Slashdot Mirror
The Genius In Apple's Vertical Platform
Precision found a nice little piece of speculation on the real reason behind Apple's recent efforts to restrict app development to XCode. While the standard given reason is to kill competition from Flash and other stacks, this story speculates that the real reason has to do with the unusually large die size of the A4 processor inside the iPads. Worth a quick read.
Not only does Apple restrict you to compiling your code in c, c++,objective c with the iphone sdk, they prohibit any code that was not originally written in one of those languages. The article would make sense, if the only restriction Apple had in place was that they code be compiled by the iphone sdk. That is not the case, as far as I know.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I don't care if Apple has reasons for this or not. I don't like Apple, so that means they're a monopoly just like Microsoft, and should be required to do whatever any other company wants cause it's in the constitution.
Also, there's a company in Germany that's gonna make a competing product that will blow the iPad out of the water cause it'll be open and run Flash and OpenOffice and has higher ghz on the processor and more memory and it's the hardware specs that make the difference, and I know everything, and the market should decide everything and Apple doesn't have the right to do anything to try to protect their investment in the iPhone OS as a platform cause I say so.
Did I mention they're an evil monopoly? And that Steve Jobs is worse than Hitler, cause he's got a reality distortion field and makes people pay the Apple tax?
I think the article is absolute nonsense. The A4 has been "disassembled" and it is consistent with an ARM single core.
Not the vertical integration, but the simple "Ok you're Applications are compatible now"
Apple has moved from 68k to PPC to OS X to Intel to ARM to (proposed) POWER) for both 32/64 bit and all it took in those last steps was flag in the compiler.
68k emulation in PPC was decent. Classic mode worked for most applications and Rosetta was as seamless as it gets. I understand that Microsoft has a ton of backwards compatibility they need to maintain, but if a company the fraction of your size can do it, why can't you?
Yes "FAT" Binaries are larger, but given how cheap HD space is, it's not too much of a concern of mine. (I gained more space deleting other languages). But to have a single, double clickable .app that runs on 4 platforms (PPC, Intel / 32, 64bit), naively.
Side note, and legitimate question, does Linux do fat binaries? Can I compile something that runs on my AMD64 and ARM machines and put it on a thumb drive?
Disclosure: I'm writing this from a Mac. I like my Macs. I like Apple. I'm not delusional like this guy.
If you didn't RTFA, there's no need. It's just some Apple fanboi trying to find genius and conspiracy where there isn't any.
Are you serious? Constricting developers because you're going to change the platform? Really? I wonder if the article author even believes this crap.
Emulating a cpu you could just as easily install for real? Never mind going back to an architecture (POWER) that you've already EOL and that is wholly unsuited for the platform (high power consumption, high heat output).
He's right that Apple is a story in vertical integration. They're doing it the same way Rockefeller did. They want to control the entire platform.
What is not speculation is the debate over whether or not the A4 is an ARM core: it *is* an ARM core. Just disassembling the output shows it at once. It also takes an idiot to believe Apple would spend even more time writing an ARM emulator core for PowerPC just to make sure their iPad runs software compiled with the iPhone SDK. This isn't another case of PowerPC->Intel switch. Geez.
The article is interesting, but incorrect.
Converting from to objective-C is fine for the purposes he's talking about (allowing the compiler to build to 'native', where 'native' can change over time.) If you have a language that is 1:1 with C/ObjC and easily translated (there are many), then this argument is entirely moot.
(Further, its not just Flash we're talkin gabout.. BASIC, assembler, python, etc, are all impacted and outlawed (again.)) Heck, numerous games use ARM asm, which is now outlawed .. the ASM is to provide superior performance, as Xcode (gcc) is decent compiler, but no match for hand tooled assembly in 'just the right places'. (Don't argue this; compiles are great, but talk to emulation authors for ARM devices about dropping in a few lines of ASM :)
So no, its not really about native compilation speed. Its about blocking non-Apple tools, with the pretend reason that Apple makes the best tools.
It would make sense... If it wasn't filled with nonsense. The larger die? It's because the system RAM is built into the chip. Not because it's running some new dual core design. Apple banned writing in another language. Not compiling using anything but XCode. Some of the converters out there will covert down to Objective-C and then compile them with XCode. With his speculation in the article, that should be fine (because it's compiling with their compiler, and should be the exact same as if written in O-C in the first place), but it's banned. I do agree that it is well written. But well reasoned? It starts with a pair of flawed premises, and then makes some pretty good reasoning based on them. But all of that reasoning is inherently flawed due to the flawed premise.
What bothers me, is that people who don't know any better will read this article and think "Woah, cool! They are doing something smart!" when it's all really unjustified based on his reasoning (I'm not going to comment on if it really is smart or not)...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
> Why assume the A4 is a dual-core PowerPC when it's built for an OS that restricts the use of multitasking?
"WTF" quote of the day. What does dual-core have to do with multitasking??????????????? Windows did multitasking long before dual core chips existed.
On a related note, the iPhone DOES multitasking; it just doesn't let the USER multitask. How do you suppose an incoming call gets through while you´re listening to music?
Why does everyone think this has anything to do with technical issues? This is all about lock in, 100% pure business move.
Apple doesn't want cross compilers because that makes the iPhone just another smartphone because everyone and their dogs will be writing code for smartphones, not iPhones exclusively. Apple has to maintain the image of the iPhone to be unique, not just the 'PC' of smartphones. If cross compiling is allowed, and a person is fed up with the iPhone, nothing stops him/her/it to switch to a WM7, RIM or Android phone. Why? Because the software is probably available on those systems. Now, if some developers will stay iPhone exclusive because of the hassle of maintaining two codebases (One CS5 cross compilable and one Apple approved), people will have harder time to migrate to other platforms because their precious software only runs on iPhone OS. Why don't people switch to Linux en masse? MS Office + DirectX. Apple wants the exact same platform lock in for smarphones as the one Microsoft has achieved for PCs.
Führer Jobs is shit scared of Android, that's why the new draconian developer restrictions (and HTC patent suits), not because some [insert technical excuse here]. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) Adobe is going to be collateral damage unless Flash on Android/ChromeOS takes off heavily. Jobs wants to stop the Android momentum at all cost, because if he doesn't, iPhone will be the 'Mac' and Android will be the 'PC'.
Disclosure: I have an iPhone 3GS.
A4??? That IS really big for a die size. But why oh why not Legal, since Apple is American?
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision and moves.
Another day, another worship piece for Jobs. Could he be the Maitreya after all? http://www.share-international.org/maitreya/Ma_main.htm
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
If this is indeed the case, then iPhone OS 4.0 would bring incredible speed improvements to the iPad, since it would no longer run applications on an ARM processor emulator. Can you imagine if OS 4.0 improved the iPad’s speed by 50% on day 1? Apple would be heralded as a software God. But in order for these speed improvements to be realized, apps would need to be written in objective C—which is exactly what Apple is now telling developers to do.
The writer doesn't realize that Adobe/MonoTouch were making a cross compiler from ActionScript/C# to Objective-C. So any improvements made to XCode will be available to those Apps too and if regular Apps are speeded up by 50%, so would the CS5 and MonoTouch Apps.
Posters below have already explained what a bunch of crock the speculation that the processor is actually a Power CPU is. Anyway what can you expect from a blind fanboy who writes stuff like:
Apple's DNA in this area is untouchable, helping it to innovate at the confluence of software and hardware.
I find it fascinating that Apple has been so good at diverting attention to the Flash argument, that people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision and moves. Apple is setting the stage to become one of the biggest winners in the storied history of vertically integrated companies.
Huh? Wtf?
Why is this crap posted on Slashdot anyway?
This space for rent.