Sounds like it means his speculation (hope?) was incorrect.
So I guess Samsung was not surprised then and were just responding to the announcement. Surprised they didn't announce their work on a 64-bit ARM chip for their 2014 Galaxy phones ahead of the iPhone launch then.
The contract probably had a non-disclosure clause with penalties somewhat akin to having one's testicles forcibly removed through the anus with a set of rusty vice grips. Besides, Samsung (corrective text actually just suggested "same sung" - LMAO) already has the worldwide reputation of being a slavish copier. They seem to be fine with it. It hasn't hurt their sales.
Sounds like it means his speculation (hope?) was incorrect.
So I guess Samsung was not surprised then and were just responding to the announcement. Surprised they didn't announce their work on a 64-bit ARM chip for their 2014 Galaxy phones ahead of the iPhone launch then.
Samsung though is handcuffed in that they do not possess an ARM architectural license. Even if they already knew that Apple was moving to a 64-bit architecture, Samsung does not have the licensing needed to develop their ARM-based CPUs independent of ARM's timetable.
Unlike Apple and Qualcomm (both ARM architectural licensees), Samsung can only build their SOCs using ARM's reference cores, and the first CPUs based on the reference ARMv8 designs won't come out until sometime in 2014. Architectural licensees can build their own custom CPUs, and only need to be compatible with the reference instruction sets. This gives Apple and Qualcomm a potential leg up in that they can do the CPU development entirely on their own schedule and using their own core designs, while retaining the option to use ARM's reference design.
Samsung though is handcuffed in that they do not possess an ARM architectural license. Even if they already knew that Apple was moving to a 64-bit architecture, Samsung does not have the licensing needed to develop their ARM-based CPUs independent of ARM's timetable.
Unlike Apple and Qualcomm (both ARM architectural licensees), Samsung can only build their SOCs using ARM's reference cores, and the first CPUs based on the reference ARMv8 designs won't come out until sometime in 2014. Architectural licensees can build their own custom CPUs, and only need to be compatible with the reference instruction sets. This gives Apple and Qualcomm a potential leg up in that they can do the CPU development entirely on their own schedule and using their own core designs, while retaining the option to use ARM's reference design.
Samsung has had an ARM architectural license for some years now. Their proprietary core designs will show up soon.
Because there was zero mention in any media of an apple switch to 64-bit before Apples announcement. We saw everything else, 5C details, 5s colors, flash, touchId etc in perhaps the most worst kept product details of any iPhone iteration. Except for 64-bit, there was nothing not even the faintest smell.
There were reports in August that speculated that Apple would move to 64-bit, but most of the commentators found those reports too far fetched to believe. We saw those other details IMO because Apple leaked them, perhaps to divert attention from the much bigger lift going on behind the scenes with the 64-bit transition. That transition involved multiple parts (64-bit SoC, 64-bit OS, 64-bit apps, 64-bit developer tools), none of which had any credible leaks prior to Sept 10. I guess it's easier to keep a chip architecture and 64-bit code under wraps than brightly colored cases.
Must be tough for a Samsung semiconductor engineer to see their own chips coming off the line that are clones of ARM designs while on the line next door there's an advanced 64 bit chip designed by your competitor.
And realizing the chip you're making for your competitor is far superior to anything you make yourself.
Samsung has had an ARM architectural license for some years now. Their proprietary core designs will show up soon.
They've had a license yet nothing has come from it. Apple already had their own custom design in the A6 from last year. Apple is way ahead of Samsung in this area.
So, maybe the S does not stand for "Same" after all, but for SAMSUNG.
You sheep must be so happy to know that with each iPhone 5S sold, mighty SAMSUNG receives some of your money.
iPhone 5C = Con
iPhone 5S = SAMSUNG
?? ?? ? ??
... until Apple farms all their mfg out to other suppliers. At that point, Samsung won't have anything but techblog rumors to pre-emptively copy from . . .
Really. Look on linkedin when Samsung hired Brad Burgess away from AMD. They've been working on their own 64-bit ARM core since about that time. Why else would they hire him? For that matter so has Apple and AMCC and so on.
Samsung must be so embarrassed and ashamed that they have to make Apple's 64-bit A7 CPU.
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
This is why they have to try to make fun of Apple as a way of coping with the bad news.
Comments
The contract probably had a non-disclosure clause with penalties somewhat akin to having one's testicles forcibly removed through the anus with a set of rusty vice grips. Besides, Samsung (corrective text actually just suggested "same sung" - LMAO) already has the worldwide reputation of being a slavish copier. They seem to be fine with it. It hasn't hurt their sales.
"What a world! What a world! What a world!" = Wicked Witch of the West / The Wizard of Oz
/
/
Then a 64-bit Android phone should be just around the corner.
Intel's Silvermont cores are x86 and 64-bit. They will be in phones in Q1 of of 2014.
Sounds like it means his speculation (hope?) was incorrect.
Yes.
I said this days ago:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/159530/after-its-disastrous-exynos-5-octa-samsung-may-have-lost-apples-a7-contract-to-tsmc/200#post_2397808
So much for Apple "innovation"...
So, maybe the S does not stand for "Same" after all, but for SAMSUNG.
You sheep must be so happy to know that with each iPhone 5S sold, mighty SAMSUNG receives some of your money.
iPhone 5C = Con
iPhone 5S = SAMSUNG
?? ?? ? ??
Samsung though is handcuffed in that they do not possess an ARM architectural license. Even if they already knew that Apple was moving to a 64-bit architecture, Samsung does not have the licensing needed to develop their ARM-based CPUs independent of ARM's timetable.
Unlike Apple and Qualcomm (both ARM architectural licensees), Samsung can only build their SOCs using ARM's reference cores, and the first CPUs based on the reference ARMv8 designs won't come out until sometime in 2014. Architectural licensees can build their own custom CPUs, and only need to be compatible with the reference instruction sets. This gives Apple and Qualcomm a potential leg up in that they can do the CPU development entirely on their own schedule and using their own core designs, while retaining the option to use ARM's reference design.
So much for Apple "innovation"...
So, maybe the S does not stand for "Same" after all, but for SAMSUNG.
You sheep must be so happy to know that with each iPhone 5S sold, mighty SAMSUNG receives some of your money.
iPhone 5C = Con
iPhone 5S = SAMSUNG
?? ?? ? ??
Congratulations!
You're today's winner of the "Troll of the Day" post.
Samsung though is handcuffed in that they do not possess an ARM architectural license. Even if they already knew that Apple was moving to a 64-bit architecture, Samsung does not have the licensing needed to develop their ARM-based CPUs independent of ARM's timetable.
Unlike Apple and Qualcomm (both ARM architectural licensees), Samsung can only build their SOCs using ARM's reference cores, and the first CPUs based on the reference ARMv8 designs won't come out until sometime in 2014. Architectural licensees can build their own custom CPUs, and only need to be compatible with the reference instruction sets. This gives Apple and Qualcomm a potential leg up in that they can do the CPU development entirely on their own schedule and using their own core designs, while retaining the option to use ARM's reference design.
Samsung has had an ARM architectural license for some years now. Their proprietary core designs will show up soon.
Because there was zero mention in any media of an apple switch to 64-bit before Apples announcement. We saw everything else, 5C details, 5s colors, flash, touchId etc in perhaps the most worst kept product details of any iPhone iteration. Except for 64-bit, there was nothing not even the faintest smell.
There were reports in August that speculated that Apple would move to 64-bit, but most of the commentators found those reports too far fetched to believe. We saw those other details IMO because Apple leaked them, perhaps to divert attention from the much bigger lift going on behind the scenes with the 64-bit transition. That transition involved multiple parts (64-bit SoC, 64-bit OS, 64-bit apps, 64-bit developer tools), none of which had any credible leaks prior to Sept 10. I guess it's easier to keep a chip architecture and 64-bit code under wraps than brightly colored cases.
Samsung has had an ARM architectural license for some years now. Their proprietary core designs will show up soon.
Actually, you're right. Never mind!
Must be tough for a Samsung semiconductor engineer to see their own chips coming off the line that are clones of ARM designs while on the line next door there's an advanced 64 bit chip designed by your competitor.
And realizing the chip you're making for your competitor is far superior to anything you make yourself.
Samsung has had an ARM architectural license for some years now. Their proprietary core designs will show up soon.
They've had a license yet nothing has come from it. Apple already had their own custom design in the A6 from last year. Apple is way ahead of Samsung in this area.
That's nice. If they actually ship it, maybe they can be the second 64-bit phone. Maybe.
Really? I found indications they may have signed an architectural license this year, but years past looks like just a standard licensee.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/29/samsung-new-arm-compatible-exynos-processor/
So much for Apple "innovation"...
So, maybe the S does not stand for "Same" after all, but for SAMSUNG.
You sheep must be so happy to know that with each iPhone 5S sold, mighty SAMSUNG receives some of your money.
iPhone 5C = Con
iPhone 5S = SAMSUNG
?? ?? ? ??
... until Apple farms all their mfg out to other suppliers. At that point, Samsung won't have anything but techblog rumors to pre-emptively copy from . . .
Here's to a long and prosperous future with TSMC (~~)
Yet it looks like being a short and sweet one.
Really? I found indications they may have signed an architectural license this year, but years past looks like just a standard licensee.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/29/samsung-new-arm-compatible-exynos-processor/
Really. Look on linkedin when Samsung hired Brad Burgess away from AMD. They've been working on their own 64-bit ARM core since about that time. Why else would they hire him? For that matter so has Apple and AMCC and so on.
Either Samsung didn't know what the A7 was capable of, or they truly kept it secret.
Question: Can you (someone knowledgable in the field) look at an IC layout and determine if it's 64-bit addressing (vs. 32-bit)?
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
This is why they have to try to make fun of Apple as a way of coping with the bad news.