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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
Ah insult time again. That must mean you're running out of logical counter-arguments and I'm winning.
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.
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!
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).
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.
…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.
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.
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%?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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
Cheers,
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
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.
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.
Of course it's OK for you to make blanket statements. Oh the irony.
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.
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
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).
…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.
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.
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%?
There is a pretty good explanation of all that in the story you are commenting on. Maybe you should read it...
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.
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.
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?
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.