Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Until Google announces it, then they don't have it ready. First Google has to announce it and then mfg have to update existing phones. But since these mfg like Samsung won't even pull old outdated phones off the price list like Apple does, I think over time, there will be 64 bit phones which eventually 100% of the iOS will be in about 4 to 5 years, maybe less, to probably never for Android. It's going to a VERY long time until Android phones sold are all 64 bit. So, when they talk about marketshare, Apple will enjoy the majority of the 64 bit market, which are those that spend money and are actually going to be profitable business over the next 5+ years.
In the mean time, Apple's moving faster, sooner, with more experience and their methodology is much quicker to get their user base to a new OS.
If Apple can get a large screen model that's 64 bit to the market before Samsung's S5, then Apple will do a LOT of damage to Samsung's market share. That's all Apple's missing from the price list. I think the 5.5in to 6 inch phablet market hasn't proven itself as a big enough market, but I think the 4.5 to 5 inch has.
Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well.
DED's analysis on Android's transition to 64-bit is completely devoid of evidence. He presents his opinion as fact. He has no insider knowledge and apparently no specialist understanding of modern operating system architecture.
I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that severalconsoles are based on Android!
yeah right, you know engineers my ass
that shit you referenced (OUYA) is really hardly a top class portable gaming device:
From Engadget:
Quote:
The version of OUYA shipping now should be considered a beta release, and anyone hoping for anything more is in for some disappointment. It's simply not ready for retail. The system is rough around the edges in many ways, quite literally when regarding the controller, but the interface and menus also could use work.
There's nothing that would suggest Google moving to 64bit based on quest for performance + fragmentation of Android suggest they can't even solve 32bit version mess, let alone move to 64bit
... rather than doubling down on Andy Rubin's Android-centric strategy, which so far has primarily amassed significant legal problems related to its cavalier approach to intellectual property and built the company a fan base of users who don't like to pay for things, and in particular, software.
This pretty much captures the effect Google has had on the software industry: people now expect everything to be free and could care less about how shoddy and poorly designed things are (or how many IP loopholes Google used to make it free). They'd rather waste a ridiculous amount of time learning how to use cr*p software (or just never really learning how to use it properly at all) than pay a bit up front to save time and sanity in the long run.
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
"64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time" is somewhat true, but you're missing the fact that they were targeting server applications. Nobody had any inkling of putting a 64-bit SoC in a phone.
That's why the tech media refused to believe it was real, and why exVPs from AMD rushed out to say it was hogwash and made no sense to attempt.
If you've been paying attention, you'll recall this all happened before when Apple released the iPhone. RIM BB & Microsoft scoffed at the idea of putting a desktop OS on a high end mobile phone. A mixture of contempt and disbelief.
Also: does Google have its own x86 port of Android or was that just an effort by Intel to enter the mobile market? Who uses it?
Google doesn't need production hardware. Most low-level OS software development is done on dev boards. 64-bit ARMv8 dev boards have been available since last year.
There is a world of difference between an ARM development board and a final product, even if Google does already have a working version of Android for ARM AArch64, no ARM mfg beside Apple has a 64 bit ARM in production yet. Android is still a full year behind Apple.
To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
There's no shortage of pundits and self-described experts asserting that Apple's shift to a 64-bit architecture is either a hoax, a pointless marketing ploy that will deliver no real benefit, or an inevitable shift that everyone will eventually follow anyway at some point, and therefore neither newsworthy nor deserving of any credit.
yeesh. martyr much? at least you got all the bases covered. more ded dreg.
I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.
To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
Actually, iOS root like OSX is coming from Nextstep developed on a 33mhz 68040 processor. While it debuted as a locked OS, they quickly open up the platform with iOS 2.
I think many people were jaded by the Microsoft's poor transition from 32-bit to 64-bit for Windows XP, and Vista. MS required developers and user to pick either 32 or 64-bit during installation time and incompatibility between 64-bit browsers and 32-bit plug-ins.
Apple's OS X transition to 64-bit was relatively seamless.
I won't pretend to be a tech genius. I have no idea how exactly 64-bit will benefit IOS. What I do believe, however, is that Apple no doubt has big plans for this.
Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
Not really. If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process). So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.
As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them). I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).
Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well.
DED's analysis on Android's transition to 64-bit is completely devoid of evidence. He presents his opinion as fact. He has no insider knowledge and apparently no specialist understanding of modern operating system architecture.
I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that severalconsoles are based on Android!
Ask your engineer friends how well Android makes use of those alternative cores.
Then ask some video gamers if they bought the ouya "console" that lets you play kindle type video games on your TV.
Now think about how well Xbox 360, PS3 or Nintendo's Wii platforms would have worked if they'd been openly licensed to hardware makers slopping out cheap devices that all used different types of low end GPUs.
On an ad-centric platform with rampant piracy.
Android is a spruced up version of JavaME floating in the most breathtakingly ballsy balloon of hype since the original Java. And like JavaME, it brags about all these things it could do while all it actually does is sell low end smartphones, where the definition of smartphone is rapidly slipping.
I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.
Ever since the first A4, Apple is designing and customizing the ARM references architecture for their own needs. With P.A. Semi and
Intrinsity acquisition, Apple is currently have the best ARM SoC solution out there. We don't know much yet about the A7, I can't wait for Chipworks teardown and analysis.
Yes, that was SJ's original plan and this is how he sold it to developers (from 9to5mac . com):
Quote:
The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone.
The iPhone 5S has a near workstation class CPU of a decade ago.
It is obvious that more sophisticated apps and interactions between hardware will now be possible from all the iOS and OSX developers in the near future.
Glad to see Daniel bringing this all to light with his insight, where the other media mostly doesn't see below the 4 color glossy headlines.
I think Apple may be on to something here. Making a significant technological breakthrough that is simultaneously hard for their competitors to mimic.
It won't *hard* to follow. It will just take engineering effort - effort that is well understood, and effort that has already begun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Agree. What strikes me as interesting is that Samsung's JK Shin claimed that next year Galaxy S would sport 64-bit processing. They can't do this without Google's cooperation. So either Shin is speaking out of bravado or he is aware of Android's future timeline.
Not really. If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process). So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.
As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them). I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).
Interesting. Were critical elements like the sandbox already present in the original iOS? According to this site (
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Sure, just as likely as having Android 4.x running on half of most Android devices two years after 4.x was released. Dream on!
Comments
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Until Google announces it, then they don't have it ready. First Google has to announce it and then mfg have to update existing phones. But since these mfg like Samsung won't even pull old outdated phones off the price list like Apple does, I think over time, there will be 64 bit phones which eventually 100% of the iOS will be in about 4 to 5 years, maybe less, to probably never for Android. It's going to a VERY long time until Android phones sold are all 64 bit. So, when they talk about marketshare, Apple will enjoy the majority of the 64 bit market, which are those that spend money and are actually going to be profitable business over the next 5+ years.
Not always. I do know many Google and ARM engineers though. Android coped with the move to multi-core CPUs just fine and I don't doubt that it'll handle the move to 64-bit as well.
I also love the way that he asserts that Android has no "console-style" games, despite the fact that several consoles are based on Android!
yeah right, you know engineers my ass
There's nothing that would suggest Google moving to 64bit based on quest for performance + fragmentation of Android suggest they can't even solve 32bit version mess, let alone move to 64bit
Isn't this the best line of this post?
Actually, this was my favourite part:
This pretty much captures the effect Google has had on the software industry: people now expect everything to be free and could care less about how shoddy and poorly designed things are (or how many IP loopholes Google used to make it free). They'd rather waste a ridiculous amount of time learning how to use cr*p software (or just never really learning how to use it properly at all) than pay a bit up front to save time and sanity in the long run.
"64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time" is somewhat true, but you're missing the fact that they were targeting server applications. Nobody had any inkling of putting a 64-bit SoC in a phone.
That's why the tech media refused to believe it was real, and why exVPs from AMD rushed out to say it was hogwash and made no sense to attempt.
If you've been paying attention, you'll recall this all happened before when Apple released the iPhone. RIM BB & Microsoft scoffed at the idea of putting a desktop OS on a high end mobile phone. A mixture of contempt and disbelief.
Also: does Google have its own x86 port of Android or was that just an effort by Intel to enter the mobile market? Who uses it?
(Crickets)
Google doesn't need production hardware. Most low-level OS software development is done on dev boards. 64-bit ARMv8 dev boards have been available since last year.
There is a world of difference between an ARM development board and a final product, even if Google does already have a working version of Android for ARM AArch64, no ARM mfg beside Apple has a 64 bit ARM in production yet. Android is still a full year behind Apple.
To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
iOS, as a platform for webapps? Give me a break!
yeesh. martyr much? at least you got all the bases covered. more ded dreg.
I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.
To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
Actually, iOS root like OSX is coming from Nextstep developed on a 33mhz 68040 processor. While it debuted as a locked OS, they quickly open up the platform with iOS 2.
I think many people were jaded by the Microsoft's poor transition from 32-bit to 64-bit for Windows XP, and Vista. MS required developers and user to pick either 32 or 64-bit during installation time and incompatibility between 64-bit browsers and 32-bit plug-ins.
Apple's OS X transition to 64-bit was relatively seamless.
I won't pretend to be a tech genius. I have no idea how exactly 64-bit will benefit IOS. What I do believe, however, is that Apple no doubt has big plans for this.
Think bigger. AppleTV.
Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.
Not really. If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process). So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.
As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them). I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).
Ask your engineer friends how well Android makes use of those alternative cores.
Then ask some video gamers if they bought the ouya "console" that lets you play kindle type video games on your TV.
Now think about how well Xbox 360, PS3 or Nintendo's Wii platforms would have worked if they'd been openly licensed to hardware makers slopping out cheap devices that all used different types of low end GPUs.
On an ad-centric platform with rampant piracy.
Android is a spruced up version of JavaME floating in the most breathtakingly ballsy balloon of hype since the original Java. And like JavaME, it brags about all these things it could do while all it actually does is sell low end smartphones, where the definition of smartphone is rapidly slipping.
I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that the current ARM 64 bit design has a lot of architecture/instructions to support backwards compatibility. Because Apple controls the hardware and the OS they "could" streamline pieces to make their SOC faster and better when used in an Apple product then anything running Android on generic ARM chips. I believe Apple probably has done this.
Ever since the first A4, Apple is designing and customizing the ARM references architecture for their own needs. With P.A. Semi and
Intrinsity acquisition, Apple is currently have the best ARM SoC solution out there. We don't know much yet about the A7, I can't wait for Chipworks teardown and analysis.
iOS, as a platform for webapps? Give me a break!
Yes, that was SJ's original plan and this is how he sold it to developers (from 9to5mac . com):
Only later was he persuaded to change his mind.
Isn't this the best line of this post?
And, very well write up. Just realized Android's junk territory and happy to be on PURE and serene side of Apple's ecosystem.
It's been junk territory for a while now.
It is obvious that more sophisticated apps and interactions between hardware will now be possible from all the iOS and OSX developers in the near future.
Glad to see Daniel bringing this all to light with his insight, where the other media mostly doesn't see below the 4 color glossy headlines.
I think Apple may be on to something here. Making a significant technological breakthrough that is simultaneously hard for their competitors to mimic.
It won't *hard* to follow. It will just take engineering effort - effort that is well understood, and effort that has already begun.
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Agree. What strikes me as interesting is that Samsung's JK Shin claimed that next year Galaxy S would sport 64-bit processing. They can't do this without Google's cooperation. So either Shin is speaking out of bravado or he is aware of Android's future timeline.
Not really. If you read the backstory on the creation of the iPhone, Apple rushed it to market very quickly (burning out a few engineers in the process). So some things, like a 3rd party app development environment, had to be left out to make the deadline.
As someone who was involved with helping reverse-engineer a development environment for the first iPhone, I can definitively say that all of the native development frameworks were in place already (but only Apple could use them). I have no doubt that 3rd party application development was planned from the start, they just needed a bit more time to polish the development tools and document everything (not to mention create an app store).
Interesting. Were critical elements like the sandbox already present in the original iOS? According to this site (
http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Sandbox) the sandbox debuted in iOS 2.0 along with the app store.
Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.
I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.
Sure, just as likely as having Android 4.x running on half of most Android devices two years after 4.x was released. Dream on!