@bloggerblog: Samsung owns over 100,000+ patents worldwide; or 38,000+ US patents alone. Yes, Samsung is the largest LTE patent holders in the world, along with Qualcomm and in many other areas like manufacturing, design, process, etc..
Now, can we please stop with these baseless rumors already?
First you quote a PCMag article, really?
Second, it was 2012, will you please post a follow up article about what happened? There would be results by now?
Samsung has so many patents as do many other companies. How many are strong, non SEP FRAND encumbered patents?
The number of patents doesn't matter, it's the quality. Have you seen how many smartphone/tech patents have been invalidated in Germany? The majority.
Do you know why Samsung uses Qualcomm ARM chips in all their US phones instead of their own ARM chips? Because Qualcomm has more (or stronger) 3G/LTE patents than Samsung. Qualcomm strong arms Samsung with the cellular patents. In the US, if Samsung wants to use Qualcomm patents in other markets, they have to buy the Qualcomm chips to use in the US.
You do realized that Samsung and Qualcomm are both partners and adversaries?
this is logical, IFF there is enough multi-tasking built in iOS 8 drive the parallelism.
IOS has all the multitasking potential of unix. Beyond that apps can spawn their own threads. Sure it is app centric in that some apps simply can't leverage multiple cores. That is a fact of life when it comes to parallel processing, sometimes there is no pay off at all.
You can't run single threads through multiple cpus.
True but it is very easy to generate multiple threads these days. Plus you have other processes running. Combine low power with the ability to run other processes and we may see Apple open up iOS to handle more apps doing background processing. There is limited capability right now but I can see that growing.
Right now, I see 3 dominant processing threads, input monitoring, display management, the primary app, with all the attendant background apps running. Given the performance envelope, This begs the question of 2 (or more)'primary' apps running, or greater decomposition of the primary/background apps. If they can't see a dramatic improvement/need for multiple cores, clock speeds improvements at same battery consumption would be equally plausible.
Exactly, a lower power processor permits more options for Apple when it comes how tasks and threads run.
This whole subthread becomes rhetorical... but Apple doesn't dramatically improve it's SoC without a corresponding performance need and the OS designed to integrate the need to the speed;-)
Honestly Apple needs to take a wider view with the next update to this platform! By this I mean things like RAM and flash storage space need to be improved of nobody will be leveraging the power in the CPU. Apple needs to double RAM space at the minimum but ideally they should go to 4GB. Right now RAM space holds developers back as much as anything.
Were Apple to change chips again, it would be easier. The way to not worry about emulation is to use the built in app universal library packaging from AppKit/Mach-o.
The executable can be built FAT ( all executables for iOS are built fat if they have to handle the different versions of ARM or ARM64, which most do). There were FAT builds for PPC and Intel.
I don’t see a modern need for Rossetta were there any change. Just announce the chip change a few months, or a year in advance, and ask devs to build FAT for a few months before the actual hardware release to guarantee getting into the App Store.
That’s most of your applications, and any stragglers have to be downloaded from the web, but in the modern OS they won’t automatically run anyway, unless you reduce security in System Preferences. So for most people, except expert users who turn the security options off , downloads from the App Store will be FAT downloads and will run on all architectures. Everybody else can take their chances.
There was a lot more than Motorola (Pre-PPC/PPC Prototype the Brick in Multiprocessor layout) and Intel. There was HP PA-RISC and SPARC 5/10. ARM is just the latest, after PPC. We used to brand NeXTSTEP 3.3 as Quad-FAT.
I never buy anything from Samsung because they are immoral. Apple is doing the right thing by trying their level best to make Samsung-free products. The sooner, the better
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow
I've seen a lot of users on this forum say something along these lines - that they don't buy Samsung TVs out of principle because of Samsung's shady business practices. Yet everyone seems to forget that the processor and many other components in their iPhone is manufactured by Samsung. By buying an iPhone, you are in fact buying Samsung products but yet people seem okay with that. Apparently principles only matter if the Samsung logo isn't displayed.
They justify it by saying the A# is an Apple design, Samsung are just manufacturing it, so it isn't a Samsung product.
The justification arguments are always a good read.
Comments
First you quote a PCMag article, really?
Second, it was 2012, will you please post a follow up article about what happened? There would be results by now?
Samsung has so many patents as do many other companies. How many are strong, non SEP FRAND encumbered patents?
The number of patents doesn't matter, it's the quality. Have you seen how many smartphone/tech patents have been invalidated in Germany? The majority.
Do you know why Samsung uses Qualcomm ARM chips in all their US phones instead of their own ARM chips? Because Qualcomm has more (or stronger) 3G/LTE patents than Samsung. Qualcomm strong arms Samsung with the cellular patents. In the US, if Samsung wants to use Qualcomm patents in other markets, they have to buy the Qualcomm chips to use in the US.
You do realized that Samsung and Qualcomm are both partners and adversaries?
True but it is very easy to generate multiple threads these days. Plus you have other processes running. Combine low power with the ability to run other processes and we may see Apple open up iOS to handle more apps doing background processing. There is limited capability right now but I can see that growing. Exactly, a lower power processor permits more options for Apple when it comes how tasks and threads run. Honestly Apple needs to take a wider view with the next update to this platform! By this I mean things like RAM and flash storage space need to be improved of nobody will be leveraging the power in the CPU. Apple needs to double RAM space at the minimum but ideally they should go to 4GB. Right now RAM space holds developers back as much as anything.
Were Apple to change chips again, it would be easier. The way to not worry about emulation is to use the built in app universal library packaging from AppKit/Mach-o.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary#NeXTSTEP_Multi-Architecture_Binaries
The executable can be built FAT ( all executables for iOS are built fat if they have to handle the different versions of ARM or ARM64, which most do). There were FAT builds for PPC and Intel.
I don’t see a modern need for Rossetta were there any change. Just announce the chip change a few months, or a year in advance, and ask devs to build FAT for a few months before the actual hardware release to guarantee getting into the App Store.
That’s most of your applications, and any stragglers have to be downloaded from the web, but in the modern OS they won’t automatically run anyway, unless you reduce security in System Preferences. So for most people, except expert users who turn the security options off , downloads from the App Store will be FAT downloads and will run on all architectures. Everybody else can take their chances.
There was a lot more than Motorola (Pre-PPC/PPC Prototype the Brick in Multiprocessor layout) and Intel. There was HP PA-RISC and SPARC 5/10. ARM is just the latest, after PPC. We used to brand NeXTSTEP 3.3 as Quad-FAT.
I never buy anything from Samsung because they are immoral. Apple is doing the right thing by trying their level best to make Samsung-free products. The sooner, the better
I've seen a lot of users on this forum say something along these lines - that they don't buy Samsung TVs out of principle because of Samsung's shady business practices. Yet everyone seems to forget that the processor and many other components in their iPhone is manufactured by Samsung. By buying an iPhone, you are in fact buying Samsung products but yet people seem okay with that. Apparently principles only matter if the Samsung logo isn't displayed.
They justify it by saying the A# is an Apple design, Samsung are just manufacturing it, so it isn't a Samsung product.
The justification arguments are always a good read.