1. If Apple were a team player with Wall Street analysts, instead of having $150 billion in the bank, Apple would be carrying $150+ billion in debt. By being a team player with Wall Street as you write, the US government will not bail Apple out of its debt, but it will bail out the banks analysts work for like Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, etc. with the money US citizens have saved. This is done because the banks "are too big to fail". Apple, on the hand, is not. The analysts will continue to do EXACTLY what they are doing because they are allowed to do so by the US government.
2. I truly wish I could prove this, but I feel Wall Street sucked up bribe dollars from Apple's competitors to write history against Apple. The greed of Wall Street has been and continues to be documented. For some reason the greed is allowed to persist. With all of the corruption going on in Washington, DC, Wall Street will never be fully held accountable for its coordinated financial destruction of a great company.
3. When Apple changed its product release schedule of iPhone from Summer to Fall, Wall Street griped. When Apple released the New iPad six months after releasing the iPad 3, Apple was sued for planned obsolescence.
4. You claim you do not want Apple to dilute its brand, yet you want Apple to be a Wall Street team player by providing a special dividend and doing what Wall Street dictates it do.
5. You consider the iPhone 5C design mediocre in comparison to what? The Galaxy S4? Really? How about in comparison to iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS? How do you define mediocre? What SHOULD Apple have done to make the iPhone 5C better than it is? Please for the love of God do not respond with it should have been cheaper! Come up with something original instead of repeating the garbage Wall Street analysts have been proven false with in this article.
6. Nothing to disagree with here. I miss the pre-iOS 7 lock screen and the iBooks UI. And for me, Safari does crash every time I write a response on my iPhone and iPad when attempting to write a response on this Web site. Safari on my iMac seems to be okay. Other than those three quibbles, I am satisfied with iOS 7's user experience.
Your criticism of Apple out of your love for its products seems a farce. Anyone caring about the longevity of the company and its products would not say the company should have been a team player with Wall Street.
Wall Street analysts would have celebrated Apple's team player show until the checks were received. Then Wall Street would have turned against Apple and demanded more checks. Before you disagree, please remember how Wall Street wanted Apple to provide a dividend. When Apple complied, Wall Street analysts were happy until the first dividend was paid. Then the greed for even more money kicked in. When Apple added debt to its balance sheet as Wall Street analysts wanted, the analysts celebrated Apple. Soon after that, Wall Street turned against Apple even more vehemently than were already doing.
Apple was not the first company to implement a fingerprint sensor in a smartphone. Apple was THE first company to get a fingerprint sensor working consistently. Yes, some iPhone 5S customers are having problems with their fingerprint sensors, but unlike Motorola, I sincerely doubt Apple will stop improving the fingerprint sensor and using the fingerprint sensor across more of its devices.
Getting technology as right as possible BEFORE it ships is what Apple is all about. Getting technology is hard and it takes time. This may mean Apple will be considered a laggard to Wall Street analysts and people like you, but it shows Apple is working to solve real problems in an attempt to be right out the door.
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer. In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
The discussion started when EricTheHalfBee wrote this. "Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft."
And my argument was that content providers earn money for themselves with Apple earning a cut. Yes Apple provides the means for someone to earn but it surely doesn’t earn for them. How much they earn is entirely up to them whether it be a musician or a dev.
No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple. Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods. Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part of both the creative and distribution elements of the business.
It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people aren't stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.
And nobody talks about Japan... Like it's some kind of blip or something.
The numbers out of Japan are mind numbing. It's the world's 3rd economy... you'd believe it would provide some kind of respect for Apple. But no, the medias had Apple as a Darjeeling a few years ago, but now it makes more money, prints more magazines and grabs more clicks to simply bash the fruity brand.
They find the one statistic that will go along with their chosen message... the one angle that will afford them the ink to trash-talk and bad mouth Apple. --- All of this probably means that in a few years time, it’s going to be Apple's turn to be in the media's limelight. Trends come and go - and then repeat themselves. Maybe it’s going to be the iPhone 6 or the iPhone 7 (or who-knows-what) that tips the pendant, but somewhere down the line it’s going to be utterly un-cool to bash Apple. Somewhere down the line...
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.
"At a Glance
The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.
When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.
When iOS is executing on a 64-bit device, iOS includes separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the system frameworks. When all apps running on the device are compiled for the 64-bit runtime, iOS never loads the 32-bit versions of those libraries. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s to everyone’s benefit that all apps running on 64-bit devices be compiled for the 64-bit runtime, especially apps that support background processing. Even apps that are not performance sensitive gain from this memory efficiency.
So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?
First off, the phrase "up to" can be misleading. I'd have to see the benchmark applications used and the actual execution times
This is might due to the fact and a 32-bit application would need a set of libraries that act as an interpretation layer to interface with a 64-bit CPU. If the CPU was 32-bit than these libraries wouldn't be needed.
It also depends on the compiler. If the code is compiled in 32-bit, it might be trying to be compatible with all of the older processors (A5, A6) and thus not able to take advantage of additional hardware features present in the A7. If you have a 64-bit compilation target, the compiler knows that its gonna run on an A7 and then can do more optimizations specifically relevant to the device. These extra optimizations, would be present, however, if it were a hypothetical 32-bit A7.
There are other things, but those two are the most likely.
It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people are stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.
So an orthopedic surgeon, or an astrophysicist that uses an iPhone as a consumer is both "stupid" and a "techtard". Maybe they just have better things to do than screw around with the inner workings.
So an orthopedic surgeon, or an astrophysicist that uses an iPhone as a consumer is both "stupid" and a "techtard".
Cool your jets. That is a typo and it's been corrected and what you quote doesn't make sense with the rest of the content of that sentence or the rest of the paragraph.
Maybe they just have better things to do than screw around with the inner workings.
I said the same thing in the very post you quote.
Why don't you just call them consumers?
We're all consumers but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Even within computer technologies the many readers of this site have their strengths and weakness. I would define myself as being techtarded when it comes to CPU design, pretty much anything about GPUs, and programming. Why would I simply call myself a consumer in that regard?
For me, it is just obvious that Apple's products do what I need and want. Never had an ounce of trouble understanding what they are for, how to use them, how they help me do things I want to do.
I can't say the same about other offerings. I'm forced to use MS products at work. They baffle me on the most basic level.
Samsung's big is better is baffling. I want it in my pocket and easy to handle. If not, I want the iPad sizes. And I'm typing this on a MB Air I love.
I'm curious about iWatch. Still don't know what it is for, but it might be intriguing at a reasonable price. Same is true of iTV: Content is far more important, and I just don't see this kind of hardware being a big focus for Cook/Ive. These HDTVs are all the same, and are real cheap. Not sure there is value in AAPL stock for that. Show me a pay per view content, and I'm in. But...it ain't gonna happen.
I'm not sure you can judge the success of tech by profit margin, but shareholders certainly disagree with me on that.
Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.
"At a Glance
The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.
When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.
When iOS is executing on a 64-bit device, iOS includes separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the system frameworks. When all apps running on the device are compiled for the 64-bit runtime, iOS never loads the 32-bit versions of those libraries. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s to everyone’s benefit that all apps running on 64-bit devices be compiled for the 64-bit runtime, especially apps that support background processing. Even apps that are not performance sensitive gain from this memory efficiency.
Lol, I saw right after I wrote my response. Pretty much exactly what I said. If you target the A7 the compiler will optimize the code better. Otherwise you have inefficiency losses. That being said, if you had a 32-bit A7 CPU, with similar additional hardware features, the performance difference would probably be a wash.
The are a couple of misleading things though in the marketing talk.
" The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers."
The software register count has limited bearing on the physical register count for most complex CPUs (out-of-order).
"Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains."
I can't imagine an application is going to extensively use 64-bit integer math. Also, NEON instructions are SIMD so they will probably use smaller than 64-bit chunks most of the time.
I'm probably overconcerned with the details when reading articles like this.
" Windows 8.1, which managed to further damage a major market that was actually wildly successful at one point: the Windows PC"
I don't really see how 8.1 damaged anything in particular. Maybe Windows 8 did but 8.1 is just a service pack. It wasn't panned and it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. it just was.
Exactly, all 8.1 did was bring some improvements to Windows 8.
Microsoft's biggest mistake in 2013 was continuing to push Windows RT. A Surface 2 with x86 Windows 8.1 and Bay Trail could have been a great (and desirable) device. Every manufacturer has ditched Windows RT and will be releasing x86 Windows on inexpensive and light tablets/2-in-1s. Although their release was late in the year, Bay Trail devices have been great, such as the ASUS T100 ($349) and the Dell Venue 8 Pro ($299). I think Microsoft really dropped the ball on that (now missed) opportunity.
No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple. Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods. Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part of both the creative and distribution elements of the business.
I never denied that and wholeheartedly agree, but the onus to earn money is on the content providers.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
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?
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
MJ Web, I have to disagree with you as follows...
1. If Apple were a team player with Wall Street analysts, instead of having $150 billion in the bank, Apple would be carrying $150+ billion in debt. By being a team player with Wall Street as you write, the US government will not bail Apple out of its debt, but it will bail out the banks analysts work for like Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, etc. with the money US citizens have saved. This is done because the banks "are too big to fail". Apple, on the hand, is not. The analysts will continue to do EXACTLY what they are doing because they are allowed to do so by the US government.
2. I truly wish I could prove this, but I feel Wall Street sucked up bribe dollars from Apple's competitors to write history against Apple. The greed of Wall Street has been and continues to be documented. For some reason the greed is allowed to persist. With all of the corruption going on in Washington, DC, Wall Street will never be fully held accountable for its coordinated financial destruction of a great company.
3. When Apple changed its product release schedule of iPhone from Summer to Fall, Wall Street griped. When Apple released the New iPad six months after releasing the iPad 3, Apple was sued for planned obsolescence.
4. You claim you do not want Apple to dilute its brand, yet you want Apple to be a Wall Street team player by providing a special dividend and doing what Wall Street dictates it do.
5. You consider the iPhone 5C design mediocre in comparison to what? The Galaxy S4? Really? How about in comparison to iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS? How do you define mediocre? What SHOULD Apple have done to make the iPhone 5C better than it is? Please for the love of God do not respond with it should have been cheaper! Come up with something original instead of repeating the garbage Wall Street analysts have been proven false with in this article.
6. Nothing to disagree with here. I miss the pre-iOS 7 lock screen and the iBooks UI. And for me, Safari does crash every time I write a response on my iPhone and iPad when attempting to write a response on this Web site. Safari on my iMac seems to be okay. Other than those three quibbles, I am satisfied with iOS 7's user experience.
Your criticism of Apple out of your love for its products seems a farce. Anyone caring about the longevity of the company and its products would not say the company should have been a team player with Wall Street.
Wall Street analysts would have celebrated Apple's team player show until the checks were received. Then Wall Street would have turned against Apple and demanded more checks. Before you disagree, please remember how Wall Street wanted Apple to provide a dividend. When Apple complied, Wall Street analysts were happy until the first dividend was paid. Then the greed for even more money kicked in. When Apple added debt to its balance sheet as Wall Street analysts wanted, the analysts celebrated Apple. Soon after that, Wall Street turned against Apple even more vehemently than were already doing.
Apple was not the first company to implement a fingerprint sensor in a smartphone. Apple was THE first company to get a fingerprint sensor working consistently. Yes, some iPhone 5S customers are having problems with their fingerprint sensors, but unlike Motorola, I sincerely doubt Apple will stop improving the fingerprint sensor and using the fingerprint sensor across more of its devices.
Getting technology as right as possible BEFORE it ships is what Apple is all about. Getting technology is hard and it takes time. This may mean Apple will be considered a laggard to Wall Street analysts and people like you, but it shows Apple is working to solve real problems in an attempt to be right out the door.
I am looking forward to reading your reply! :-)))
Oh yeah, happy new year to you, too!!
Ugh. So why didn't you blast SolipsismX for using that term first?
Interestingly, I wasn't following his threads, so you get the credit for using it.
Do you find "techtard" appropriate?
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer. In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
The discussion started when EricTheHalfBee wrote this. "Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft."
And my argument was that content providers earn money for themselves with Apple earning a cut. Yes Apple provides the means for someone to earn but it surely doesn’t earn for them. How much they earn is entirely up to them whether it be a musician or a dev.
No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple. Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods. Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part of both the creative and distribution elements of the business.
It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people aren't stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.
edit: typo.
The numbers out of Japan are mind numbing. It's the world's 3rd economy... you'd believe it would provide some kind of respect for Apple. But no, the medias had Apple as a Darjeeling a few years ago, but now it makes more money, prints more magazines and grabs more clicks to simply bash the fruity brand.
They find the one statistic that will go along with their chosen message... the one angle that will afford them the ink to trash-talk and bad mouth Apple.
---
All of this probably means that in a few years time, it’s going to be Apple's turn to be in the media's limelight. Trends come and go - and then repeat themselves. Maybe it’s going to be the iPhone 6 or the iPhone 7 (or who-knows-what) that tips the pendant, but somewhere down the line it’s going to be utterly un-cool to bash Apple. Somewhere down the line...
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.
"At a Glance
The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.
When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.
When iOS is executing on a 64-bit device, iOS includes separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the system frameworks. When all apps running on the device are compiled for the 64-bit runtime, iOS never loads the 32-bit versions of those libraries. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s to everyone’s benefit that all apps running on 64-bit devices be compiled for the 64-bit runtime, especially apps that support background processing. Even apps that are not performance sensitive gain from this memory efficiency.
So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?
First off, the phrase "up to" can be misleading. I'd have to see the benchmark applications used and the actual execution times
This is might due to the fact and a 32-bit application would need a set of libraries that act as an interpretation layer to interface with a 64-bit CPU. If the CPU was 32-bit than these libraries wouldn't be needed.
It also depends on the compiler. If the code is compiled in 32-bit, it might be trying to be compatible with all of the older processors (A5, A6) and thus not able to take advantage of additional hardware features present in the A7. If you have a 64-bit compilation target, the compiler knows that its gonna run on an A7 and then can do more optimizations specifically relevant to the device. These extra optimizations, would be present, however, if it were a hypothetical 32-bit A7.
There are other things, but those two are the most likely.
It's a less verbose way of describing the people who are not well educated and/or inclined to using whatever core technology is being discussed. These people are stupid they are just consumers, as you stated, that are looking for a device or an app to enrich their lives in some way but they don't want to spend their days discussing the technology they use. They want it to work. Period. Same for most drivers; they don't want to be mechanics.
So an orthopedic surgeon, or an astrophysicist that uses an iPhone as a consumer is both "stupid" and a "techtard". Maybe they just have better things to do than screw around with the inner workings.
Why don't you just call them consumers?
Cool your jets. That is a typo and it's been corrected and what you quote doesn't make sense with the rest of the content of that sentence or the rest of the paragraph.
I said the same thing in the very post you quote.
We're all consumers but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Even within computer technologies the many readers of this site have their strengths and weakness. I would define myself as being techtarded when it comes to CPU design, pretty much anything about GPUs, and programming. Why would I simply call myself a consumer in that regard?
Interesting article, interesting analysis.
For me, it is just obvious that Apple's products do what I need and want. Never had an ounce of trouble understanding what they are for, how to use them, how they help me do things I want to do.
I can't say the same about other offerings. I'm forced to use MS products at work. They baffle me on the most basic level.
Samsung's big is better is baffling. I want it in my pocket and easy to handle. If not, I want the iPad sizes. And I'm typing this on a MB Air I love.
I'm curious about iWatch. Still don't know what it is for, but it might be intriguing at a reasonable price. Same is true of iTV: Content is far more important, and I just don't see this kind of hardware being a big focus for Cook/Ive. These HDTVs are all the same, and are real cheap. Not sure there is value in AAPL stock for that. Show me a pay per view content, and I'm in. But...it ain't gonna happen.
I'm not sure you can judge the success of tech by profit margin, but shareholders certainly disagree with me on that.
Here's what Apple says, and I don't think that they agree with you.
"At a Glance
The Apple A7 processor supports two distinct instruction sets. The first is the 32-bit ARM instruction set supported by Apple’s previous processors. The second is a brand-new 64-bit ARM architecture. The 64-bit architecture includes support for a vastly larger address space, but that is not the only (or most important) architectural improvement it provides. The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers. Apple’s LLVM compiler has been optimized to take full advantage of this new architecture. As a result, 64-bit apps can work with more data at once for improved performance. Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains. So, even though 32-bit apps already run faster on the A7 processor than they did on earlier processors, converting apps to 64-bit almost always provides better performance.
When a 64-bit app is running in iOS, pointers are 64 bits. Some integer types, once 32 bits, are also now 64 bits. Many data types in system frameworks, especially UIKit and Foundation, have also changed. These changes mean that a 64-bit app uses more memory than a 32-bit app. If not managed carefully, the increased memory consumption can be detrimental to an app’s performance.
When iOS is executing on a 64-bit device, iOS includes separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the system frameworks. When all apps running on the device are compiled for the 64-bit runtime, iOS never loads the 32-bit versions of those libraries. As a result, the system uses less memory and launches apps more quickly. Because all of the built-in apps already support the 64-bit runtime, it’s to everyone’s benefit that all apps running on 64-bit devices be compiled for the 64-bit runtime, especially apps that support background processing. Even apps that are not performance sensitive gain from this memory efficiency.
Lol, I saw right after I wrote my response. Pretty much exactly what I said. If you target the A7 the compiler will optimize the code better. Otherwise you have inefficiency losses. That being said, if you had a 32-bit A7 CPU, with similar additional hardware features, the performance difference would probably be a wash.
The are a couple of misleading things though in the marketing talk.
" The 64-bit architecture supports a new and streamlined instruction set that supports twice as many integer and floating-point registers."
The software register count has limited bearing on the physical register count for most complex CPUs (out-of-order).
"Apps that extensively use 64-bit integer math or custom NEON operations see even larger performance gains."
I can't imagine an application is going to extensively use 64-bit integer math. Also, NEON instructions are SIMD so they will probably use smaller than 64-bit chunks most of the time.
I'm probably overconcerned with the details when reading articles like this.
It's an amusing term but I wasn't serious and I'd say he wasn't either.
" Windows 8.1, which managed to further damage a major market that was actually wildly successful at one point: the Windows PC"
I don't really see how 8.1 damaged anything in particular. Maybe Windows 8 did but 8.1 is just a service pack. It wasn't panned and it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. it just was.
Exactly, all 8.1 did was bring some improvements to Windows 8.
Microsoft's biggest mistake in 2013 was continuing to push Windows RT. A Surface 2 with x86 Windows 8.1 and Bay Trail could have been a great (and desirable) device. Every manufacturer has ditched Windows RT and will be releasing x86 Windows on inexpensive and light tablets/2-in-1s. Although their release was late in the year, Bay Trail devices have been great, such as the ASUS T100 ($349) and the Dell Venue 8 Pro ($299). I think Microsoft really dropped the ball on that (now missed) opportunity.
I never denied that and wholeheartedly agree, but the onus to earn money is on the content providers.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
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?
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.
Beyoncé would make money regardless if where she sold her album. Can you say that about many Devs if Apple didn't have the App Store?
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.
Yes, it's true.
Which is my point. One can't make a blanket statement that Apple makes content providers money like EricTheHalfBee did.