Rayz2016

cloudguy said:

bloggerblog said:

swineone said:

"This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).

By the time Apple switches to ARM, Windows would have a better version on ARM as well. 

But it will be compatible with the Qualcomm/MediaTek/Samsung ARM and not Apple A14 ARM which has a different architecture and instruction set. If Apple ARM and Qualcomm ARM were compatible, people would have installed iOS on Samsung Galaxy hardware - for example - or vice versa ages ago just to say that they could. They don't because Android won't run on Apple Ax and iOS won't run on Samsung/Exynos chips because the arch and instruction sets are too different. The same will apply to Windows on ARM. 

This is completely wrong. 

Okay, let's go back over the past five years and cover the important details that many people are still missing.

Apple has the most expensive ARM license available, which ironically gives them nothing. All they get is a book detailing the instruction set, and a compatibility test suite to make sure that their in-house designs are implementing the instruction set correctly. Apple is free to add new instructions to optimise it for their own requirements, but every design they produce runs through this compatibility suite.

They don't because Android won't run on Apple Ax and iOS won't run on Samsung/Exynos chips because the arch and instruction sets are too different.

That's not actually true.

https://www.androidauthority.com/android-on-iphone-1089705/

If iOS won't run on Android then it's because Apple it uses instructions that are not in the ARM spec. However, Android cannot use an extended instruction set because it doesn't know what ARM chips it will be running on, and same goes for Windows ARM.

If what you're saying was correct then Apple would've been unable to demonstrate Linux and Docker running on ASi at the last WWDC. There is no technical reason why Windows ARM can't run on ASi as long as Apple keeps passing the compatibility tests.

But the operating system is only half the story. Apps will need to be recompiled, and for folk running obsolete software that's not been written to Microsoft's architecture-neutral guidelines, then this day was bound to come.

What Apple has done will be a massive boost to ARM across the board, a bit like Apple adopting USB.

Well, it’s all very clever; I just don’t really see how this is better than just plugging in a cable. 

22july2013 said:

Rayz2016 said:

seanismorris said:

I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.

Before Apple entered the mobile market, fees averaged between 50 and 7 per cent.  They bought the fees down across the board. 

I presume you meant to say "between 50 and 70 per cent." It took me 5 minutes to realize you made a typo.

Yup. Just fixed it. 

seanismorris said:

I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.

Before Apple entered the mobile market, fees averaged between 50 and 70 per cent.  They bought the fees down across the board. 

Podolny’s article is a writing masterclass. It explains EVERYTHING. And I see why Forstall and Browett didn’t fit the structure.