or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Editorial: 2013 was a terrible year for both Apple's competitors and its media critics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: 2013 was a terrible year for both Apple's competitors and its media critics - Page 6

post #201 of 257
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. Im saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term. In other words, if it were a 32-bit A7 it would probably have nearly identical performance. 

 

So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #202 of 257

MJ Web, I have to disagree with you as follows...

 

1. If Apple were a team player with Wall Street analysts, instead of having $150 billion in the bank, Apple would be carrying $150+ billion in debt. By being a team player with Wall Street as you write, the US government will not bail Apple out of its debt, but it will bail out the banks analysts work for like Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, etc. with the money US citizens have saved. This is done because the banks "are too big to fail". Apple, on the hand, is not. The analysts will continue to do EXACTLY what they are doing because they are allowed to do so by the US government.

 

2. I truly wish I could prove this, but I feel Wall Street sucked up bribe dollars from Apple's competitors to write history against Apple. The greed of Wall Street has been and continues to be documented. For some reason the greed is allowed to persist. With all of the corruption going on in Washington, DC, Wall Street will never be fully held accountable for its coordinated financial destruction of a great company.

 

3. When Apple changed its product release schedule of iPhone from Summer to Fall, Wall Street griped. When Apple released the New iPad six months after releasing the iPad 3, Apple was sued for planned obsolescence.

 

4. You claim you do not want Apple to dilute its brand, yet you want Apple to be a Wall Street team player by providing a special dividend and doing what Wall Street dictates it do.

 

5. You consider the iPhone 5C design mediocre in comparison to what? The Galaxy S4? Really? How about in comparison to iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS? How do you define mediocre? What SHOULD Apple have done to make the iPhone 5C better than it is? Please for the love of God do not respond with it should have been cheaper! Come up with something original instead of repeating the garbage Wall Street analysts have been proven false with in this article.

 

6. Nothing to disagree with here. I miss the pre-iOS 7 lock screen and the iBooks UI. And for me, Safari does crash every time I write a response on my iPhone and iPad when attempting to write a response on this Web site. Safari on my iMac seems to be okay. Other than those three quibbles, I am satisfied with iOS 7's user experience.

 

Your criticism of Apple out of your love for its products seems a farce. Anyone caring about the longevity of the company and its products would  not say the company should have been a team player with Wall Street.

 

Wall Street analysts would have celebrated Apple's team player show until the checks were received. Then Wall Street would have turned against Apple and demanded more checks. Before you disagree, please remember how Wall Street wanted Apple to provide a dividend. When Apple complied, Wall Street analysts were happy until the first dividend was paid. Then the greed for even more money kicked in. When Apple added debt to its balance sheet as Wall Street analysts wanted, the analysts celebrated Apple. Soon after that, Wall Street turned against Apple even more vehemently than were already doing.

 

Apple was not the first company to implement a fingerprint sensor in a smartphone. Apple was THE first company to get a fingerprint sensor working consistently. Yes, some iPhone 5S customers are having problems with their fingerprint sensors, but unlike Motorola, I sincerely doubt Apple will stop improving the fingerprint sensor and using the fingerprint sensor across more of its devices.

 

Getting technology as right as possible BEFORE it ships is what Apple is all about. Getting technology is hard and it takes time. This may mean Apple will be considered a laggard to Wall Street analysts and people like you, but it shows Apple is working to solve real problems in an attempt to be right out the door.

 

I am looking forward to reading your reply!  :-)))

 

Oh yeah, happy new year to you, too!!

post #203 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Ugh. So why didn't you blast SolipsismX for using that term first?

Interestingly, I wasn't following his threads, so you get the credit for using it.

 

Do you find "techtard" appropriate?

post #204 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer.  In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.

The discussion started when EricTheHalfBee wrote this. "Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.

Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft."

And my argument was that content providers earn money for themselves with Apple earning a cut. Yes Apple provides the means for someone to earn but it surely doesn’t earn for them. How much they earn is entirely up to them whether it be a musician or a dev.

 

No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple.  Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods.  Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part of both the creative and distribution elements of the business.

post #205 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post

Do you find "techtard" appropriate?

It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people aren't stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.

edit: typo.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/29/13 at 6:51pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #206 of 257
And nobody talks about Japan... Like it's some kind of blip or something.

The numbers out of Japan are mind numbing. It's the world's 3rd economy... you'd believe it would provide some kind of respect for Apple. But no, the medias had Apple as a Darjeeling a few years ago, but now it makes more money, prints more magazines and grabs more clicks to simply bash the fruity brand.

They find the one statistic that will go along with their chosen message... the one angle that will afford them the ink to trash-talk and bad mouth Apple.
---
All of this probably means that in a few years time, it’s going to be Apple's turn to be in the media's limelight. Trends come and go - and then repeat themselves. Maybe it’s going to be the iPhone 6 or the iPhone 7 (or who-knows-what) that tips the pendant, but somewhere down the line it’s going to be utterly un-cool to bash Apple. Somewhere down the line...
post #207 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post
 

Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance. 

Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.

 

"At a Glance

The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.

When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.

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. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s 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.

 

 

post #208 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?

 

First off, the  phrase "up to" can be misleading. I'd have to see the benchmark applications used and the actual execution times

 

This is might due to the fact and a 32-bit application would need a set of libraries that act as an interpretation layer to interface with a 64-bit CPU. If the CPU was 32-bit than these libraries wouldn't be needed.

 

It also depends on the compiler. If the code is compiled in 32-bit, it might be trying to be compatible with all of the older processors (A5, A6) and thus not able to take advantage of additional hardware features present in the A7.  If you have a 64-bit compilation target, the compiler knows that its gonna run on an A7 and then can do more optimizations specifically relevant to the device. These extra optimizations, would be present, however, if it were a hypothetical 32-bit A7.

 

There are other things, but those two are the most likely.  

post #209 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people are stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.

 

So an orthopedic surgeon, or an astrophysicist that uses an iPhone as a consumer is both "stupid" and a "techtard". Maybe they just have better things to do than screw around with the inner workings.

 

Why don't you just call them consumers? 

post #210 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post

So an orthopedic surgeon, or an astrophysicist that uses an iPhone as a consumer is both "stupid" and a "techtard".

Cool your jets. That is a typo and it's been corrected and what you quote doesn't make sense with the rest of the content of that sentence or the rest of the paragraph.
Quote:
Maybe they just have better things to do than screw around with the inner workings.

I said the same thing in the very post you quote.
Quote:
Why don't you just call them consumers? 

We're all consumers but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Even within computer technologies the many readers of this site have their strengths and weakness. I would define myself as being techtarded when it comes to CPU design, pretty much anything about GPUs, and programming. Why would I simply call myself a consumer in that regard?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #211 of 257

Interesting article, interesting analysis.

 

For me, it is just obvious that Apple's products do what I need and want. Never had an ounce of trouble understanding what they are for, how to use them, how they help me do things I want to do.

 

I can't say the same about other offerings. I'm forced to use MS products at work. They baffle me on the most basic level. 

 

Samsung's big is better is baffling. I want it in my pocket and easy to handle. If not, I want the iPad sizes. And I'm typing this on a MB Air I love.

 

I'm curious about iWatch. Still don't know what it is for, but it might be intriguing at a reasonable price. Same is true of iTV: Content is far more important, and I just don't see this kind of hardware being a big focus for Cook/Ive. These HDTVs are all the same, and are real cheap. Not sure there is value in AAPL stock for that. Show me a pay per view content, and I'm in. But...it ain't gonna happen.

 

I'm not sure you can judge the success of tech by profit margin, but shareholders certainly disagree with me on that.


Edited by eightzero - 12/29/13 at 7:32pm
post #212 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post
 

Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.

 

"At a Glance

The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.

When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.

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. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s 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.

 

 

Lol, I saw right after I wrote my response.  Pretty much exactly what I said.  If you target the A7 the compiler will optimize the code better. Otherwise you have inefficiency losses. That being said, if you had a 32-bit A7 CPU, with similar additional hardware features, the performance difference would probably be a wash. 

 

The are a couple of misleading things though in the marketing talk.

 

" The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers."

 

The software register count has limited bearing on the physical register count for most complex CPUs (out-of-order).

 

"Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains."

 

I can't imagine an application is going to extensively use 64-bit integer math.  Also, NEON instructions are SIMD so they will probably use smaller than 64-bit chunks most of the time. 

I'm probably overconcerned with the details when reading articles like this. :D

post #213 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post

Interestingly, I wasn't following his threads, so you get the credit for using it.

Do you find "techtard" appropriate?

It's an amusing term but I wasn't serious and I'd say he wasn't either.
"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 #214 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple.  Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods.  Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part of both the creative and distribution elements of the business.

I never denied that and wholeheartedly agree, but the onus to earn money is on the content providers.
"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 #215 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post
 

Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance. 

you're definitely wrong about the Camera app - one of the very most important to consumers - and its major quality improvements that clearly rely on 64 bit capabilities. and you're probably wrong about Touch ID too., which likely uses 64 bit power.

 

and those are the two "marquee" features of the 5s.

 

in other words, you're just wrong.

 

and that's before any other apps are optimized for 64 bit.

 

why can't you and all the rest just give Apple's 64 bit "innovation" the credit it's due? 

post #216 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post

Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance. 

That's not at all accurate. There has been extensive testing on that very thing with 64-bit being faster than 32-bit on the A7. Remember ARM made it backwards compatible.

Also, if you run an iPhone 5 and 5S next to each other you aren't likely to see apps open any faster but will see them close faster. This appears to go along with what Mike Ash wrote about the benefits of the new A64 ISA, which obviously is only available for 64-bit ARM, and Obj-C.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #217 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.

Beyoncé would make money regardless if where she sold her album. Can you say that about many Devs if Apple didn't have the App Store?
post #218 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

you're definitely wrong about the Camera app - one of the very most important to consumers - and its major quality improvements that clearly rely on 64 bit capabilities. and you're probably wrong about Touch ID too., which likely uses 64 bit power.

and those are the two "marquee" features of the 5s.

in other words, you're just wrong.

and that's before any other apps are optimized for 64 bit.

why can't you and all the rest just give Apple's 64 bit "innovation" the credit it's due? 

I've been suggesting that the Touch ID might not be effective without ARM's 64-bit features but I've never considered the camera. You're the only other person I've seen suggest TouchID as potentially needing A64.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #219 of 257

Yes, it's true.

post #220 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Beyoncé would make money regardless if where she sold her album. Can you say that about many Devs if Apple didn't have the App Store?

Which is my point. One can't make a blanket statement that Apple makes content providers money like EricTheHalfBee did.
"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 #221 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post
 

you're definitely wrong about the Camera app - one of the very most important to consumers - and its major quality improvements that clearly rely on 64 bit capabilities. and you're probably wrong about Touch ID too., which likely uses 64 bit power.

 

and those are the two "marquee" features of the 5s.

 

in other words, you're just wrong.

 

and that's before any other apps are optimized for 64 bit.

 

why can't you and all the rest just give Apple's 64 bit "innovation" the credit it's due? 

"its major quality improvements that clearly rely on 64 bit capabilities"-

What exactly do you mean? All image processing that I know of is either floating point 32 or integer 32. I'd be interested to know specifics if you can point me to something.

 

"and that's before any other apps are optimized for 64 bit."

Check out my previous response to Tallest Skil and tmay.  

 


Edited by rapatel0 - 12/29/13 at 8:57pm
post #222 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's not at all accurate. There has been extensive testing on that very thing with 64-bit being faster than 32-bit on the A7. Remember ARM made it backwards compatible.

Also, if you run an iPhone 5 and 5S next to each other you aren't likely to see apps open any faster but will see them close faster. This appears to go along with what Mike Ash wrote about the benefits of the new A64 ISA, which obviously is only available for 64-bit ARM, and Obj-C.

I'm sorry  if the statement was unclear. I'm saying that a 32-bit version of the A7 would have very similar  performance to a 64-bit A7. See my previous posts to Tallest Skil and tmay for the nuanced differences with regard to performance. 

post #223 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post

I'm sorry  if the statement was unclear. I'm saying that a 32-bit version of the A7 would have very similar  performance to a 64-bit A7. See my previous posts for the nuanced differences with regard to performance. 

You comments were clear, were mine unclear? As previously noted and shown the A64 ISA has multiple performance benefits.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #224 of 257
Quote:
 You comments were clear, were mine unclear? As previously noted and shown the A64 ISA has multiple performance benefits.

 

I believe that I addressed why 32-bit code runs slower on an A7 in my response to tmay. To summarize 32-bit code compiles to optimize for older processors and thus can't take advantage of the additional hardware features of the A7. These additional hardware features could have been incorporated in a hypothetical 32-bit CPU.

 

An instruction is simply a basic command that he CPU can interpret. Going from 32-bit to 64-bit ISA means that each instruction is wider. This does nothing to the functionality of the instruction as it moves through the CPU nor does it mean that it processes more data.  It's just wider. There are a couple of mathematical reasons why you might need a wider instruction, but these are usually not relevant for the vast majority of applications (think computational particle physics as a place where this might be important).

 

An Instruction set architecture (ISA) defines the available instructions that a CPU can use. It also defines some basics associated with the hardware. but only very loosely; the number of registers is a good example. The ISA might define that the CPU has 64 registers, but the hardware would likely have many more (128) physical registers available. A 32-bit version of the A7 could probably have the same additional features without being 64-bit. Bringing back my previous example, if the compiler knew that it was targeting an 32-bit A7 it could do the same kinds of optimizations and achieve the same level of performance. 

 

Currently, if you target a 32-bit application, the compiler will just target older 32-bit apple processors, which is why you see a performance advantage when compiling to 64. If there was a 32-bit A7 then the compiler could target that and see the performance benefits as well. 

 

This is why I find it difficult to say that 64-bit computing confers a performance benefit. There is nothing about the underlying hardware being 64-bit that causes the code to run faster. There is more hardware there, but that additional hardware could have been added to a 32-bit cpu and yielded similar performance increases. 

 

One thing I will say is that because they implemented 64-bit now, I wouldn't be surprised if the next version of the iPhone has 3+GB of RAM. They were probably worried about running out of addresses in the future between all of the memory and memory mapped hardware. Though I think they're rolling it out early so they don't have migration issues in the future.  

 

I could go on, but it's likely going to get require more detail and the discussion will either get more esoteric or devolve into a discussion about what defines 64-bit vs 32-bit from a hardware perspective. Also, I'm tired and it's past my bedtime. lol :D

Cheers,


Edited by rapatel0 - 12/29/13 at 10:05pm
post #225 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I've been suggesting that the Touch ID might not be effective without ARM's 64-bit features but I've never considered the camera. You're the only other person I've seen suggest TouchID as potentially needing A64.

lots of web site articles pointed this out a few months ago. here's one:

 

http://readwrite.com/2013/09/11/iphone-5s-64-bit-a7-why-you-need-it#awesm=~ortPTnCejQdXW3

 

i think even DED himself wrote one. will have to search ..

 

added:

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/12/hands-on-with-the-new-64-bit-a7-powered-iphone-5s-with-new-m7-camera-touch-id

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/04/apples-64-bit-a7-already-powering-advanced-new-audio-video-features-in-apps-and-games

post #226 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapatel0 View Post

I believe that I addressed why 32-bit code runs slower on an A7 in my response to tmay. To summarize 32-bit code compiles to optimize for older processors and thus can't take advantage of the additional hardware features of the A7. These additional hardware features could have been incorporated in a hypothetical 32-bit CPU.

An instruction is simply a basic command that he CPU can interpret. Going from 32-bit to 64-bit ISA means that each instruction is wider. This does nothing to the functionality of the instruction as it moves through the CPU nor does it mean that it processes more data.  It's just wider. There are a couple of mathematical reasons why you might need a wider instruction, but these are usually not relevant for the vast majority of applications (think computational particle physics as a place where this might be important).

An Instruction set architecture (ISA) defines the available instructions that a CPU can use. It also defines some basics associated with the hardware. but only very loosely; the number of registers is a good example. The ISA might define that the CPU has 64 registers, but the hardware would likely have many more (128) physical registers available. A 32-bit version of the A7 could probably have the same additional features without being 64-bit. Bringing back my previous example, if the compiler knew that it was targeting an 32-bit A7 it could do the same kinds of optimizations and achieve the same level of performance.

I could go on, but it's likely going to get require more detail and the discussion will either get more esoteric or devolve into a discussion about what defines 64-bit vs 32-bit. Also, I'm tired and it's past my bedtime. lol 1biggrin.gif


Cheers,

One last time. It's a new ISA, not just one tweaked to work on AArch64. This isn't just about physical aspects of the architecture but about how the instructions are executed.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #227 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

lots of web site articles pointed this out a few months ago. here's one:

http://readwrite.com/2013/09/11/iphone-5s-64-bit-a7-why-you-need-it#awesm=~ortPTnCejQdXW3

i think even DED himself wrote one. will have to search ..

I've only seen where they mentioned the extra horsepower as a general overview which we already see in YoY performance gains, but the new ISA comes with additional crypto with incredible performance efficiency over the old ISA that I think might specifically be key to getting TouchID to work as fast as it does.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #228 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Which is my point. One can't make a blanket statement that Apple makes content providers money like EricTheHalfBee did.

Of course it's OK for you to make blanket statements. Oh the irony.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #229 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ah insult time again. That must mean you're running out of logical counter-arguments and I'm winning. 1biggrin.gif

You claimed what "pisses you off" is that Google doesn't do anything to make their existing services better. That's easily proven to be false. Personally I think the only thing that "pisses you off" about Google is that they're competing with Apple in some of the same market spaces and vice-versa, Apple is entering some of the same markets as Google. Seeing a few ads is hardly hate-worthy so folks gotta make something up so they don't sound so silly I suppose. This particular reason you've cited doesn't hold water IMO.

Don't be upset when you get no respect from fellow forum posters. Believe me, your status is earned and we'll deserved.

I never said what pisses me off, I said what pisses people off. Again with your usual tricks of slightly altering content to suit your purpose. Of course Google has made improvements to products. But the intrusion of ads has made the overall experience worse. You must be blind if you haven't noticed the increase.

Now you can't even comment on Youtube (for example) without creating a Google+ account. Google is treading on thin ice by trying to force people to use one of their services as a condition to use another.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #230 of 257

Lovely summary, Dan! Well shafted. A bit of a pointless excercise (given that they're paid to spout misleading stupidity) but someone has to do it, and best to do it with sharp instruments! 

 

Cheers, and all the best for the New Year

 

Enz

Better the bottle in front of me
To a frontal lobotomy
Reply
Better the bottle in front of me
To a frontal lobotomy
Reply
post #231 of 257

I see two problems for Apple in the near future:

 

FRAGMENTATION : The 64-bit A7 is a nice investment for the future, but today the "64-bit thing" is a pain for developers who need to re-compile and re-test both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their app (literally "all" apps in the store), unless they stick to 32-bit-only until 32-bit CPUs are obsolete. And fragmentation also for display size, since the iPhone6 would probably introduce a bigger display.

 

SHRINKING EUROPEAN MARKET : The price model of iPhone is not suitable for European market, dominated by off-contract devices. In fact Apple market share is shrinking every month (in some countries Apple is behind Microsoft). It depends on Apple strategy for Europe (it could decide that it is a small market and accept smaller market share).

post #232 of 257
Great editorial. Definitely shows that the media has a pro-google bias. I would not be surprised if it came to light that both google and Samsung have been paying a lot of those folks. And I hate to say it but AI's own sister blog Engadget is heavily biased against apple and made some of the same flawed claims.
post #233 of 257
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

today the 64-bit thing" is a pain for developers who need to re-compile and re-test both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their app (literally "all" apps in the store), unless they stick to 32-bit-only until 32-bit CPUs are obsolete.

 

Didn’t the Infinity Blade guys say it took one guy less than a day? The only pain will be lazy developers refusing to put in any work, which shows you how much they (and you should) care about their software.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #234 of 257
All the lies that were told by anal-ists and the media about Apple just shine through now so clearly. Also building lots of cheap, useless, worthless, toys won't make you the sales leader either. Something anal-ists tried to push down Apple's throat. Fortunately Apple has it's own plans well in hand and won't go that way. I just love this story because I myself didn't fall for all of that Apple is failing crap and was very disappointed by the stock dropping when there was absolutely no reason for it.
What I still don't understand is how Google's stock can be over a thousand a share when there business actually did very poorly. They were the one's that had the failures that were so predicted to be on Apple. The Apple maps disaster was the worst media hyped B.S. of all in 2013. I used it myself and never had a problem with my destination. Most of the bad map details were in the boonies where the roads were obscure to begin with anyways.
Let's hope that 2014 the analysts stop there non-sense B.S. and start paying attention to the facts as seen above. Google and Apple stock prices should flip flop. Apple should be a thousand dollars a share and google at four hundred a share. The company that actually does good business and shows real innovation should be the share leader. Not the company that has B.S. products with little or no innovation which right now is Google and the rest.
post #235 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Apple did not make money for them they made it for themselves. Did Apple make the apps for others to sell, or the music for musicians to sell, or the algorithm for Google to provide searches? No these people created something sold it on Apple's platform in which Apple takes a cut. They’re making Apple money not vice versa.

Maybe you should talk to the developers.    In the physical world, your logic would say that large distributors don't make money for publishers and other content producers, that the content producers make money for the distributors.   The fact is that both are true.    Sure, Apple takes a cut, but the developers get 70%.    As of this past June, Apple had paid out $10 billion to developers.    That's certainly not chump change.     

 

You're also not considering that Apple provides the SDK and development tools.     And they do that for free.   Considering that traditional royalty deals in the publishing and media industries pay about 12%-18%, I think Apple's deal with developers is quite fair.     

 

The third factor is that if Apple had not created software/hardware that people wanted to use, then there'd be no market for those developers, even if they were able to keep 100% of the revenue.    Would you rather sell five copies and keep 100% or sell 500 copies and keep 70%?  

post #236 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Both Google and Amazon stocks are up 58% year-to-date; Microsoft is up 40%. If these companies have had a terrible year it's certainly not reflected in their stock price. Compare that with Apple which is up a paltry 5% year-to-date even though the S&P 500 is up 29% and the Nasdaq is up 38%. How is it that Google and Microsoft stock is up double digits if they had such a bad year?

There is a pretty good explanation of all that in the story you are commenting on. Maybe you should read it...
post #237 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

All the lies that were told by anal-ists and the media about Apple just shine through now so clearly. Also building lots of cheap, useless, worthless, toys won't make you the sales leader either. Something anal-ists tried to push down Apple's throat. Fortunately Apple has it's own plans well in hand and won't go that way. I just love this story because I myself didn't fall for all of that Apple is failing crap and was very disappointed by the stock dropping when there was absolutely no reason for it.
What I still don't understand is how Google's stock can be over a thousand a share when there business actually did very poorly. They were the one's that had the failures that were so predicted to be on Apple. The Apple maps disaster was the worst media hyped B.S. of all in 2013. I used it myself and never had a problem with my destination. Most of the bad map details were in the boonies where the roads were obscure to begin with anyways.
Let's hope that 2014 the analysts stop there non-sense B.S. and start paying attention to the facts as seen above. Google and Apple stock prices should flip flop. Apple should be a thousand dollars a share and google at four hundred a share. The company that actually does good business and shows real innovation should be the share leader. Not the company that has B.S. products with little or no innovation which right now is Google and the rest.

I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that these competitive devices are "worthless".   I've looked at both Windows and Android phones and many of my co-workers use them.   While I greatly prefer my iPhone, those other devices may have their problems, but they are clearly not worthless.   Even the Surface wasn't completely worthless (close, but not completely).    

 

And actually, building those cheap, "worthless" devices can make you the sales leader.   There are far more phones on the Android platform than the iOS platform.   That's what is throwing off the analysts.   The difference is that Apple earns substantial profits selling their devices and no one else does.     That's what the analysts miss.    And eventually, just as Microsoft had to write-off the original Surface, the other phone manufacturers are going to have to abandon the market if they can't find a way to make their devices profitable.   Does anyone think that Microsoft is going to do a great job with Nokia, for which they paid $2.7 billion?

 

The analysts are heavily biased in favor of units sales and market share.    That's a mistake.   They would have Apple become McDonald's instead of continuing to be a fine restaurant or to become Ford instead of BMW.    This reflects a complete misunderstanding of what Apple and companies like it are about.   However, part of this misinterpretation is Apple's fault.   By letting just about every retailer sell Apple products, such as WalMart and Radio Shack, et al, I think Apple has hurt the brand.      

post #238 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Maybe you should talk to the developers.    In the physical world, your logic would say that large distributors don't make money for publishers and other content producers, that the content producers make money for the distributors.   The fact is that both are true.    Sure, Apple takes a cut, but the developers get 70%.    As of this past June, Apple had paid out $10 billion to developers.    That's certainly not chump change.     

You're also not considering that Apple provides the SDK and development tools.     And they do that for free.   Considering that traditional royalty deals in the publishing and media industries pay about 12%-18%, I think Apple's deal with developers is quite fair.     

The third factor is that if Apple had not created software/hardware that people wanted to use, then there'd be no market for those developers, even if they were able to keep 100% of the revenue.    Would you rather sell five copies and keep 100% or sell 500 copies and keep 70%?  

In the physical world a distributor has already paid a content provider for their goods so the distributor has to go and recover that money. Apple doesn't pay a developer for a app and then try to sell it so the 2 business models are very different. The SDK and development tools are available to the most profitable dev and to the ones that never sell. In the physical world a product that doesn't sell will not get shelf space again but a app will always be in the app whether it sells or not.

You can't also put the success of the hardware entirely on Apple. People buy them more now because of the quantity and quality of apps developers have created.
"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 #239 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

By letting just about every retailer sell Apple products, such as WalMart and Radio Shack, et al, I think Apple has hurt the brand.      

Hardly hurts the brand. In fact it allows iPhones to be sold to a greater audience since Apple Stores can't be every where. Still, is Best Buy/carrier stores any better than Walmart or the Shack?
post #240 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

But they did invent modern laptops. 

 

 

?

 

And when was that or are you going to play semantics where you shift the definition of modern laptop to meaning a "modern laptop made by Apple"  

 

The silly picture from DED shows the Air and Pro. At the time of release the Air was neither thinner or lighter than other laptops that preceded it.  Thinkpads predated the ibook by 7 years,  Sony's X505 from 2004 is lighter than Apple's (2008+) Air and only slightly thicker. Both devices look like a laptop to me.

 

And, from memory, Apple had to withdraw the claim that the Air was the thinnest laptop ever after someone noticed that a Toshiba laptop which had been released years earlier held the crown.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Editorial: 2013 was a terrible year for both Apple's competitors and its media critics