or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung says it 'leads by following,' admits few businesses are actually using Knox
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung says it 'leads by following,' admits few businesses are actually using Knox - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple on the market in 2013.

Samsung et al have launched their flagships, crickets are chirping, the clock is ticking, "early 2014" is almost over and where are these mythical chips?

Stick to reality not what might be.
Start production early 2014, not necessarily release. It's ARM's 2012 estimates I'm basing myself on. And really are you going to deny that 64bit SoC's were in the pipelines regardless of the A7. Apple was really early with 64bit and deserve a lot of credit for it, but to say the rest now copies is ridiculous. ARMv8 was always going to follow ARMv7.
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post

Samsung has another problem regarding this whole 64 Bit story, which I'm sure they'll be keeping as quiet as possible. At the end of the day this is a numbers game for them. Real benefit to the user is not of their concern, simply to release bigger and better numbers, more megapixels, greater pixel density, etc with every year's phone.

While they might be able to build their own 64 bit ARM chip and get a 64 Bit Android Kernel onto their phones, this will only affect the kernel itself, system programs and NDK applications, such as most games. They are completely reliant on Google to actually get a 64 Bit version of the Dalvik VM onto their phones, which must also be compatible with Google Play and whatnot. Without this, most applications will simply continue running in a 32 Bit environment.

You are SO right on! As you say, Samsung thinks it's a numbers game, a la the '80s and '90s. Not only doesn't Apple take the bait, they stay true to their own tune. Samsung just remains tone deaf. However, most importantly, Tizen not-withstanding, Samsung has no path to 64 bits and that's why they cannot lay out a timeline. Samsung is totally phucked into the foreseeable future. If they add biometric sensors their devices will show down or be far less capable than Apple's iDevices.

This will show up as they follow Apple further and further into the dust cloud behind Apple. Apple knows where they are headed and can be building bridges that Samsung can't see, to get there. Meanwhile, as of today, Apple has a user base of tens of millions of users that are totally ready to run 64-bit "whatever" and another huge wave of users ready to upgrade this fall to the latest 64-bit revolution.

Samsung will have zero 64-bit user base this Fall... Samsung may rue the idea of "Leading by Following" by this year end.

What else has Samsung's management to worry about:
1. Cancer-gate? The genie is squirming free of the lamp.
2. Stock-holder unrest? The people who own the stock now know they were lied to about sales levels. THIS could cost Samsung more then the trial where it was discovered.
3. Dog Pile? Apple's patent suit may have emboldened other USA companies to follow suit (pun intended).
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #43 of 78

Samsung is a great industry leader.  They lead other companies to follow Apple haha.

 

Regarding 64 bit, it's NOT TRUE that Samsung is copying Apple.  The proof is that Samsung does not have a 64 bit phone!  They've actually failed to copy in this regard.

 

However, Samsung is VERY original in other ways.  For instance, they did a big screen iPhone before Apple.

 

And Samsung did the very FIRST Band Aid branded Dimplephone!

post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post

Samsung has another problem regarding this whole 64 Bit story, which I'm sure they'll be keeping as quiet as possible. At the end of the day this is a numbers game for them. Real benefit to the user is not of their concern, simply to release bigger and better numbers, more megapixels, greater pixel density, etc with every year's phone.

While they might be able to build their own 64 bit ARM chip and get a 64 Bit Android Kernel onto their phones, this will only affect the kernel itself, system programs and NDK applications, such as most games. They are completely reliant on Google to actually get a 64 Bit version of the Dalvik VM onto their phones, which must also be compatible with Google Play and whatnot. Without this, most applications will simply continue running in a 32 Bit environment.
I agree with you. Though I do wonder if the new ART run time that is going to replace Dalvik is 64bit capable....
No idea about that.
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Looking at iris detection. funny!

Why would anyone trust Knox? Samsung just doesn't have the rep.

Apparently damn few. The US GSA department ONLY allows ONE android phone to be purchased on contract and that phone is a Samsung mode with Knoxl. No other android phone made the cut. For what it's worth, no Microsoft OS phone made the cut either. ALL iPhones and ALL iPads made the cut — no other tablets than Apple can be purchased on contract, not even Samsung. Finally from the small numbers of Knox enabled Samsung phones, neither the U.S. government nor the rest of the enterprise market is impressed with the Samsung/Knox enabled work-around...

Quote:
Originally Posted by helia View Post

Does Samsung lead anything but marketshare?

They may not even lead in marketshare as Sammy's shipment numbers have been found to be lies. Even the numbers Samsung reported to stockholders and the SoKo government were falsified... Really bad MOJO brewing up there!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

DED I also don't particularly like Samsung, and they definitely are very capable of copying, but what you state here is not correct.

By the time Apple's A7 launched it was already known for a couple of years that 64bit mobile SoC's were in the pipelines. Qualcomm themselves in 2012 estimated the start of the production to be first quarter of 2014. When ARMv8 was launched pretty much every large chip designer/maker licensed it. Samsung was also rumored to use the architecture in its server chips (a rumor that appeared way before the A7).

Apple finished first and they deserve a lot of credit for that, it was quite a feat. But to say everyone who has a 64bit SoC now copies Apple is beyond ridiculous. 64bit SoC's were expected in 2014 with or without a 64bit A7.

Here is f.e. an article of The Verge from 2012 discussing ARM's new 64bit architectures and also mentions the expected 2014 release date. It even mentions Samsung as a partner.
http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/10/30/3576560/arm-cortex-a57-cortex-a53-cpu-core

Cortex A57/A53 were never discussed nor targeted as mobile chips, certainly not for a smartphone. They were aimed at server markets, where they could begin to compete against Intel.

So yes, as you note Apple surprised the industry by introducing the first mass market 64-bit ARM chip. But far more impressive was the fact that Apple achieved (in complete secrecy!) a new chip architecture that wasn't just 64-bit for bragging rights or to be first, but a practical advance that is much more effective than what Samsung itself was designing as an ARM licensee, whether for server applications or in mobile chips.

Apple is significantly ahead in pursuing a particular strategy here. And as Chipsy wrote above, it's not just arriving at "64-bits" but also tying into the software platform in a way the developers can easily benefit from, as well as being tied into a series of integrated features including Touch ID and Secure Enclave, audio processing, camera features and lots of other things.

The idea of Samsung "copying the A7" comes from the fact that the company's president of System LSI announced to its investors (!) that Samsung's own 64-bit chip was right around the corner, after just acknowledging that prior to the A7, nobody was even talking about needing 64-bits.

There's no way to spin that to suggest that Samsung is doing anything other than playing follow the leader, failing at it, and then calling itself the leader. While failing.

Sure, at some point the rest of the mobile industry will begin migrating some high end phones to 64-bit, and sure this might have happened even if Apple hadn't bothered to advance the state of the art before anyone even imagined it happening in the near future.

Saying that all of this reality is a misstatement of facts and that Apple being first doesn't matter because it probably would have happened anyway, and that Apple shouldn't get any credit for embarrassing the industry while even industry executives were blustering about how unnecessary it was to move to a modern ABI, is all a very mind blowing set of comments to make.
post #47 of 78

Great article DED.  Enjoyed you clobbering them with that quote =)

post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Cortex A57/A53 were never discussed nor targeted as mobile chips, certainly not for a smartphone. They were aimed at server markets, where they could begin to compete against Intel.

So yes, as you note Apple surprised the industry by introducing the first mass market 64-bit ARM chip. But far more impressive was the fact that Apple achieved (in complete secrecy!) a new chip architecture that wasn't just 64-bit for bragging rights or to be first, but a practical advance that is much more effective than what Samsung itself was designing as an ARM licensee, whether for server applications or in mobile chips.

Apple is significantly ahead in pursuing a particular strategy here. And as Chipsy wrote above, it's not just arriving at "64-bits" but also tying into the software platform in a way the developers can easily benefit from, as well as being tied into a series of integrated features including Touch ID and Secure Enclave, audio processing, camera features and lots of other things.

The idea of Samsung "copying the A7" comes from the fact that the company's president of System LSI announced to its investors (!) that Samsung's own 64-bit chip was right around the corner, after just acknowledging that prior to the A7, nobody was even talking about needing 64-bits.

There's no way to spin that to suggest that Samsung is doing anything other than playing follow the leader, failing at it, and then calling itself the leader. While failing.

Sure, at some point the rest of the mobile industry will begin migrating some high end phones to 64-bit, and sure this might have happened even if Apple hadn't bothered to advance the state of the art before anyone even imagined it happening in the near future.

Saying that all of this reality is a misstatement of facts and that Apple being first doesn't matter because it probably would have happened anyway, and that Apple shouldn't get any credit for embarrassing the industry while even industry executives were blustering about how unnecessary it was to move to a modern ABI, is all a very mind blowing set of comments to make.
It was pretty much a certainty ARMv8 was always going to follow ARMv7. And how was it never discussed as part of smart phones. The article from The Verge from 2012 even mentions it in the first part of the article. "Today, ARM's announcing the Cortex-A50 series of processor cores, which will likely feature prominently in the smartphones, tablets, and possibly even the server rooms of the future."

Even ARM's own slides (from 2012) mention the Cortex A53 and A57 for use in mobile devices (and the second link mentions smartphones specifically).
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6420/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-30%20at%2012.23.05%20PM.png
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6420/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-30%20at%2012.22.20%20PM.png

Face it 64bit mobile SoC's were always going to happen. Apple released one first and deserves a lot of credit for it, and everything surrounding it as you rightly say i.e. integration. The A7 is an amazing feat of engineering. But it was bound to happen (and by ARM's own prediction it was going to be 2014).
Edited by Chipsy - 5/19/14 at 6:01pm
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Cortex A57/A53 were never discussed nor targeted as mobile chips, certainly not for a smartphone. They were aimed at server markets, where they could begin to compete against Intel.

So yes, as you note Apple surprised the industry by introducing the first mass market 64-bit ARM chip. But far more impressive was the fact that Apple achieved (in complete secrecy!) a new chip architecture that wasn't just 64-bit for bragging rights or to be first, but a practical advance that is much more effective than what Samsung itself was designing as an ARM licensee, whether for server applications or in mobile chips.

Apple is significantly ahead in pursuing a particular strategy here. And as Chipsy wrote above, it's not just arriving at "64-bits" but also tying into the software platform in a way the developers can easily benefit from, as well as being tied into a series of integrated features including Touch ID and Secure Enclave, audio processing, camera features and lots of other things.

The idea of Samsung "copying the A7" comes from the fact that the company's president of System LSI announced to its investors (!) that Samsung's own 64-bit chip was right around the corner, after just acknowledging that prior to the A7, nobody was even talking about needing 64-bits.

There's no way to spin that to suggest that Samsung is doing anything other than playing follow the leader, failing at it, and then calling itself the leader. While failing.

Sure, at some point the rest of the mobile industry will begin migrating some high end phones to 64-bit, and sure this might have happened even if Apple hadn't bothered to advance the state of the art before anyone even imagined it happening in the near future.

Saying that all of this reality is a misstatement of facts and that Apple being first doesn't matter because it probably would have happened anyway, and that Apple shouldn't get any credit for embarrassing the industry while even industry executives were blustering about how unnecessary it was to move to a modern ABI, is all a very mind blowing set of comments to make.

 

First, how can you claim Apple's implementation is "more effective than what Samsung itself was designing as an ARM licensee" when Samsung hasn't released a 64-bit chip.

 

Second, Samsung is making the A7 for Apple, so they were not at all blindsided by its introduction.

 

Third, regardless of how Apple's introduction of the A7 might have spurred Samsung to move to 64-bit processors earlier (and I think it likely has), you cannot reasonably say Samsung is copying Apple when they release a 64-bit chip.  If Apple invented the 64-bit chip then you'd have a point.

 

Fourth, your comment that 64-bit "might have happened even if Apple hadn't bothered to advance the state of the art" is absurd to the point that it makes the rest of your post look reasonable.  Of course it would have happened!  64-bit computing has been around for ages (in technology terms), and it was only a matter of time before phones and tablets incorporated the technology.

 

Fifth, nobody in the industry was embarrassed when Apple introduced the A7.  It was simply one more feature that Apple could tout as an advantage to counter the advantages of its opponents.

 

Considering the logic in your article and forum posts, I look forward to the article this fall that explains how Apple copied every other manufacturer when it releases its larger iPhone.  And by the way, that article will be just as absurd as this one.

post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

It was pretty much a certainty ARMv8 was always going to follow ARMv7. .

You appear to know far too much about chips and technology to assume that the industry was going to all move to ARMv8 at a specific time. IBM never moved to PowerPC G6, and Pentium 4 wasn't replaced with Pentium 5. It was completely rethought from a different branch that went back a generation to start work over, resulting in Core.

Also, don't confuse Apple A7 with Cortex A53/A57 reference designs.
Quote:

And how was it never discussed as part of smart phones. The article from The Verge from 2012 even mentions it in the first part of the article. "Today, ARM's announcing the Cortex-A50 series of processor cores, which will likely feature prominently in the smartphones, tablets, and possibly even the server rooms of the future."
Even ARM's own slides (from 2012) mention the Cortex A53 and A57 for use in mobile devices.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6420/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-30%20at%2012.23.05%20PM.png

Face it 64bit mobile SoC's were always going to happen. Apple released one first and deserves a lot of credit for it, and everything surrounding it as you rightly say i.e. integration. The A7 is an amazing feat of engineering. But it was bound to happen (and by ARM's own prediction it was going to be 2014).

Verge idly speculating about the future of a coming generation of technology is not really the same thing as any serious, informed discussions about where the tech industry was going to leap in the immediate present.

Cortex A53/57 is very unlikely to ever appear in a smartphone that matters. The entire Android market is going down scale to deliver cheaper devices with minimal functionality. That's what Wired is celebrating. That's what all the short lived excitement about Moto X by sites like Verge were promoting right up until it all turned to crap.

If some high-end, non-iPhone device ever appears with 64-bit ARM Application Processors it will be as unlikely to sell in meaningful quantities as Samsung's tablets or Microsoft/Nokia/Windows Phone anything.

If you want to believe that migrating smartphones to a 64-bit architecture was not a novel idea in 2013 I will certainly let you, just like I allow people to believe in swishing coconut oil. But you can't convince me of that, because it doesn't fit any of the facts. One ARM PR embellished by the Verge doesn't change that.
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

You appear to know far too much about chips and technology to assume that the industry was going to all move to ARMv8 at a specific time. IBM never moved to PowerPC G6, and Pentium 4 wasn't replaced with Pentium 5. It was completely rethought from a different branch that went back a generation to start work over, resulting in Core.

Also, don't confuse Apple A7 with Cortex A53/A57 reference designs.
Verge idly speculating about the future of a coming generation of technology is not really the same thing as any serious, informed discussions about where the tech industry was going to leap in the immediate present.

Cortex A53/57 is very unlikely to ever appear in a smartphone that matters. The entire Android market is going down scale to deliver cheaper devices with minimal functionality. That's what Wired is celebrating. That's what all the short lived excitement about Moto X by sites like Verge were promoting right up until it all turned to crap.

If some high-end, non-iPhone device ever appears with 64-bit ARM Application Processors it will be as unlikely to sell in meaningful quantities as Samsung's tablets or Microsoft/Nokia/Windows Phone anything.

If you want to believe that migrating smartphones to a 64-bit architecture was not a novel idea in 2013 I will certainly let you, just like I allow people to believe in swishing coconut oil. But you can't convince me of that, because it doesn't fit any of the facts. One ARM PR embellished by the Verge doesn't change that.

So why does ARM mention smartphone performance in its slides from 2012 (and BTW the slides are from anandtech where BTW in the article the cortex A53 and A57 for use in smart phones is discussed and used in the examples).
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6420/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-30%20at%2012.22.20%20PM.png

It was and is definitely meant to end up in smartphones and other mobile devices. But I guess if the creator of the architecture (ARMv8/AArch64) mentioning it for use in smartphones doesn't convince you nothing will.
Edited by Chipsy - 5/19/14 at 6:21pm
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

You need to step away from the Kool-Aid.

First, how can you claim Apple's implementation is "more effective than what Samsung itself was designing as an ARM licensee" when Samsung hasn't released a 64-bit chip.

Samsung makes 32-bit Aplication Processors, and the track those "Octo Core" chips were on was grossly inferior in many ways, from compute power to efficiency to practicality.
Quote:
Second, Samsung is making the A7 for Apple, so they were not at all blindsided by its introduction.

You don't seem to understand how Samsung's System LSI works. It contracts out manufacturing capability to other companies. It's not like Apple sends its A7 design to Samsung's CEO and says "hey can you crank some of these out?"
Quote:
Third, regardless of how Apple's introduction of the A7 might have spurred Samsung to move to 64-bit processors earlier (and I think it likely has), you cannot reasonably say Samsung is copying Apple when they release a 64-bit chip.  If Apple invented the 64-bit chip then you'd have a point.

Samsung completely shifted its strategy, without actually articulating a strategy. If you can't see that, then I don't think I can clarify things for you. But the fact that the president of System LSI referred to 64-bit as suddenly becoming a necessity at the public introduction of A7, rather than back when System LSI began gearing up to fab chips for Apple, should help you understand what is happening.
Quote:
Fourth, your comment that 64-bit "might have happened even if Apple hadn't bothered to advance the state of the art" is absurd to the point that it makes the rest of your post look reasonable.  Of course it would have happened!  64-bit computing has been around for ages (in technology terms), and it was only a matter of time before phones and tablets incorporated the technology.

Technology doesn't follow a straight line. There are innumerable examples of things the industry (and pundits) believed would happen, only to have something else disrupt things and fundamentally change the goals. Samsung, for example, was working on 8 core 32 bit chips, rather than anything like what Apple developed for the A6 or the A7. You could just as well insist that the next step was 16 core chips, but that's not likely to happen.
Quote:
Fifth, nobody in the industry was embarrassed when Apple introduced the A7.  It was simply one more feature that Apple could tout as an advantage to counter the advantages of its opponents.

Considering the logic in your article and forum posts, I look forward to the article this fall that explains how Apple copied every other manufacturer when it releases its larger iPhone.  And by the way, that article will be just as absurd as this one.

If you want to understand that, read http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/06/before-apples-iphone-was-too-small-it-was-too-monstrously-big
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

So why does ARM mention smartphone performance in its slides from 2012 (and BTW the slides are from anandtech).
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6420/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-30%20at%2012.22.20%20PM.png

It was and is definitely meant to end up in smartphones and other mobile devices.

 

A better question might be: why didn't anyone in the industry create ARM's 64-bit BIG/Little chips, given that your slide exists? And why hasn't Samsung or any of the other highly advanced, top tier vendors on your slide been able to deliver a chip they can market as "64-bit" using the A53/57 architecture, given that they've had going on two years to do so? And why didn't any of them address that as even a goal, given that all of them were laying out highly publicized road maps regarding their Application Processors and other technologies, like Samsung's detailed "vision" of super high resolution 4K screens in a handheld device by next year?

 

Slide or not, the reality is that Apple blindsided the industry. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to see it. I can't make you, nor do I even want to. Please, hang on to that and tattoo it to your chest so you can life a rich full life knowing that Apple has never done anything and that the rest of the industry that is failing around it is far better at making PowerPoint slides to impress anonymous people on the Internet. 

post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

A better question might be: why didn't anyone in the industry create ARM's 64-bit BIG/Little chips, given that your slide exists? And why hasn't Samsung or any of the other highly advanced, top tier vendors on your slide been able to deliver a chip they can market as "64-bit" using the A53/57 architecture, given that they've had going on two years to do so? And why didn't any of them address that as even a goal, given that all of them were laying out highly publicized road maps regarding their Application Processors and other technologies, like Samsung's detailed "vision" of super high resolution 4K screens in a handheld device by next year?

Slide or not, the reality is that Apple blindsided the industry. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to see it. I can't make you, nor do I even want to. Please, hang on to that and tattoo it to your chest so you can life a rich full life knowing that Apple has never done anything and that the rest of the industry that is failing around it is far better at making PowerPoint slides to impress anonymous people on the Internet. 
Lol, easily agitated are we? They blindsided them by releasing it so fast, but the ARMv8 64bit architecture was always meant to end up in smartphones and other mobile devices and if you can't see that maybe you are blindsided. They are slides from ARM itself (not just the competition), you know the creator of ARMv8 and AArch64 which Apple also uses in the A7. If the creator of the architecure/instruction set mentioning it doesn't convince you then nothing will.
Edited by Chipsy - 5/19/14 at 6:48pm
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

Apple loyalists should want Samsung to have a strong presence in the smartphone and tablet markets. Decent competition keeps innovation high and prices low(er).

Apple's device share in enterprise is impressive. I just wish they'd turn iWork into a real office productivity competitor to MS Office. The current offering doesn't cut it for those that need a serious office package. Then so many more could cut the laptop cable and go primarily iPad/iPhone.

That's not part of their strategy for the moment. I wish it was, but replacing Word means replacing Office which means replacing Outlook and Exchange, and Active Directory, ecc... MS gives the whole package, and companies understandably prefer it because it's simpler to implement. Apple has no plan to displace that yet.
post #56 of 78
Apple did, in fact, blindside the industry. Not only did it get Samsung to make the "me too" statement about their upcoming 64bit processor but it also caused that guy (forget his name) at Qualcomm to make a stupid statement that was later retracted. Further, it exposed countless blog writers for the idiots they are when they almost unanimously went on a rampage publishing countless articles calling Apple's move to 64bit nothing but "marketing" or bringing up the 4GB memory myth (another way for someone to expose themselves publicly as an idiot who shouldn't be writing tech articles).

But the real way Apple blindsided everyone wasn't just going to 64bit - it was that Apple's implementation was far superior to stuff in the pipeline (like the ARM A57). When someone comes out with a first generation processor you expect it to have some limitations. The A7 didn't - it is highly advanced and is, by far, the FASTEST mobile processor core in mobile, even outperforming Intel. Apple didn't just make a "good first try" with the A7 - they knocked it out of the park.

As I mentioned last week, ARM has released Geekbench 3 64bit benchmarks for the A57. And the A7 is still ahead in performance. Qualcomm has announced A57 based processors for the start of 2015. When it comes out it will already be behind the A7, which will be 16 months old by them. People are kidding themselves if they think Qualcomm wasn't "blindsided" by just how good Apple made the A7 ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

Lol, easily agitated are we? They blindsided them by releasing it so fast, but the ARMv8 64bit architecture was always meant to end up in smartphones and other mobile devices and if you can't see that maybe you are blindsided. If the creator of the architecure mentioning it doesn't convince you then nothing will.

I bet the creator of the architecture (ARM) was completely blindsided that Apple shipped a 64bit custom processor core that completely outclasses (and outperforms) their own designs (A53/A57) that haven't even been released yet.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


Lol, easily agitated are we? They blindsided them by releasing it so fast, but the ARMv8 64bit architecture was always meant to end up in smartphones and other mobile devices and if you can't see that maybe you are blindsided. They are slides from ARM itself (not just the competition), you know the creator of ARMv8 and AArch64 which Apple also uses in the A7. If the creator of the architecure/instruction set mentioning it doesn't convince you then nothing will.

 

Well ARM has intended a lot of things that never mattered. 

post #59 of 78
BTW, I'm pretty sure that 1.8 million is not all Enterprise users. There are a lot of regular consumers who activated KNOX for their own use. There are numerous forum posts from users wanting to know how to uninstall KNOX (or turn it off). We don't know how many "power users" use (or used) KNOX, nor do we know how many use it without really knowing what it's for.
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I bet the creator of the architecture (ARM) was completely blindsided that Apple shipped a 64bit custom processor core that completely outclasses (and outperforms) their own designs (A53/A57) that haven't even been released yet.
The A7 is great piece of engineering no doubt about that, but as he states that 64bit SoC's for mobile weren't thought of (not released) before the A7 and the Cortex A53 and A57 were never intended for smartphones is ridiculous. ARMv8 was always meant to end up in smartphones and ARM's own slides with the A53/A57 official presentation (which is the launch to partners as ARM doesn't make its own chips) in 2012 made that very clear.
Edited by Chipsy - 5/19/14 at 7:13pm
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atashi View Post

Leads By Following?

That has to be a mistranslation, right?

I don't know for sure though, my whole strategy with new languages in school was to 'pass by failing'.


It's the same concept as innovating by copying and borrowing by stealing.


I could be wrong, but I think they mean when they say leading is that they lead the Android industry.


The problem is that Samsung seems to have gotten away by this misleading nonsense to the point where the journalist doesn't question these Samsung execs into explaining what they actually mean or when it makes no sense.

I would have ripped into the Samsung exec for trying to "sell" the concept of leading by following BS
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
It wasn't until April that Samsung was able to deliver its Galaxy 5S with a similar fingerprint scanning feature, but reaction to the new model has been less than enthusiastic.

Why lend legitimacy to Samsung's fingerprint scanning feature by using "similar" as an adjective? It simply doesn't work as well and is inaccurate.

post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


...lots of things I disagree with and won't address a second time...

 

I read that article, and it doesn't give Apple or its apologists an out when Apple follows the rest of the industry to a larger screen.  Apple's screen was very large by standards of the day.  Those standards prevailed because people had different needs and expected far less from their phones.  Since the introduction of the iPhone, people have become more dependent on phones for a wide variety of computing needs and media consumption.  Every other manufacturer except Apple realized this trend and acted quickly.  Apple was stuck with a legacy mindset as far as screen size goes, and they will finally acknowledge their error this year if the rumors pan out.

post #64 of 78

It leads by copying everyone else so it doesn't have to pay for the R&D costs. Ripping other companies off so it can make a profit.

Boycott Samsung products.

post #65 of 78

Is it me or does everyone else notice that all samsung ever does is make excuses for it's shortcomings and then blames Apple for its demise. Lead by following(copying) is their only way of staying on top of the android market. They say they're outselling Apple but Apple only sells iPhones so a total 4 phones still offered in the US. 4s, 5, 5c and 5s compared to the plethora of samsung phones yet Apple seems to hold its ground.

I attempted to own a GS4 and within 3 weeks I noticed 6 identical charges to my bank account of 149.98 and after 5 weeks the bank traced it all the way back to the phone and the apps I used which were limited. 

Never had that issue with my iPhone       

post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post
I read that article, and it doesn't give Apple or its apologists an out when Apple follows the rest of the industry to a larger screen.  Apple's screen was very large by standards of the day.  Those standards prevailed because people had different needs and expected far less from their phones.  Since the introduction of the iPhone, people have become more dependent on phones for a wide variety of computing needs and media consumption.  Every other manufacturer except Apple realized this trend and acted quickly.  Apple was stuck with a legacy mindset as far as screen size goes, and they will finally acknowledge their error this year if the rumors pan out.

You make good points, but I suggest you consider Apple has been slow to migrate to larger displays because the company wants to minimize the additional burden on developers and ensure legacy apps don't break. Advantages of the iOS ecosystem include not just the number of apps but their consistent behavior. In contrast, Android is known for being a heterogeneous mess. It's advantageous to everyone--Apple, developers and customers--for Apple to make slow, deliberate moves. This is how standards are set and maintained--standards that others will follow.

post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey Silvy View Post

I attempted to own a GS4 and within 3 weeks I noticed 6 identical charges to my bank account of 149.98 and after 5 weeks the bank traced it all the way back to the phone and the apps I used which were limited. 

Never had that issue with my iPhone       

yeah right. Either something went disastrously wrong with the billing system, a pile of steaming bull. I know what I'm leaning to but would need a bit more information than a general the phone did this to me oh woe
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I read that article, and it doesn't give Apple or its apologists an out when Apple follows the rest of the industry to a larger screen.  Apple's screen was very large by standards of the day.  Those standards prevailed because people had different needs and expected far less from their phones.  Since the introduction of the iPhone, people have become more dependent on phones for a wide variety of computing needs and media consumption.  Every other manufacturer except Apple realized this trend and acted quickly.  Apple was stuck with a legacy mindset as far as screen size goes, and they will finally acknowledge their error this year if the rumors pan out.

Like Apple resurrecting the screen size of the Newton or shrinking an iPad screen?

If screen size was worth a damn, apart from something Samsung came up with in their marketing attack plan, then I might use my S4 more, fact is it doesn't so I don't.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Samsung previously worked to sidestep that issue in November when it told its investors that it planned to copy Apple's A7 at some point, but didn't yet have a precise timeline for doing so yet.
Really? That's the word you're using here? "...it planned to copy Apple's A7..."?

That's really nice... denying any type of copying from Apple in court, but then telling your investors that you "planned on copying" Apple A7? Well excuse me, but isn't that called lying in court?

Not that I expect anything else from Samsung to be honest, especially if one of your motto's is "Leads by Following". If you're following trends that means, in my mind at least, that you'ree following the trendsetter which in the tech industry seems to be Apple at the moment.

I'm not glorifying Apple since they also have a history of sometimes copying someone. But for Samsung to deny everything and then telling investors on two occasions that you're following the trend/copying Apple's A7... hypocrites.
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Apple was stuck with a legacy mindset as far as screen size goes, and they will finally acknowledge their error this year if the rumors pan out.

Error? Selling 150M phones a year doesn't seem like a failed thing to me. Then again, I don't want a larger phone, so I guess I'm 'on the other side of the camp'.
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 #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber View Post

Really? That's the word you're using here? "...it planned to copy Apple's A7..."?

That's really nice... denying any type of copying from Apple in court, but then telling your investors that you "planned on copying" Apple A7? Well excuse me, but isn't that called lying in court?

Not that I expect anything else from Samsung to be honest, especially if one of your motto's is "Leads by Following". If you're following trends that means, in my mind at least, that you'ree following the trendsetter which in the tech industry seems to be Apple at the moment.

I'm not glorifying Apple since they also have a history of sometimes copying someone. But for Samsung to deny everything and then telling investors on two occasions that you're following the trend/copying Apple's A7... hypocrites.

I don't really like defending Samsung, but in the case of 64bit SoC's it is the right thing (and definitely when the author twists words). Samsung never used that word, it's just DED's interpretation of the moment when Samsung said they were also developing 64bit SoC's after the launch of A7. With the Cortex A53/A57 official presentation (in 2012) Samsung was mentioned as a licensee/partner, to state Samsung copies Apple with 64bit (as DED insinuates) definitely is twisting reality. (Samsung is definitely capable of copying but in this case stating that is ridiculous).
Edited by Chipsy - 5/20/14 at 4:30am
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Has Apple ever price-matched the competition? Or done the BOGO deals because their competitors do?

It's not about price matching. But Apple's pricing is driven by consumer affordability, input costs on building a device and yes competitive offerings. There's a reason the iPhone isn't priced at $2,000.
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


DED I also don't particularly like Samsung, and they definitely are very capable of copying, but what you state here is not correct.

By the time Apple's A7 launched it was already known for a couple of years that 64bit mobile SoC's were in the pipelines. ARM themselves in 2012 estimated the start of the production to be first quarter of 2014. When ARMv8 was launched pretty much every large chip designer/maker licensed it. Samsung was also rumored to use the architecture in its server chips (a rumor that appeared way before the A7).

Apple finished first and they deserve a lot of credit for that, it was quite a feat. But to say everyone who has a 64bit SoC now copies Apple is beyond ridiculous. 64bit SoC's were expected in 2014 with or without a 64bit A7.

Here is f.e. an article of The Verge from 2012 discussing ARM's new 64bit architectures and also mentions the expected 2014 release date. It even mentions Samsung as a partner.
http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/10/30/3576560/arm-cortex-a57-cortex-a53-cpu-core

The timeline between releasing something and OEMs actually jumping on it are entirely different things. NOBODY (other than Apple) was prepared to jump on 64-bit until after Apple did it last year. What was that comment from Qualcomm's big guy after the A7 announcement that lead to his demotion? Ah, yeah... hindsight. 

 

Don't you think if Samsung was really preparing for it, they'd have been pushing Google to prep Android way before now? Amazing how logic comes into play. 

post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post

The timeline between releasing something and OEMs actually jumping on it are entirely different things. NOBODY (other than Apple) was prepared to jump on 64-bit until after Apple did it last year. What was that comment from Qualcomm's big guy after the A7 announcement that lead to his demotion? Ah, yeah... hindsight. 

Don't you think if Samsung was really preparing for it, they'd have been pushing Google to prep Android way before now? Amazing how logic comes into play. 
It's not just the release to manufacturers but also ARM's own release time line that estimated a 2014 release (early 2014 start production). Why would ARM state that if the chip makers didn't jump on it. Surely that timeline takes into account the time that OEM's needed/the plans of the OEM's. Surely ARM wouldn't make such a prediction if NOBODY jumped on it...
And btw if you take a license that surely means you are interested and want to jump on it.
And how about Intel's Merrifield SoC that was first introduced in June 2013 (not released) that is also 64bit. Yeah I'm sure nobody was thinking about 64bit mobile SoC's.... 1hmm.gif
Edited by Chipsy - 5/20/14 at 8:03am
post #75 of 78
Samsung is like a technically skilled and socially defective autistic man. The ability to communicate is there, but something just doesn't connect. But then businesses tend to be socially defective on the average... though some have much better self awareness and less brazen willingness to copy, cheat, and lie to the public while knowing everyone sees through it. Actually, my analogy to autism does autistics a disservice. What's really happening is that Samsung is bold enough to lie "openly". Because the "free market" tolerates it (and by "free market" I mean to say there's nowhere near enough regulation to stop unethical abuses by these big corporations who buy politicians by the fistful).
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

It's not about price matching. But Apple's pricing is driven by consumer affordability, input costs on building a device and yes competitive offerings. There's a reason the iPhone isn't priced at $2,000.

Uhh...what? You're giving Samsung credit for Apple not pricing the iPhone at $2000? Are you kidding? When the iPhone came out it had no peer, but Apple didn't price it at $2000, and they quickly dropped the price by $100, even before any competitors showed up. Samsung doesn't get credit for preventing some made-up hypothetical scenario from not happening.

"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 #77 of 78
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post
There's a reason the iPhone isn't priced at $2,000.


Because the company isn’t staffed by braindead artichokes?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #78 of 78
Shouldn't it read "Leads by taking the rewards of other peoples work" ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung says it 'leads by following,' admits few businesses are actually using Knox
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung says it 'leads by following,' admits few businesses are actually using Knox