This is an absurd position to take and simple technical details fail to support it. The copy doesn't exist until it appears on the downloader's system, the uploader is never in possession of it.
No, you are not. The idea that iPhones were "right-sized" was purely Jobs spin. Remember that Steve Jobs also said that people used email and no one wanted SMS (and certainly not MMS) when the fact was he simply didn't know how to text (and didn't even use a cell phone at the time). Jobs also said that no one wanted Apps on a cell phone and that they were a catastrophic security risk. This is the actual history of "right-sized".
Apple's string of success is as much to do with pure luck as it is excellence, as is generally the case. The circumstances that created that luck are gone now.
The iPhone 6 was not a "spike above the trend", it was a catch-up design following a trend that had existed for years. The modern iPhone form factors were established by Apple's competitors first.
That's the root of the problem, of course. Apple once was at the forefront and now isn't. It's most popular upgrades have come from copying its competitors' offerings.
"Performant" is just the latest in a long history of made up words and phrases intended to differentiate. It doesn't mean anything new or special.
"Perform" and "Performance" don't literally mean "Fast" either, but a "performance car" would be assumed to be fast just as "performant code" would be. Should we now use the term "performant car"? Of course not; we don't need people in the auto industry to look smart doing the same old things. Coders need to be pretentious.
If "performant" is to mean "does it's function well" then all it really means is "doesn't suck". Personally, I have a higher bar.
Motorola did not have Intel beat. Motorola had nothing.
Moto did the 88K as its replacement for the 68K. While some architects like the 88K, it was a market failure.
IBM derived the PowerPC from its workstation line, developed three initial processor families, the 601, 603/604, and 620, and the gifted this work to Motorola so that PowerPC could claim to be a consortium with multiple potential processor design houses. The PowerPC NEVER had "Intel beat", it was explicitly designed to provide performance parity at lower cost than Intel. That's why no one adopted it other than Apple. Apple wanted cheap and didn't need binary compatibility. No one else wanted UNIX workstations that performed worse than everyone else and that's what PowerPC delivered.
Motorola, after being revived from the dead with the gift of the new architecture, proceeded to squander it by failing to advance the platform in any meaningful way. There was essentially no adoption outside embedded so Moto focused its energies where its sales were. Late in the game, IBM reentered to game with the 970/G5 but it was too late and x86 was no longer a target that would be defeated so easily.
Motorola never had Intel beat, they were merely a proxy for IBM who might have but failed to. PowerPC is now dead, a result of IBM's short-sightedness, Motorola's incompetence, and ARM's dominance at the lower end.
A whole lot of work went into this absurd analogy, none of it illuminating in any way.
The CISC/RISC argument in the earliest days revolved around CISC's inability to scale to higher IPCs. For a time, there were plenty of RISC processors that offered superior performance but none could overcome the x86 binary compatibility advantage. This compatibility provided investment that allowed Intel to keep x86 performance close, despite RISC predictions to the contrary, until Intel fully developed architectures that rendered the entire question moot. Once that occurred, CISC was nothing more than a ever-shrinking piece of the die. All modern processors are designed the same way, there is no CISC vs RISC.
Prior to the explosion of the PC, Intel's 32 bit strategy was RISC and the product line was the 960. The 286 was a product Intel did at IBM's insistence under IBM's direction (and it sucked). It was only when the PC's success became clear that Intel refocused on the x86 family and repositioned the 960, in fact killed it for a time, on embedded environments. Intel wasn't the disrespected old boxer, Intel fully agreed with the assessment of other processor companies and they were all correct, but Intel solved the hard technical problems with the x86 because it had an enormous business advantage in doing so.
I did enjoy comparing Jobs to the ginsu knife salesman. At least that was an apt analogy.
The law is already established that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy simply because you are home. The lawyer is correct, you are not.
"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."
Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.
"I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes."
His "moral absolutes" are a lot more absolute than yours. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
"Also wondering if Apple is moving toward at least a dual-CPU (x86 + A10, say) design for the next generation of Macintosh."
No. How would that be useful? If Apple could produce an ARM design that could outrun x86 then MAYBE they could consider a transition. That seems unlikely.
Apple would be more likely to be "moving toward" NO next generation MacIntosh.
LOL You have a grave misunderstanding of the Oracle vs Google issue.
Andoid doesn't use "Java" because the licensing agreement for "Java" was unacceptable and Java itself was open source. Google complied with the requirements in using the source while also respecting the requirement NOT to call the product "Java". Android uses Java technology in bulk (and does so legally), it's just not a Java product capable of running Java apps directly.
Regardless of the name, the comment you replied to is dead-on accurate. Android requires more hardware to run because it uses a virtual machine rather than a native application environment. It gets this because it is based on Java. Whether it is good or bad is a matter of perspective, but time will favor the Android approach.
"See, this would impress Android users because they care about this stuff."
You say that like it's a virtue. iPhone users don't care about it because iPhone performance has always been adequate. Android has a history of performance issues and Android users, as a group, tend toward genital measurements driving their purchase decisions. Android has never been about engineering a whole product, iPhone has been.
Meanwhile, most users in both camps are how you describe iPhone users. Nerds constitute little of the population yet most everyone has a phone.
"The processor benchmarks are pointless...Having a dual core CPU probably doesn't help either."
That really sets the tone.
"...what matters is how fast stuff actually happens and Android is generally faster at opening the same app etc."
Considering how much more Android has to do, that seems unlikely. It is also historically never been the case.
"Probably because Samsung flash memory is quicker or something,..."
Yeah that's probably it. No one has access to fast flash except Android.
"...or maybe it's just the massive amount of RAM in high end models....The 3GB of RAM is welcome, but I wonder if iOS can make optimal use of it."
Yes, perhaps Android is faster because it has more memory, but if iPhone gets more memory it can't make "optimal use of it".
"My GF has an iPhone 6 with a rather pathetic 1GB of RAM, and she is constantly "cleaning" by closing apps manually to avoid it getting slow."
No she's not. This does not benefit phone performance in any way.
"Considering everyone else's flagships are moving to 4GB and 6GB now, 3GB is still rather low for such an expensive device."
iOS requires less memory than Android because its applications are native. iPhones have always had less processor and memory but outrun Andoid anyway.
"It's going to be hard not to laugh the first time I see someone with that setup."
You won't because such setups aren't needed. First off, iPhone users will migrate away from headphones that require dongles and, second, phones don't commonly need to be plugged in to listen to music. When they need charging you stop listening.
Architecturally, it's better for the amp to be closer to the load so that they can be matched and equalization can be applied. Having the external battery preserves battery life in the phone itself and it IS "theoretically" possible for Bluetooth headphones to "make better sound". Apparently you made quite a living talking about things in which you are poorly informed, Bruce Perens.
"Essentially most people will now have to carry two items around with them - a phone and a dongle - rather than just the one, or else not be able to hook the phone up to a standard audio system."
But most people don't "carry around" a phone to hook up to "a standard audio system". It's not typical usage even though it is something you can do.
Most people use the headphone jack for headphones and, in that case, you carry around two items already and the adapter can be left permanently attached to one of them. Likewise, people often connect their phone to the car (for example) and the adapter can stay with the car. It's no big deal for many use cases.
People really reach to complain about petty things. A year from now it won't even be news. The headphone jack will go away from everything and no one will care.
The extra battery life comes from the architecture of the A10 processor, not extra battery capacity. The A10 has two low power cores in addition to the main cores.
You will also take a better picture with the camera you have than the one you don't. A phone with a crappy lens is better than the DSLR you left at home.
Lenses don't "take" any light, sensors do. Perhaps "anyone who understands photography" should try to understand a little more.
Larger sensors require more light, not less. The problem with small sensors is often an inability to reduce light sufficiently, not that they ever require "retina-searing brightness levels". Small sensors with high resolution require higher resolution optics and have poor dynamic range. They tend to struggle with noise as a result. That's not a function of an inability to light a scene, it's the result of small physical apertures and poor cell capacity.
You, and the poster you responded to, have no idea what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone 6/6+ was pretty great and something Jobs was opposed to. It was also obvious and proven in the market already, but it was still great.
Chances are good that if there was Jobs instead of Cook, we wouldn't have seen anything even as good as the 6.
This is an absurd position to take and simple technical details fail to support it. The copy doesn't exist until it appears on the downloader's system, the uploader is never in possession of it.
No, you are not. The idea that iPhones were "right-sized" was purely Jobs spin. Remember that Steve Jobs also said that people used email and no one wanted SMS (and certainly not MMS) when the fact was he simply didn't know how to text (and didn't even use a cell phone at the time). Jobs also said that no one wanted Apps on a cell phone and that they were a catastrophic security risk. This is the actual history of "right-sized".
Apple's string of success is as much to do with pure luck as it is excellence, as is generally the case. The circumstances that created that luck are gone now.
The iPhone 6 was not a "spike above the trend", it was a catch-up design following a trend that had existed for years. The modern iPhone form factors were established by Apple's competitors first.
That's the root of the problem, of course. Apple once was at the forefront and now isn't. It's most popular upgrades have come from copying its competitors' offerings.
"Performant" is just the latest in a long history of made up words and phrases intended to differentiate. It doesn't mean anything new or special.
"Perform" and "Performance" don't literally mean "Fast" either, but a "performance car" would be assumed to be fast just as "performant code" would be. Should we now use the term "performant car"? Of course not; we don't need people in the auto industry to look smart doing the same old things. Coders need to be pretentious.
If "performant" is to mean "does it's function well" then all it really means is "doesn't suck". Personally, I have a higher bar.
In contrast to Donald Trump?
Motorola did not have Intel beat. Motorola had nothing.
Moto did the 88K as its replacement for the 68K. While some architects like the 88K, it was a market failure.
IBM derived the PowerPC from its workstation line, developed three initial processor families, the 601, 603/604, and 620, and the gifted this work to Motorola so that PowerPC could claim to be a consortium with multiple potential processor design houses. The PowerPC NEVER had "Intel beat", it was explicitly designed to provide performance parity at lower cost than Intel. That's why no one adopted it other than Apple. Apple wanted cheap and didn't need binary compatibility. No one else wanted UNIX workstations that performed worse than everyone else and that's what PowerPC delivered.
Motorola, after being revived from the dead with the gift of the new architecture, proceeded to squander it by failing to advance the platform in any meaningful way. There was essentially no adoption outside embedded so Moto focused its energies where its sales were. Late in the game, IBM reentered to game with the 970/G5 but it was too late and x86 was no longer a target that would be defeated so easily.
Motorola never had Intel beat, they were merely a proxy for IBM who might have but failed to. PowerPC is now dead, a result of IBM's short-sightedness, Motorola's incompetence, and ARM's dominance at the lower end.
A whole lot of work went into this absurd analogy, none of it illuminating in any way.
The CISC/RISC argument in the earliest days revolved around CISC's inability to scale to higher IPCs. For a time, there were plenty of RISC processors that offered superior performance but none could overcome the x86 binary compatibility advantage. This compatibility provided investment that allowed Intel to keep x86 performance close, despite RISC predictions to the contrary, until Intel fully developed architectures that rendered the entire question moot. Once that occurred, CISC was nothing more than a ever-shrinking piece of the die. All modern processors are designed the same way, there is no CISC vs RISC.
Prior to the explosion of the PC, Intel's 32 bit strategy was RISC and the product line was the 960. The 286 was a product Intel did at IBM's insistence under IBM's direction (and it sucked). It was only when the PC's success became clear that Intel refocused on the x86 family and repositioned the 960, in fact killed it for a time, on embedded environments. Intel wasn't the disrespected old boxer, Intel fully agreed with the assessment of other processor companies and they were all correct, but Intel solved the hard technical problems with the x86 because it had an enormous business advantage in doing so.
I did enjoy comparing Jobs to the ginsu knife salesman. At least that was an apt analogy.
"How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker."
The law is already established that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy simply because you are home. The lawyer is correct, you are not.
"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."
Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.
"I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes."
His "moral absolutes" are a lot more absolute than yours. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
"You have to either disable it on the command line (a bad idea IMHO)..."
A great idea IMHO. Why do you think anyone cares what your "humble opinion" is on this topic?
"You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing."
I see no reason why this is a good thing.
"Easy peasy."
Not really. Certainly not "intuitive", definitely not "it just works".
Once upon a time computers could be used to run the software of your choice. This is yet another step away from that. Not a good thing.
Always love these tone-deaf comments. Since rape is inevitable, you might as well enjoy it.
No,
The difference between sucrose and HFCS is negligible. HFCS is manufactured specifically for its similarity to sucrose.
Yes, there's a lot of fructose that can only be broken down in the liver. That is also true of sucrose.
"Also wondering if Apple is moving toward at least a dual-CPU (x86 + A10, say) design for the next generation of Macintosh."
No. How would that be useful? If Apple could produce an ARM design that could outrun x86 then MAYBE they could consider a transition. That seems unlikely.
Apple would be more likely to be "moving toward" NO next generation MacIntosh.
LOL You have a grave misunderstanding of the Oracle vs Google issue.
Andoid doesn't use "Java" because the licensing agreement for "Java" was unacceptable and Java itself was open source. Google complied with the requirements in using the source while also respecting the requirement NOT to call the product "Java". Android uses Java technology in bulk (and does so legally), it's just not a Java product capable of running Java apps directly.
Regardless of the name, the comment you replied to is dead-on accurate. Android requires more hardware to run because it uses a virtual machine rather than a native application environment. It gets this because it is based on Java. Whether it is good or bad is a matter of perspective, but time will favor the Android approach.
...but RAM size isn't an important differentiation in phones.
You can buy an 8GB memory module for far less than either phone. So what?
"See, this would impress Android users because they care about this stuff."
You say that like it's a virtue. iPhone users don't care about it because iPhone performance has always been adequate. Android has a history of performance issues and Android users, as a group, tend toward genital measurements driving their purchase decisions. Android has never been about engineering a whole product, iPhone has been.
Meanwhile, most users in both camps are how you describe iPhone users. Nerds constitute little of the population yet most everyone has a phone.
"The processor benchmarks are pointless...Having a dual core CPU probably doesn't help either."
That really sets the tone.
"...what matters is how fast stuff actually happens and Android is generally faster at opening the same app etc."
Considering how much more Android has to do, that seems unlikely. It is also historically never been the case.
"Probably because Samsung flash memory is quicker or something,..."
Yeah that's probably it. No one has access to fast flash except Android.
"...or maybe it's just the massive amount of RAM in high end models....The 3GB of RAM is welcome, but I wonder if iOS can make optimal use of it."
Yes, perhaps Android is faster because it has more memory, but if iPhone gets more memory it can't make "optimal use of it".
"My GF has an iPhone 6 with a rather pathetic 1GB of RAM, and she is constantly "cleaning" by closing apps manually to avoid it getting slow."
No she's not. This does not benefit phone performance in any way.
"Considering everyone else's flagships are moving to 4GB and 6GB now, 3GB is still rather low for such an expensive device."
iOS requires less memory than Android because its applications are native. iPhones have always had less processor and memory but outrun Andoid anyway.
"It's going to be hard not to laugh the first time I see someone with that setup."
You won't because such setups aren't needed. First off, iPhone users will migrate away from headphones that require dongles and, second, phones don't commonly need to be plugged in to listen to music. When they need charging you stop listening.
You are a moron with an agenda.
This is an embarrassingly wrong perspective.
Architecturally, it's better for the amp to be closer to the load so that they can be matched and equalization can be applied. Having the external battery preserves battery life in the phone itself and it IS "theoretically" possible for Bluetooth headphones to "make better sound". Apparently you made quite a living talking about things in which you are poorly informed, Bruce Perens.
Perfectly acceptable to whom? The english word is what it is, its ancient origins don't entitle anyone to misspell it.
Language is only as useful as understanding allows it to be. When you deliberately break it and people misunderstand then you have failed.
"Essentially most people will now have to carry two items around with them - a phone and a dongle - rather than just the one, or else not be able to hook the phone up to a standard audio system."
But most people don't "carry around" a phone to hook up to "a standard audio system". It's not typical usage even though it is something you can do.
Most people use the headphone jack for headphones and, in that case, you carry around two items already and the adapter can be left permanently attached to one of them. Likewise, people often connect their phone to the car (for example) and the adapter can stay with the car. It's no big deal for many use cases.
People really reach to complain about petty things. A year from now it won't even be news. The headphone jack will go away from everything and no one will care.
The extra battery life comes from the architecture of the A10 processor, not extra battery capacity. The A10 has two low power cores in addition to the main cores.
You will also take a better picture with the camera you have than the one you don't. A phone with a crappy lens is better than the DSLR you left at home.
Lenses don't "take" any light, sensors do. Perhaps "anyone who understands photography" should try to understand a little more.
Larger sensors require more light, not less. The problem with small sensors is often an inability to reduce light sufficiently, not that they ever require "retina-searing brightness levels". Small sensors with high resolution require higher resolution optics and have poor dynamic range. They tend to struggle with noise as a result. That's not a function of an inability to light a scene, it's the result of small physical apertures and poor cell capacity.
You, and the poster you responded to, have no idea what you are talking about.