memory in 64-bits



Apple wants developers to recompile their apps for 64-bit, and it makes it easy to do this, handling much of the transitional heavy lifting itself in its Xcode development tools. This delivers a "fat binary" package (aka Universal Binary) that seamlessly deploys both 32- and 64-bit code in the same app package.

September 16, 2013


The move to 64-bits on iOS also benefits from unrelated enhancements to iOS 7. Apple recommends: "if you have an existing app, you should first update your app for iOS 7 and then port it to run on 64-bit processors. By updating it first for iOS 7, you can remove deprecated code paths and use modern practices."

The company also outlines why it will be beneficial for third party apps to release 64-bit versions of their titles for users, even if those apps don't in themselves score massive gains from the move to 64-bits: the key result will be lower memory use for the end user.

"When iOS is executing on a 64-bit device, iOS includes separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the system frameworks. When all apps running on the device are compiled for the 64-bit runtime, iOS never loads the 32-bit versions of those libraries, which means that the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly," Apple explains.

"Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it is to everyone?s benefit that all apps running on 64-bit devices be compiled for the 64-bit runtime, especially apps that support background processing. Even apps that are not performance sensitive gain from this memory efficiency."

Pros & cons of making the 64-bit leap



In short, the benefits of moving iOS apps to 64-bit include the hardware advantages of the A7's 64-bit cores (including more registers, and likely more cache), the improvements and optimizations inherent in the new 64-bit ARMv8 instruction set, and the requisite API enhancements that come along with iOS 7.

The primary downside to the transition is additional system memory consumption in cases where iPhone 5s users can't transition all their apps to 64-bit. This makes moving Apps Store titles to 64-bit a big priority for Apple and, subsequently, is something it will push its third party developers to support.

Even apps that don't do heavy number crunching will therefore benefit from Apple's 64-bit transition, in part because the common libraries and frameworks of iOS 7 they use have already been optimized to take advantage of the new 64-bit hardware, and in part because the transition brings additional side benefits via modern APIs, aiding to refresh the entire App Store library of titles in conjunction with the new appearance, design aspects and other enhancements of iOS 7.

64-bit hurdles for Google's Android



Whether Google's Android will ever make a transition to 64-bit is also difficult to pin down. The Linux kernel Android uses has already been ported to 64-bit architectures, and potentially even ARMv8, although not with the intent of building mobile-optimized devices, a subject "the other guys were not even talking about yet" when Apple announced the A7.

However, Android apps are not Linux processes; they are Dalvik executables that run on a Java-like virtual machine. Typical Android ".dex" apps are not native code in the way all iOS Cocoa Touch apps are.

Instead, they are more akin to Adobe Flash middleware or JavaScript code running within a native browser's JavaScript engine (which is essentially what Google's ChromeOS is, too). Redesigning Android's Dalvik/Java VM architecture to make effective use of a 64-bit processor is not a trivial undertaking.

History of Android


64-bit Android makes little engineering sense



Unlike Apple's iOS, Android's Dalvik VM wasn't designed with the intent of bringing "desktop class" apps to mobile devices. Google's Android project began as a way to embrace and extend Sun's Java Mobile platform into an open source project Google could use without licensing fees; the Dalvik VM was expressly created to run simple applets on a slow processor without much RAM. Only after the iPhone debuted did Android change course to catch up.

Android Dalvik VM
Source: Google


Porting Android's Dalvik to 64-bit would be like converting a subcompact econobox into an all terrain SUV. It would make far more sense to throw it away and start from scratch, where scratch is, for Google, ChromeOS.

There are also "Native" Android apps, often games, that run without using the Dalvik VM for performance purposes. This segmented native/virtual rift further complicates Google's efforts to make Android a truly 64-bit environment, even if it were interested in doing so.

Getting both native and VM apps to work in 64-bit while maintaining 32-bit compatibility for both types of existing software will involve memory management issues of its own, for a platform that already requires more RAM than iOS to work acceptably.

64-bit Android makes little business sense



It's also not clear what benefits a 64-bit CPU would deliver for a platform with few novel and significant apps outside of the cross-platform basics like Facebook and Angry Birds and the large swaths of Google Play titles that are essentially wallpapers, ebooks and music albums, like Samsung's Jay Z market research app.


Jay Z Samsung app


Source: Google Play


Android phones are conspicuously lacking console-style video games like Epic's Infinity Blade series. Additionally, efforts to put Android on new form factors, from tablets to dedicated video game consoles to cameras to music players, have all delivered extremely modest results, not just with minimal sales, but also in targeting devices focused at the very low end.

While the media can't stop congratulating Android for shipping on lots of White Box tablets in developing countries, there's no business case for putting high-end 64-bit processors in $39 tablets that are already failing to sell profitably when equipped with bottom of the barrel components.

Garbage Tablets


Apple is maintaining premium device sales of iPhone and iPads that rival the size of the entire Android platform, which is largely composed of nearly profitless low-end devices. Hardware comparable to Apple's, from Samsung's high end phones to Google's Nexus 7 tablet, are not selling in Apple-like quantities, and are earning much lower margins.

Producing a 64-bit luxury Android device on the level of Apple's iPhone 5s would purely be an exercise in corporate self-esteem, comparable to Google's ChromeBook Pixel or its small batch handcrafted Moto X, Samsung's vast array of big tablets with small sales, LG's luxury Prada phone or the gold-plated Porsche Design Blackberry for 20,000 Euros that failed to spare the company from irrelevance.

Porsche Design Blackberry


Delivering such a technically involved transition to 64-bit would also come as Google itself is turning its attention to Chrome, rather than doubling down on Andy Rubin's Android-centric strategy, which so far has primarily amassed significant legal problems related to its cavalier approach to intellectual property and built the company a fan base of users who don't like to pay for things, and in particular, software.

Samsung's 64-bit situation



These realities might force Samsung to virtualize 32-bit Android on top of its promised 64-bit chip for spec's sake, resulting in a truly "hoax 64-bit" done for benchmarking theatrics rather than real performance gains, the very thing the tech media has been quick to accuse Apple of ever since it dropped the A7 bombshell.

There's also another complication involved in Android moving to 64-bit apps. A key problem for Android as a platform is that developers are not actually exercising it. It's not a premier platform for novel, interesting apps. Additionally, developers aren't even taking serious advantage of existing Android 3.x/4.x features, in large part because the largest fraction of the Android installed base is still suck on Android 2.x.

Peruse Google Play, and you'll be hard pressed to find very many apps that require Android 4.x or take any special advantage of the new features it debuted years ago.

App Store revenue WWDC 2013


Google excludes large portions of Android's installed base in its pie chart depicting the active users of Google Play, but it still can only report that two years after launching Android 4.0, it still only represents half of Play's active app downloaders, and even that segment of Android 4.x is split across three API levels (and two dessert names).

As of this month, Google reports that only 8.5 percent of its active users were equipped with a version of Android 4.2, which was released last November! That's up from 2.3 percent a quarter ago. At that pace, last year's Android won't be above 15 percent by the end of this year.


Android versions Sept 2013


Source: Google


How many years would it take for a new 64-bit edition of Android to accumulate even a tenth of the platform's userbase, given that the majority of phones sold by Samsung and other licensees are low end devices?

That being the case, if Samsung delivered a theoretical 64-bit high-end "Galaxy S6," it would be unlikely to result in developers generating useful new applications that could benefit from the new chip architecture, resulting in all that work contributing mostly to the increased RAM usage Apple describes as a side effect of mixing old and new apps.

Samsung's alternative is to finish and ship Tizen, the Linux melting pot of abandonware that merges Samsung's Bada, Intel's Moblin and Nokia's Maemo. Tizen could potentially give Samsung its own "pure" mobile Linux platform.

Porting Tizen to 64-bit would be easier because there's currently no 32-bit legacy app ecosystem existing around it. That's also the downside to Tizen.

Tizen could also fragment Samsung's internal development efforts by adding a third supported platform alongside Android and Windows Phone. Alternatively, were Samsung able to successfully launch Tizen as its preferred platform, it would immediately implode Google's Android market share.

More likely is a moderate alternative scenario where Samsung launches a 64-bit Tizen to run on its promised 64-bit hardware while hosting existing 32-bit Android apps in a compatibility environment, similar to BlackBerry's PlayBook OS, although that strategy worked about as well as the gold plated Porsche Design phone.

In any event, it appears that Apple will enjoy a year or two exclusive in selling a 64-bit iPhone and (assuredly) iPad, and be able to transition its library of App Store apps to 64-bit savvy long before any 64-bit alternatives reach even the bleeding edge of adoption on any other mobile platform.

There's also another roadblock standing in the way of 64-bit followers of Apple's A7, and it helps to explain why Apple invested billions to achieve the A7 architecture before anyone else even began thinking about 64-bit in the context of a mobile phone. It will be considered in a future segment.
post #2 of 222
I won't pretend to be a tech genius. I have no idea how exactly 64-bit will benefit IOS. What I do believe, however, is that Apple no doubt has big plans for this.

Apple has traditionally been very conservative with specs. They are not going to spend so much resources moving their OS over to 64-bit purely for marketing reasons if it did not fit in their long-term roadmap.

I eagerly await to see where this will lead us. Likewise, I predict many years of chaos if and when Android tries to transition over to 64-bit as well. Not every OEM may hop on board, more than half of the existing Android user-base probably won't see updates for some time, manufacturers may not even know what to do to optimise their hardware for the best user-experience, and there is no guarantee that developers will even code for the new 64-bit platform if they don't think it is worth their effort.

I think Apple may be on to something here. Making a significant technological breakthrough that is simultaneously hard for their competitors to mimic.
post #3 of 222
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
post #4 of 222
So what this means for me as an enduser without an A7, is I will get updates for all my apps without actual updates but with larger universal binaries.

Sounds a bit like a period with my iPad2 where I got all these updates which didn't update anything but enlarged the footprint of all my apps (and gave space issues on my 16Gb version) because I needed to download all retina graphics etc.
post #5 of 222
Apple strategy: Thinking ahead, building the future.
Googles strategy: Replicate any feature at any cost. Building an alternative to Apple.
Samsung strategy: Copy copy copy.
post #6 of 222

It looks to me that the long play (with A7) is an eventual convergence of iOS and MacOS...

post #7 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

 

Of course ARM (a corp co-founded by Apple and Acorn Computer) discuss a lots with their partner, since they doesn't sold any hardware, they only licences their hardware to anyone who want to mfg.  Problem is Google doesn't do any ARM development internally, they got no production hardware to work on a 64 bit version of Android and Samsung and Qualcomm, 2 of the most prominent ARM SoC maker chooses the cores multiplication way, look at the Exynos 5 Octa non-sense. 

post #8 of 222
Quote:
There's no shortage of pundits and self-described experts asserting that...

Isn't this the best line of this post?

 

And, very well write up.  Just realized Android's junk territory and happy to be on PURE and serene side of Apple's ecosystem.

post #9 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by formosa View Post
 

It looks to me that the long play (with A7) is an eventual convergence of iOS and MacOS...

 

I feel like...

MacBook Pro Retina continues to have Mac OS X and MacBook Air will have Desktop iOS (like a WebOS) which is safe bet if at all ChromeBooks are making their way.

post #10 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Of course ARM (a corp co-founded by Apple and Acorn Computer) discuss a lots with their partner, since they doesn't sold any hardware, they only licences their hardware to anyone who want to mfg.  Problem is Google doesn't do any ARM development internally, they got no production hardware to work on a 64 bit version of Android and Samsung and Qualcomm, 2 of the most prominent ARM SoC maker chooses the cores multiplication way, look at the Exynos 5 Octa non-sense. 

 

Google doesn't need production hardware. Most low-level OS software development is done on dev boards. 64-bit ARMv8 dev boards have been available since last year.

post #11 of 222
Nice analysis, Dan!

The Apple guys certainly looked both happy and excited at making the announcement and expounding the benefits.

Makes Android look like a tech dead-end. The Flash of twenty-teens mobile.
post #12 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

You're a glass-half-full kinda guy I take it.
post #13 of 222
Makes me now highly anticipating the next iPad.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
post #14 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRaider2011 View Post


You're a glass-half-full kinda guy I take it.

 

Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well. 

 
DED's analysis on Android's transition to 64-bit is completely devoid of evidence. He presents his opinion as fact. He has no insider knowledge and apparently no specialist understanding of modern operating system architecture. 

 

I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that several consoles are based on Android!

post #15 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

 

I feel like...

MacBook Pro Retina continues to have Mac OS X and MacBook Air will have Desktop iOS (like a WebOS) which is safe bet if at all ChromeBooks are making their way.

 

Let's all pray you're wrong.  Nobody in their right mind wants locked down iOS garbage on a real piece of hardware.

post #16 of 222
As always, it boils down to what developers actually do with 64-bit. Just because the platform supports a feature doesn't necessarily mean users will benefit. If developers release a new/updated app with 'must have' features, users will benefit and so will the manufacturer. Otherwise, it's all marketing hype...
post #17 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
 

 

Let's all pray you're wrong.  Nobody in their right mind wants locked down iOS garbage on a real piece of hardware.

 

Why do you think iPhone is not real piece of hardware?  And do you think "Desktopification" of iOS is hard task for Apple?

post #18 of 222
With their 35 years of tech experience, I'll take Apples' word on the improvements of 64-bit over any analyst and journalist any day.

(Certainly hope no one is going to quote the entire article)
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #19 of 222

ever time these so call tech experts speak they show how much they do not know about technologies. Yes, apps at this time can not take advantage of the 64 bit architectures and most apps do not need this level of power. But to say a user will not see any performance difference is complete wrong. We all have to assume that iOS was written as 64bit native, therefore, the user will see OS is self running faster. You can also bet that Apple is working with developers so they can take advantage of the new architecture. Therefore it will not be long before those first apps show up for 5S only. Most likely they will be gaming apps and as we all know the ipad and ATV will soon have the 64bit A7.   

post #20 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 

64-bit Android makes little engineering sense

Unlike Apple's iOS, Android's Dalvik VM wasn't designed with the intent of bringing "desktop class" apps to mobile devices. Google's Android project began as a way to embrace and extend Sun's Java Mobile platform into an open source project Google could use without licensing fees; the Dalvik VM was expressly created to run simple applets on a slow processor without much RAM. Only after the iPhone debuted did Android change course to catch up.
 
Android Dalvik VM
Source: Google

 

To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.

post #21 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

 

Until Google announces it, then they don't have it ready.  First Google has to announce it and then mfg have to update existing phones.  But since these mfg like Samsung won't even pull old outdated phones off the price list like Apple does, I think over time, there will be 64 bit phones which eventually 100% of the iOS will be in about 4 to 5 years, maybe less, to probably never for Android.  It's going to a VERY long time until Android phones sold are all 64 bit.   So, when they talk about marketshare, Apple will enjoy the majority of the 64 bit market, which are those that spend money and are actually going to be profitable business over the next 5+ years.

 
In the mean time, Apple's moving faster, sooner, with more experience and their methodology is much quicker to get their user base to a new OS.
 
If Apple can get a large screen model that's 64 bit to the market before Samsung's S5, then Apple will do a LOT of damage to Samsung's market share.  That's all Apple's missing from the price list.  I think the 5.5in to 6 inch phablet market hasn't proven itself as a big enough market, but  I think the 4.5 to 5 inch has.
post #22 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well. 

 
DED's analysis on Android's transition to 64-bit is completely devoid of evidence. He presents his opinion as fact. He has no insider knowledge and apparently no specialist understanding of modern operating system architecture. 

 

I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that several consoles are based on Android!

 

yeah right, you know engineers my ass

 
that shit you referenced (OUYA) is really hardly a top class portable gaming device:
 
From Engadget: 
Quote:
The version of OUYA shipping now should be considered a beta release, and anyone hoping for anything more is in for some disappointment. It's simply not ready for retail. The system is rough around the edges in many ways, quite literally when regarding the controller, but the interface and menus also could use work.

 

There's nothing that would suggest Google moving to 64bit based on quest for performance + fragmentation of Android suggest they can't even solve 32bit version mess, let alone move to 64bit 

post #23 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

Isn't this the best line of this post?

 

Actually, this was my favourite part:

 

Quote:
... rather than doubling down on Andy Rubin's Android-centric strategy, which so far has primarily amassed significant legal problems related to its cavalier approach to intellectual property and built the company a fan base of users who don't like to pay for things, and in particular, software.

 

This pretty much captures the effect Google has had on the software industry: people now expect everything to be free and could care less about how shoddy and poorly designed things are (or how many IP loopholes Google used to make it free).  They'd rather waste a ridiculous amount of time learning how to use cr*p software (or just never really learning how to use it properly at all) than pay a bit up front to save time and sanity in the long run.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #24 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

"64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time" is somewhat true, but you're missing the fact that they were targeting server applications. Nobody had any inkling of putting a 64-bit SoC in a phone.

That's why the tech media refused to believe it was real, and why exVPs from AMD rushed out to say it was hogwash and made no sense to attempt.

If you've been paying attention, you'll recall this all happened before when Apple released the iPhone. RIM BB & Microsoft scoffed at the idea of putting a desktop OS on a high end mobile phone. A mixture of contempt and disbelief.

Also: does Google have its own x86 port of Android or was that just an effort by Intel to enter the mobile market? Who uses it?

(Crickets)
post #25 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

Google doesn't need production hardware. Most low-level OS software development is done on dev boards. 64-bit ARMv8 dev boards have been available since last year.

 

There is a world of difference between an ARM development board and a final product, even if Google does already have a working version of Android for ARM AArch64, no ARM mfg beside Apple has a 64 bit ARM in production yet.  Android is still a full year behind Apple.

post #26 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.

iOS, as a platform for webapps?  Give me a break!

post #27 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

There's no shortage of pundits and self-described experts asserting that Apple's shift to a 64-bit architecture is either a hoax, a pointless marketing ploy that will deliver no real benefit, or an inevitable shift that everyone will eventually follow anyway at some point, and therefore neither newsworthy nor deserving of any credit.

yeesh. martyr much? at least you got all the bases covered. more ded dreg.
"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
post #28 of 222

I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.

post #29 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.

 

Actually, iOS root like OSX is coming from Nextstep developed on a 33mhz 68040 processor.  While it debuted as a locked OS, they quickly open up the platform with iOS 2.  

post #30 of 222

I think many people were jaded by the Microsoft's poor transition from 32-bit to 64-bit for Windows XP, and Vista.  MS required developers and user to pick either 32 or 64-bit during installation time and incompatibility between 64-bit browsers and 32-bit plug-ins.

 

Apple's OS X transition to 64-bit was relatively seamless.

post #31 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

I won't pretend to be a tech genius. I have no idea how exactly 64-bit will benefit IOS. What I do believe, however, is that Apple no doubt has big plans for this.

 

Think bigger. AppleTV.

post #32 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.

 

Not really.  If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process).  So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.

 

As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them).  I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #33 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well. 
 
DED's analysis on Android's transition to 64-bit is completely devoid of evidence. He presents his opinion as fact. He has no insider knowledge and apparently no specialist understanding of modern operating system architecture. 

I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that several consoles are based on Android!

Ask your engineer friends how well Android makes use of those alternative cores.

Then ask some video gamers if they bought the ouya "console" that lets you play kindle type video games on your TV.

Now think about how well Xbox 360, PS3 or Nintendo's Wii platforms would have worked if they'd been openly licensed to hardware makers slopping out cheap devices that all used different types of low end GPUs.

On an ad-centric platform with rampant piracy.

Android is a spruced up version of JavaME floating in the most breathtakingly ballsy balloon of hype since the original Java. And like JavaME, it brags about all these things it could do while all it actually does is sell low end smartphones, where the definition of smartphone is rapidly slipping.
post #34 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozchris View Post
 

I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.

 

Ever since the first A4, Apple is designing and customizing the ARM references architecture for their own needs.  With P.A. Semi and 

Intrinsity acquisition, Apple is currently have the best ARM SoC solution out there.  We don't know much yet about the A7, I can't wait for Chipworks teardown and analysis. 


 

 

 

post #35 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

iOS, as a platform for webapps?  Give me a break!

 

Yes, that was SJ's original plan and this is how he sold it to developers (from 9to5mac . com):

Quote:
 The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. 

 

Only later was he persuaded to change his mind.

post #36 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

Isn't this the best line of this post?

 

And, very well write up.  Just realized Android's junk territory and happy to be on PURE and serene side of Apple's ecosystem.

 

It's been junk territory for a while now.

post #37 of 222
The iPhone 5S has a near workstation class CPU of a decade ago.

It is obvious that more sophisticated apps and interactions between hardware will now be possible from all the iOS and OSX developers in the near future.

Glad to see Daniel bringing this all to light with his insight, where the other media mostly doesn't see below the 4 color glossy headlines.
post #38 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

I think Apple may be on to something here. Making a significant technological breakthrough that is simultaneously hard for their competitors to mimic.

 

It won't *hard* to follow. It will just take engineering effort - effort that is well understood, and effort that has already begun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

Agree. What strikes me as interesting is that Samsung's JK Shin claimed that next year Galaxy S would sport 64-bit processing. They can't do this without Google's cooperation. So either Shin is speaking out of bravado or he is aware of Android's future timeline.

post #39 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

 

Not really.  If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process).  So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.

 

As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them).  I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).

 

Interesting. Were critical elements like the sandbox already present in the original iOS? According to this site (

http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Sandbox) the sandbox debuted in iOS 2.0 along with the app store. 

post #40 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

 

Sure, just as likely as having Android 4.x running on half of most Android devices two years after 4.x was released. Dream on!

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android