As much as we like to jump all over Samsung, 64 bit was an obvious progression. The only way we will know if they jumped the gun just to copy Apple is the OS it is released with. Hopefully they'll have Tizen running in 64bit so Android dies. Then Samsung can embarrass themselves by releasing a colourful 64bit S5 with a fingerprint reader that doesn't work much like the facial recognition that some phones tried before.
A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.
What good is 64 bit hardware without 64 bit software? I think it may take Google a while to get Android at 64 bit so this is another marketing ploy by Samsung. Why doesn't the article mention this? As Apple said others aren't even talking about it.
you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves. The don't have to wait for Google to do it.
The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes, 8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.
Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size. I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.' I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....
The proof will always be in the pudding. Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.
Anything Apple can do, Samsung can do it better by copying and sell it for less. They've been doing that for years and beating the hell out of rivals with that business model. Samsung will likely prove beyond a doubt it can do anything better than Apple can. Samsung is the best product cloner company in the world. Apple doesn't have any plan to go up against a company like that.
Samsung has a huge staff of employees to mass produce things that would take Apple a long time to accomplish. Samsung can basically change direction on a dime with multiple product roadmaps. Samsung doesn't waste a lot of time with long-range product development. They see something successful, they copy it, BOOM, it's done. Samsung doesn't focus on one product at a time and uses a shotgun attack. Samsung may have to use a lot more resources but it usually pays off because it overwhelms rivals and they're beaten into submission.
Apple already got a taste of Samsung's skills last year and it just plain sucked the value out of Apple. Apple got caught with it's pants down. Samsung smartphone sales went through the roof while iPhone sales went into the toilet.
Apple invented the modern smartphone concept. Samsung only put big numbers (cores, memory, etc.). So, on the first count you are completely wrong.
For Apple and other companies (such as Dyson) it takes time to develop a concept and engineer a product. Samsung only copies it. That's why Apple (and Dyson) sued Samsung.
Bigger screen, more RAM and more CPU cores is better benchmarks, does not translate in better user experience. The lagging Android, almost complete lack of animations/transitions in the UI due to poor architecture, etc. are something that will not be solved through adding more cores and higher frequencies.
FACT: Throwing more resources at a problem does not solve it.
On the sales side you can't be more wrong. Apple actually had great sales despite the lack of new products for Q2 and Q3.
To that date, Samsung does not present sales figures split per model/device. Well, they actually don't even present sales data, only shipments. It is obvious that they hide poor sales of S3/S4 by not disclosing that information. They've shipped 100+ million phones, but most of them are cheap garbage that runs old versions Android just to be included in the smartphones category. I would even argue that they saturate the distribution channels, and then disclose those numbers.
In short, I don't see how your opinion can be more wrong than it is now.
As much as we like to jump all over Samsung, 64 bit was an obvious progression. The only way we will know if they jumped the gun just to copy Apple is the OS it is released with. Hopefully they'll have Tizen running in 64bit so Android dies. Then Samsung can embarrass themselves by releasing a colourful 64bit S5 with a fingerprint reader that doesn't work much like the facial recognition that some phones tried before.
A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.
64 bit _is_ the obvious progression... However the timing of their announcement reeks of FUDishment.
And really... how many people buy a phone because of its internal datapath bandwidth?
eventually, all phones will have a fingerprint reader... just like [almost] every keyboard is QWERTY [or Kanji or whatever]... It's an expected interface standard.
Hahaha that's just like saying since silicon was discovered in 1824 and everybody uses this element, everyone should have known since 1824 that samsung would be offering silicon chips.
Even so, why didn't they offer it since everyone knows since 2011?!
because there was no smartphones with 8TB of memory or storage? and won't be for some foreseeable time?
Surprised they didn't announce a 65-bit processor... 'Cause that extra bit would make it THAT MUCH better than Apple's puny little girly-man of a 64-bit processor.
A 65-bit processor would be better. And I have an amplifier that "goes to 11".
The problem with all this is that Samsung's strategy of copying what others do is actually pretty successful. Most consumers don't really care who innovated and who developed something first. All they care about is what they can get, whether it's available now and how cheap can they get it. Do you think that most consumers really know the difference between the A6 and A7 processor or the importance of the co-processor? That's why Apple's stock tanked. Consumers and the stock market only know what they can see. And what they can see are things like a bigger screen.
you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves. The don't have to wait for Google to do it.
The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes, 8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.
Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size. I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.' I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....
The proof will always be in the pudding. Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.
If we where talking about an Apps, of course Samsung could ported them self. But the issue here is more than make android run on a 64 bit CPU, you need to port the IDE and developer tool and gives access to those tool, Samsung doesn't control the Android ecosystem, they can't bypass Google and goes alone without Google for distributing developers tools.
Beside no other OS than OSX as capitalize on multiple arch binary, since Android apps can be Java apps or NDK its even more difficult without braking compatibility to come out with a 32/64 bit universal apps systems. Even Microsoft doesn't comes out with a solution as good as OSX.
A 64-bit processor isn't a big deal unless the device has > 4GB of RAM. The fact that either company is using it for marketing purposes at this point is ridiculous. ......One day, phones may get more RAM and this move will pay off for consumers. ...... Even then, it's highly unlikely that a mobile OS in the next 10 years will allow a single application to address anywhere near 4GB of memory.
The iPhone5s was the iterative, minor upgrade. The iPhone6 will be the "real" upgrade and I think you'll see the benefits there. And I suspect that memory will be used for running multiple applications at the same time without today's limitations. And it's just my guess, but I don't think we'll be waiting until next September for the iPhone6...I think we'll see it sooner.
Oh come on guys. Cut Samsung some slack. They're innovative. Now that they announced their plans for a 64-bit phone, they're running around yelling to their "engineers" to find a 64-bit Android OS to copy.. errr... download.
Actually, they just like to compete on specs. It's easy to do, and a hordes of benchmark geeks will call it "innovation."
Can you elaborate more on your so-called pain felt by the developers? Because this is not reflecting what developer says about Xcode IDE. It took 2 hours to port on 64bit iOS one of its biggest game. Same thing happens on OSX, almost every current apps are universal and transparently run on 32 and 64 bit arch, it require only flicking a switch in Xcode project for developer to maintain both arch with the same codebase and assets.
Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries]. That's now over 20 years of experience. It's the reason why moving OSX to Intel went relatively smoothly. And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.
The closer you are to the iron the harder the port. with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go. Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.
Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.
For their sake, I hope this is something Samsung has been working on all along, and not something rushed to market based on an artificial deadline (e.g.: CEO sees Apple keynote, writes an email to phone dept calling for 64-bit chips in 6 months).
You hope for their sake??? Touching. What is up with this caring for the welfare and affluence of big corporations?
Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries]. That's now over 20 years of experience. It's the reason why moving OSX to Intel went relatively smoothly. And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.
The closer you are to the iron the harder the port. with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go. Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.
Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.
I don't know why you are thinking I'm a Windows developers, I follow Apple IDEs since the Pascal based MPW.
Since the only legitimate way to code on iOS apps is thru the high level Objective-C language, developer never get down to the silicon assembly, and like any POSIX OS, porting an apps on different arch for the same OS only required a recompilation of the same code. Xcode IDE makes things easier by making multi-segment executable, this tech doesn't yet exist on Windows, Linux or Android
With the RAM increases nearing 4 GBs they just about have to go 64-bit.
But if they're not talking with 64-bit then it won't matter because it can't register that amount of RAM. Regardless, I don't know of a phone that is anywhere near 4GB of RAM
Comments
IMO ... YOU sir have won the internets today... a 6 out of 5!!!!... upvote!!!!!
A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.
So you're blind, then.
What good is 64 bit hardware without 64 bit software? I think it may take Google a while to get Android at 64 bit so this is another marketing ploy by Samsung. Why doesn't the article mention this? As Apple said others aren't even talking about it.
you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves. The don't have to wait for Google to do it.
The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes, 8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.
Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size. I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.' I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....
The proof will always be in the pudding. Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.
Anything Apple can do, Samsung can do it better by copying and sell it for less. They've been doing that for years and beating the hell out of rivals with that business model. Samsung will likely prove beyond a doubt it can do anything better than Apple can. Samsung is the best product cloner company in the world. Apple doesn't have any plan to go up against a company like that.
Samsung has a huge staff of employees to mass produce things that would take Apple a long time to accomplish. Samsung can basically change direction on a dime with multiple product roadmaps. Samsung doesn't waste a lot of time with long-range product development. They see something successful, they copy it, BOOM, it's done. Samsung doesn't focus on one product at a time and uses a shotgun attack. Samsung may have to use a lot more resources but it usually pays off because it overwhelms rivals and they're beaten into submission.
Apple already got a taste of Samsung's skills last year and it just plain sucked the value out of Apple. Apple got caught with it's pants down. Samsung smartphone sales went through the roof while iPhone sales went into the toilet.
Apple invented the modern smartphone concept. Samsung only put big numbers (cores, memory, etc.). So, on the first count you are completely wrong.
For Apple and other companies (such as Dyson) it takes time to develop a concept and engineer a product. Samsung only copies it. That's why Apple (and Dyson) sued Samsung.
Bigger screen, more RAM and more CPU cores is better benchmarks, does not translate in better user experience. The lagging Android, almost complete lack of animations/transitions in the UI due to poor architecture, etc. are something that will not be solved through adding more cores and higher frequencies.
FACT: Throwing more resources at a problem does not solve it.
On the sales side you can't be more wrong. Apple actually had great sales despite the lack of new products for Q2 and Q3.
To that date, Samsung does not present sales figures split per model/device. Well, they actually don't even present sales data, only shipments. It is obvious that they hide poor sales of S3/S4 by not disclosing that information. They've shipped 100+ million phones, but most of them are cheap garbage that runs old versions Android just to be included in the smartphones category. I would even argue that they saturate the distribution channels, and then disclose those numbers.
In short, I don't see how your opinion can be more wrong than it is now.
As much as we like to jump all over Samsung, 64 bit was an obvious progression. The only way we will know if they jumped the gun just to copy Apple is the OS it is released with. Hopefully they'll have Tizen running in 64bit so Android dies. Then Samsung can embarrass themselves by releasing a colourful 64bit S5 with a fingerprint reader that doesn't work much like the facial recognition that some phones tried before.
A good idea stays around or gets updated or copied. A bad idea, one that doesn't work or isn't used will fade away. See facial recognition, NFC, styluses, etc.
64 bit _is_ the obvious progression... However the timing of their announcement reeks of FUDishment.
And really... how many people buy a phone because of its internal datapath bandwidth?
eventually, all phones will have a fingerprint reader... just like [almost] every keyboard is QWERTY [or Kanji or whatever]... It's an expected interface standard.
Natural selection in the consumer marketplace.
Actually to do 64 bit computing,there is no need to have 4gb ram ,if you can control your operating system...
Read pros and cons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
And who has better control of their operating system?
Hahaha that's just like saying since silicon was discovered in 1824 and everybody uses this element, everyone should have known since 1824 that samsung would be offering silicon chips.
Even so, why didn't they offer it since everyone knows since 2011?!
because there was no smartphones with 8TB of memory or storage? and won't be for some foreseeable time?
Surprised they didn't announce a 65-bit processor... 'Cause that extra bit would make it THAT MUCH better than Apple's puny little girly-man of a 64-bit processor.
A 65-bit processor would be better. And I have an amplifier that "goes to 11".
The problem with all this is that Samsung's strategy of copying what others do is actually pretty successful. Most consumers don't really care who innovated and who developed something first. All they care about is what they can get, whether it's available now and how cheap can they get it. Do you think that most consumers really know the difference between the A6 and A7 processor or the importance of the co-processor? That's why Apple's stock tanked. Consumers and the stock market only know what they can see. And what they can see are things like a bigger screen.
you forget that Samsung can take the open source code and convert themselves. The don't have to wait for Google to do it.
The bigger issue is that what about all those fragments and developers cross supporting across 3-5 versions of OSes, 8 or nine geometries, and now 2 CPU register architectures.
Most people who buy a Samsung phone buy for nothing but the screen size. I know quite a few who say 'You should try my Samsung iPhone.' I doubt anyone will even remember how many bits the data paths are on the iPhone 5s or the Samsung Galaxy far far away....
The proof will always be in the pudding. Apple can _Exploit_ the 64 bits... Samsung can just market it.
If we where talking about an Apps, of course Samsung could ported them self. But the issue here is more than make android run on a 64 bit CPU, you need to port the IDE and developer tool and gives access to those tool, Samsung doesn't control the Android ecosystem, they can't bypass Google and goes alone without Google for distributing developers tools.
Beside no other OS than OSX as capitalize on multiple arch binary, since Android apps can be Java apps or NDK its even more difficult without braking compatibility to come out with a 32/64 bit universal apps systems. Even Microsoft doesn't comes out with a solution as good as OSX.
So Apple invented 64-bit? /s
A 64-bit processor isn't a big deal unless the device has > 4GB of RAM. The fact that either company is using it for marketing purposes at this point is ridiculous. ......One day, phones may get more RAM and this move will pay off for consumers. ...... Even then, it's highly unlikely that a mobile OS in the next 10 years will allow a single application to address anywhere near 4GB of memory.
The iPhone5s was the iterative, minor upgrade. The iPhone6 will be the "real" upgrade and I think you'll see the benefits there. And I suspect that memory will be used for running multiple applications at the same time without today's limitations. And it's just my guess, but I don't think we'll be waiting until next September for the iPhone6...I think we'll see it sooner.
Actually, they just like to compete on specs. It's easy to do, and a hordes of benchmark geeks will call it "innovation."
Can you elaborate more on your so-called pain felt by the developers? Because this is not reflecting what developer says about Xcode IDE. It took 2 hours to port on 64bit iOS one of its biggest game. Same thing happens on OSX, almost every current apps are universal and transparently run on 32 and 64 bit arch, it require only flicking a switch in Xcode project for developer to maintain both arch with the same codebase and assets.
Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries]. That's now over 20 years of experience. It's the reason why moving OSX to Intel went relatively smoothly. And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.
The closer you are to the iron the harder the port. with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go. Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.
Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.
So Apple invented 64-bit? /s
Yes, along with rectangle, rounded corners. Jon Ive hard at work.
Some deranged souls here also believe that Apple "MADE" PowerPC.
You hope for their sake??? Touching. What is up with this caring for the welfare and affluence of big corporations?
As such, it's possible that Samsung may not have a major 64-bit smartphone on the market until 2014.
Samsung has scheduled their smartphone releases as far from iPhone releases as possible.
Too soon after an iPhone release and there's still too much buzz about the current iPhone.
Too soon before an iPhone release and there's too much buzz about the next iPhone.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place. So yeah, I'd guess they're on track for a late spring release.
But who knows how long it will take Google to port the generic Android release to 64-bits?
And after that, how long for Samsung to port their proprietary apps and weird hacks to the 64-bit OS.
Good luck with all of that, Samsung and Google. Try not to blow it too bad this time.
(I seem to recall several now-defunct Android handset makers who released unsupported hardware.
Took Google months to enable at least one front-facing camera on some old Android phone.)
Oh, and just try copying the M7 motion processor in the 5S.
Without getting sued, that is.
And yet highly radiused corners is in vogue these days. Guess Jony deserves credit for all those competitor products for doing the same.
Apple by nature (since it's NeXT days) has fully supported universal development [at one point RS6000,HP-RISC, Intel, 68K, and rumors of MIPS binaries for OpenSTEP existed as 'fat' binaries]. That's now over 20 years of experience. It's the reason why moving OSX to Intel went relatively smoothly. And once off Carbon , moving to 64bit was even easier.
The closer you are to the iron the harder the port. with iOS, it's REALLY hard to get down to the silicon, so recompile and go. Eventually, you may need to go in and tweak for performance, but rarely does it 'break' things.
Just because you're a Windows developer or a Linux developer, don't extrapolate your experiences into xCode for iOS.
I don't know why you are thinking I'm a Windows developers, I follow Apple IDEs since the Pascal based MPW.
Since the only legitimate way to code on iOS apps is thru the high level Objective-C language, developer never get down to the silicon assembly, and like any POSIX OS, porting an apps on different arch for the same OS only required a recompilation of the same code. Xcode IDE makes things easier by making multi-segment executable, this tech doesn't yet exist on Windows, Linux or Android
With the RAM increases nearing 4 GBs they just about have to go 64-bit.
But if they're not talking with 64-bit then it won't matter because it can't register that amount of RAM. Regardless, I don't know of a phone that is anywhere near 4GB of RAM