Uhm... You know that a tens of thousands of malware / spyware apps trampled that walled garden a week or two ago, right?
Tens of thousands? REPUTABLE Citation, please?
There has been a bunch of apps that should not have been allowed on the store but made it in on top of that (even though they were found useful, but that's not the point)... things like the secret flashlight tethering app a couple years ago, that security researcher who had 10-100k users download his potentially malicious command-and-control center?
Are you seriously still believing that i things are immune to malware?
I (and Apple) never said iOS Devices are IMMUNE from Malware; but I think that iOS' track record in that regard speaks for itself.
Plus, I love the way that Fandroids keep harping on the VERY few examples of things slipping past (having to go back YEARS to find one or two examples of Trojans that made it through Apple's Approval Process, and blithely IGNORE the metric buttload of (also see the links in that article) malware-containing Apps in the Android ecosystem, a good number of which are, or until recently, when Google started getting more serious about vetting Apps, were available in the Play Store.
The problem is phones sold by the carrier, which are then customised. Apple doesn't allow this kind of customisation, so there's no reason for the carrier to the anywhere on the upgrade path. Most Android vendors do, which means that you have to get the firmware upgrades from them, rather than the manufacturer. If you buy one directly, then manufacturers vary wildly (and so do devices from the same manufacturer) in how timely they are in pushing updates. And they're all pretty bad, so there's no much incentive to compete.
Thanks Captain Obvious.
So, since you have (correctly) identified the problem, why hasn't Google fixed it?
How do I inform Verizon and Motorola that I won't buy an android phone from them EVER AGAIN until they start supporting their products with security patches?
It's unfortunate that Google gave away so much control of Android. This means pretty much all Android devices are vulnerable, and unless the user has the skill and ability to install a non-vendor version of Android (eg: cyanogenmod), then these people are screwed.
No, what's "unfortunate" (actually bordering on criminal negligence) is Google not AMENDING their OEM and Carrier Policies to be more in line with Apple's.
The ONLY explanation at this point is that Google simply doesn't care about what happens to its Users, so long as the Click Revenue and Data Mining is running full-tilt-boogie.
And how exactly does this solve the problem of hardware manufacturers not updating locked firmware?
Do you really think that the OEMs don't have the "magic key" that unlocks the unlockable?
Because if not, and they REALLY have to get out the JTAG programmer and open up each and every phone, then those OEMs should be taken out back, stripped, and introduced to goatse...
I so wish that the next version of android that google tells carriers to fuck off.
I am so done with the baked in crap from HTC/Samsung/etc and the deviation from pure android get's so bad that some like HTC confuses some people.
New version require it to be pure with NO apps baked in and permanent or they cant advertise or use the name "android" in any way. It will force them all overnight to stop it. They also need to force them to push out updates 15 days after google does or lose the rights across all products.
Apple did it. What's Google's problem?
Does anyone here even SLIGHTLY believe that Google doesn't have as much negotiating leverage as Apple?
They already have a bunch of different versions... There's CyanogenOS, PrivatOS (for the blackphone), Fairphone's version (don't know what it's called), Xiaomi's MIUI and may more version of Android that haven't gotten much traction over the years. What you're calling for has already been done and continues to be done.
FYI, there was even a Linux Gizmos article on 2 of these variants yesterday (http://linuxgizmos.com/forked-android-smartphones-advance-to-second-generation/)
Yeah, that's the ticket: Trade broken "Official" Android versions with "Who the fuck knows?" versions from Jailbreakers.
Psst! Hey buddy: Wanna buy a REALLY SECURE version of Android? Come on over to this site. All ya gotta do is Jailbreak your phone's bootloader, sideload this REALLY SECURE version of Android, and everything will be A-Ok, I PROMISE...
The point isn't to emulate a walled garden, nor is it to have everyone brew their own a la Linux. The point is to make the user experience close to the simplicity and compatibility of the walled garden, while still preserving the open platform.
Unfortunately, the "Curated Collection" (a/k/a "Walled Garden") approach and the "Free-for-All" (a/k/a "You asked for it") approach appear to be mutually-exclusive.
Android tries to split the difference now as it is, by having the User have to "disable" the "Only From Play Store" download switch (or is it the other way around?) but that simply doesn't work, mainly because even very significant percentages of Play Store Apps have been found to be unsafe.
Face it. Android's Security Model is a shambles, and although they have (finally!) emulated iOS's Security Model ('bout time!), most of the Android Devices in the field right now will NEVER see those changes.
Yeah! Let's have loads of different new vulnerabilities to deal with. And the fragmentation of different versions of Android isn't enough, so let's add a fuckton of forked versions into the mix to spice things up.
Inevitable that the whole will become stronger? Android (hardly forked) is wildly successful as is, Linux (heavily forked) is wildly unsuccessful on the desktop. Let's please not take Android down the path of desktop Linux.
Jeez. It'd be less fork-fest and more bug-kakke.
(sorry, just had to slip that one in).
You are exactly correct, which is why none of the Fandroid-Mods will Mod you up.
Really? Because the Samsung A9 is done with a 14 nm process and the TSMC A9 is done with a 16 nm process, as some smart people have found. So what are you talking about? The gorilla glass thickness? Or the thickness of the rose gold layer?
No. I didn't read an article correctly.
I now see that Samsung has just now produced some prototype 10 nm parts, and expects to be in actual production with 10 nm by the end of 2016.
That's what I get for posting on Slashdot while trying to work, too!
I must be old. First assembly I ever coded in was 6502 on a BBC B
LOL, same time frame, different Continent!
My first Assemby experience was also 6502, but on Apple ][, Serial number 0013. I subsequently programmed in Assembly (and Later, C and Assy.) on a variety of platforms, such as 6801, 6805, 6809, 6811, 68k, Z80, 8048, 8051, 8085, ST9, several PIC variants, and ATMEL SAM7 (ARMv7).
I agree that the ARM instruction set (and architecture) is a marvel of efficiency. And once you get used to it, it isn't too bad.
But I definitely remember being taken aback the first time I looked at the instruction set and wondered how you were supposed to do ANYTHING without a bunch of Addressing Modes...
Are you talking about PA Semi? They bought that Fabless Design Company for its designs that Apple hoped would get them to a Mobile PowerPC chip, not for its ARM expertise.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this point. Apple has switched over to Intel by 2006 and bought PA Semi in 2008. The purchase of PA Semi wouldn't be for PowerPC as it seems they abandoned it by then, but, at the time, there was wide speculation as to why Apple bought them. According to Jobs at WWDC 2008, PA Semi was bought to help design mobile chips for iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
In 11 June 2008, during the annual Worldwide Developer's Conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that the acquisition was meant to add the talent of P. A. Semi's engineers to Apple's workforce and help them build custom chips for the iPod, iPhone, and other future mobile devices such as the iPad
This was one case where Apple bought a company for the personnel and expertise and not the technology.
I stand corrected. I thought the acquisition of PA Semi was earlier than that. Wonder what I was thinking of?
1. Javascript benchmarks. They should be outlawed, period. They test the software (browser) more than the CPU. Also they are probably single threaded or close to be.
2. On-screen 3D game benchmarks. Because they favor phones with low-res display such as iPhones.
None of the benchmarks in TFA even consider RAM size and flash memory speed, which both have real-world benefits.
Well see here is how it works: if you spend money on stupid things like iPhones you have LESS money to put into the bank. Eventually when you accumulate enough money, you can afford things that really matter: like a real place to live that isn't a studio apartment with a roommate.
I guarantee the executives at Apple appreciate you financing their vacation homes though.
Maybe if you stopped wasting your money on iPhones you could afford to get your own place.
Maybe if you stopped posting all your senseless Apple-Hater drivel, there would be more internet bandwidth for the rest of us.
Hint: It would make about the same amount of difference as what you proposed, Anonymous HATER.
Hey! I think we need a new classification on Slashdot: Anonymous Hater; since by far, it is ACs that spew the senseless Hate; because they ARE COWARDS, and are SCARED to risk their precious KARMA, unlike ADULTS like me.
So the upshot... Apple 6s has better graphics performance than a phone released 6 months ago. The new CPU is good... better at single threaded than anything out right now due to faster cores, but it still lags in multithreaded due to only having 2 cores despite them being faster, and I don't know which core strategy ends up being actually better.
Past two well-designed CPU cores (which apparently the A9 has), it is largely just a dick-measuring contest.
The reason being that, almost NO mobile software is actually designed to take advantage of "relatively-massive" parallelism. And even with something like Apple's GCD (Grand Central Dispatch) (which I am pretty sure iOS doesn't support) to automagically dole-out threads to multiple CPU cores, the point of diminishing returns with multiple cores happens pretty quickly. So, in most cases, the extra cores are either at idle, or kept alive just enough to eat some extra battery life.
How does the battery compare? I was happy with an iphone 3GS years ago, then I was disappointed with my S3 battery, but am quite happy with my current S5. I expect I'd be happy with the battery on an iphone 6s.
Well, if it is anything like my iPhone 6 plus, the battery life will be stellar. I never get less than three days' use, and most often, about 5 days.
And since this is a "die-shrink" to 10 nm, I would expect even better battery life, since the battery-eating Miller-effect (charging and discharging all those tiny little junction capacitances). THAT's what actually consumes battery in a FET-based CPU topology. And the smaller the junctions, the smaller the junction-capacitance (which also helps with speed and heat-dissipation; because during "Miller Time" (as we used to call it at one job), the FETs are actually in a LINEAR state.
Spoken like a true apple shill. Apple use ARM CPUs, an open CPU design.
While the ARM CPU architecture itself is essentially "Open", Apple, like Qualcomm and Samsung (and VERY few others) are actually licensed to "roll their own" ARM Designs, IIRC.
And, BTW, do you know who has more years of ARM design and development knowledge than pretty much everyone besides the Acorn Group?
They've been using other to design and fab them for most of their iThing history, only changing after they bought an entire fucking corporation company that did it. So spare us your zealot bullshit.
Are you talking about PA Semi? They bought that Fabless Design Company for its designs that Apple hoped would get them to a Mobile PowerPC chip, not for its ARM expertise. PA Semi never could have done any "Fab", and as far as Design, I am pretty sure that is actually Apple. Apple has been in the custom chip design business for a few decades now; so spare us your hater bullshit.
Buying a complete company and sticking your logo on the outside doesn't mean they're the ones doing the work. Just wait until the existing plant needs retooling, that'll cost them billions and they'll go back to China fab plants expecting Samsung & Co to make them once more.
Again, you are sadly misinformed, brother hater.
Apple used Samsung to Fab (only!) its SoCs. Then, when they suspected Samsung of ripping-of elements of Apple's Design, and because of the Apple v. Samsung v. Apple v. Samsung v... lawsuits, they tried to "uplift" their second-source supplier, TSMC. That must not have worked out as well as Apple hoped; because for the A9, they seem to be back to Samsung for the Fab work (probably with TSMC as an alternate-source).
I'm struggling to understand how apple get away with not announcing any info about the codes, the cache size, memory bandwidth etc. Surely on a mobile device with limited power, optimisation of applications is a priority. How do people manage this without any idea of the physical architecture of the machine they are developing for?
Maybe i'm just old school, but knowing what hardware you are targeting is almost the first bit of info which informs an efficient use of the resources available.
Ah, you must be nearly as old as I!
Nowadays, that stuff is almost always left up to the Optimization "pass" of the Compiler. These young whippersnappers wouldn't know how to code tightly in Assembly if their life depended on it.
And have you ever coded in ARM Assembler?!? Talk about an instruction set that is optimized for Compilers, not humans!!! I did do some stuff in ARMv7 Assembly; but I wouldn't have enjoyed coding a bunch of stuff in it (and I LOVE coding in Assembly Language!).
And as far as "efficient use of resources" goes: Again, that is largely a consideration of the past. These systems have SOOOOO much available, well, everything that, in a lot of use-cases, you can just code as if the sky's the limit. Because it usually is...
To the 3party developer house that made this for apple.. congrats..
I know there must be a 3rd party entity somewhere.. Because the product seems to work..
Sorry. Apple did the R&D on this themselves.
I also find it interesting how those surface with the "shiny look in their eyes" Ohh New Apple product "pretty, pretty, pretty" without truly understanding the premise of what they are getting into..
What in the Hell are you even blathering-on about? is your Apple Hatred so strong that you can't speak; or are you just incapable of composing a sentence?
Much like the Lisa, the Newton, and the i-ball, this too will pass. "like a wet fart in an elevator"
The Lisa was a wonderfully-engineered machine, built (and priced) for business; with an integrated Office suite, Suspend/Resume for all open Applications and Documents, the first consumer-ready GUI, and much more; the Newton was a game-changer; but suffered from bad management at Apple at the time; WTF is the "i-ball"?
Congrats Apple on your new adventures..
I also find it funny that up-untill recently, Samsung made the apple chips..
Now that they are out of the loop.. lets see what happens..
thanks
Samsung NEVER Designed Apple's CPUs; they were (and are now again) Apple's "Fab House" for CPUs. BIG Difference.
TSMC was briefly the Fab House for the A8 SoC; but Apple went back to Samsung after that experiment. Actually, I think that Samsung was even listed as a "Second Source" Fab for the A8, and I'll bet that TSMC is listed as the "Second Source" on the A9.
Such is the way when it comes to custom IC manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm... You know that a tens of thousands of malware / spyware apps trampled that walled garden a week or two ago, right?
Tens of thousands? REPUTABLE Citation, please?
There has been a bunch of apps that should not have been allowed on the store but made it in on top of that (even though they were found useful, but that's not the point)... things like the secret flashlight tethering app a couple years ago, that security researcher who had 10-100k users download his potentially malicious command-and-control center?
Are you seriously still believing that i things are immune to malware?
I (and Apple) never said iOS Devices are IMMUNE from Malware; but I think that iOS' track record in that regard speaks for itself.
Plus, I love the way that Fandroids keep harping on the VERY few examples of things slipping past (having to go back YEARS to find one or two examples of Trojans that made it through Apple's Approval Process, and blithely IGNORE the metric buttload of (also see the links in that article) malware-containing Apps in the Android ecosystem, a good number of which are, or until recently, when Google started getting more serious about vetting Apps, were available in the Play Store.
The problem is phones sold by the carrier, which are then customised. Apple doesn't allow this kind of customisation, so there's no reason for the carrier to the anywhere on the upgrade path. Most Android vendors do, which means that you have to get the firmware upgrades from them, rather than the manufacturer. If you buy one directly, then manufacturers vary wildly (and so do devices from the same manufacturer) in how timely they are in pushing updates. And they're all pretty bad, so there's no much incentive to compete.
Thanks Captain Obvious.
So, since you have (correctly) identified the problem, why hasn't Google fixed it?
How do I inform Verizon and Motorola that I won't buy an android phone from them EVER AGAIN until they start supporting their products with security patches?
Adults vote with their feet.
Join the mass-exodus away from Android and toward iOS that is already well under way in Asia.
They even made it easy for you...
It's unfortunate that Google gave away so much control of Android. This means pretty much all Android devices are vulnerable, and unless the user has the skill and ability to install a non-vendor version of Android (eg: cyanogenmod), then these people are screwed.
No, what's "unfortunate" (actually bordering on criminal negligence) is Google not AMENDING their OEM and Carrier Policies to be more in line with Apple's.
The ONLY explanation at this point is that Google simply doesn't care about what happens to its Users, so long as the Click Revenue and Data Mining is running full-tilt-boogie.
And how exactly does this solve the problem of hardware manufacturers not updating locked firmware?
Do you really think that the OEMs don't have the "magic key" that unlocks the unlockable?
Because if not, and they REALLY have to get out the JTAG programmer and open up each and every phone, then those OEMs should be taken out back, stripped, and introduced to goatse...
I so wish that the next version of android that google tells carriers to fuck off. I am so done with the baked in crap from HTC/Samsung/etc and the deviation from pure android get's so bad that some like HTC confuses some people.
New version require it to be pure with NO apps baked in and permanent or they cant advertise or use the name "android" in any way. It will force them all overnight to stop it. They also need to force them to push out updates 15 days after google does or lose the rights across all products.
Apple did it. What's Google's problem?
Does anyone here even SLIGHTLY believe that Google doesn't have as much negotiating leverage as Apple?
The carriers are only going to do the minimum for each device. Why would they invest development time in a device that isn't for sale anymore?
Um, because Apple does?
They already have a bunch of different versions... There's CyanogenOS, PrivatOS (for the blackphone), Fairphone's version (don't know what it's called), Xiaomi's MIUI and may more version of Android that haven't gotten much traction over the years. What you're calling for has already been done and continues to be done.
FYI, there was even a Linux Gizmos article on 2 of these variants yesterday (http://linuxgizmos.com/forked-android-smartphones-advance-to-second-generation/)
Yeah, that's the ticket: Trade broken "Official" Android versions with "Who the fuck knows?" versions from Jailbreakers.
Psst! Hey buddy: Wanna buy a REALLY SECURE version of Android? Come on over to this site. All ya gotta do is Jailbreak your phone's bootloader, sideload this REALLY SECURE version of Android, and everything will be A-Ok, I PROMISE...
The point isn't to emulate a walled garden, nor is it to have everyone brew their own a la Linux. The point is to make the user experience close to the simplicity and compatibility of the walled garden, while still preserving the open platform.
Unfortunately, the "Curated Collection" (a/k/a "Walled Garden") approach and the "Free-for-All" (a/k/a "You asked for it") approach appear to be mutually-exclusive.
Android tries to split the difference now as it is, by having the User have to "disable" the "Only From Play Store" download switch (or is it the other way around?) but that simply doesn't work, mainly because even very significant percentages of Play Store Apps have been found to be unsafe.
Face it. Android's Security Model is a shambles, and although they have (finally!) emulated iOS's Security Model ('bout time!), most of the Android Devices in the field right now will NEVER see those changes.
Yeah! Let's have loads of different new vulnerabilities to deal with. And the fragmentation of different versions of Android isn't enough, so let's add a fuckton of forked versions into the mix to spice things up.
Inevitable that the whole will become stronger? Android (hardly forked) is wildly successful as is, Linux (heavily forked) is wildly unsuccessful on the desktop. Let's please not take Android down the path of desktop Linux.
Jeez. It'd be less fork-fest and more bug-kakke.
(sorry, just had to slip that one in).
You are exactly correct, which is why none of the Fandroid-Mods will Mod you up.
It's not a bug it's a feature!
That is a PITA issue in my tablet's Autocorrect. I wish I cared enough to find out how to retrain it out of that peccadillo.
And since this is a "die-shrink" to 10 nm
Really? Because the Samsung A9 is done with a 14 nm process and the TSMC A9 is done with a 16 nm process, as some smart people have found. So what are you talking about? The gorilla glass thickness? Or the thickness of the rose gold layer?
No. I didn't read an article correctly.
I now see that Samsung has just now produced some prototype 10 nm parts, and expects to be in actual production with 10 nm by the end of 2016.
That's what I get for posting on Slashdot while trying to work, too!
I must be old. First assembly I ever coded in was 6502 on a BBC B
LOL, same time frame, different Continent!
My first Assemby experience was also 6502, but on Apple ][, Serial number 0013. I subsequently programmed in Assembly (and Later, C and Assy.) on a variety of platforms, such as 6801, 6805, 6809, 6811, 68k, Z80, 8048, 8051, 8085, ST9, several PIC variants, and ATMEL SAM7 (ARMv7).
I agree that the ARM instruction set (and architecture) is a marvel of efficiency. And once you get used to it, it isn't too bad.
But I definitely remember being taken aback the first time I looked at the instruction set and wondered how you were supposed to do ANYTHING without a bunch of Addressing Modes...
And even with something like Apple's GCD (Grand Central Dispatch) (which I am pretty sure iOS doesn't support)
What's your next guess?
GCD has been on iOS since iOS 4. We're up to iOS 9 now.
Any iOS app that uses AVMedia, the UIKit, Core Animation, and the rest of the standard frameworks benefits from GCD.
-jcr
I stand corrected. Bug that doesn't negate the rest of my points.
Are you talking about PA Semi? They bought that Fabless Design Company for its designs that Apple hoped would get them to a Mobile PowerPC chip, not for its ARM expertise.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this point. Apple has switched over to Intel by 2006 and bought PA Semi in 2008. The purchase of PA Semi wouldn't be for PowerPC as it seems they abandoned it by then, but, at the time, there was wide speculation as to why Apple bought them. According to Jobs at WWDC 2008, PA Semi was bought to help design mobile chips for iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
In 11 June 2008, during the annual Worldwide Developer's Conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that the acquisition was meant to add the talent of P. A. Semi's engineers to Apple's workforce and help them build custom chips for the iPod, iPhone, and other future mobile devices such as the iPad
This was one case where Apple bought a company for the personnel and expertise and not the technology.
I stand corrected. I thought the acquisition of PA Semi was earlier than that. Wonder what I was thinking of?
1. Javascript benchmarks. They should be outlawed, period. They test the software (browser) more than the CPU. Also they are probably single threaded or close to be.
2. On-screen 3D game benchmarks. Because they favor phones with low-res display such as iPhones.
None of the benchmarks in TFA even consider RAM size and flash memory speed, which both have real-world benefits.
I'm sure that ALL of these benchmarks are done by Apple shills.
Right.
Oh, and whiner, I found this and this about the memory subsystem in the iPhone 6s. Glad you asked!
Does the truth really sting that much? (like holy water)
WTF "Truth" would THAT be, ANONYMOUS HATER?
Well see here is how it works: if you spend money on stupid things like iPhones you have LESS money to put into the bank. Eventually when you accumulate enough money, you can afford things that really matter: like a real place to live that isn't a studio apartment with a roommate.
I guarantee the executives at Apple appreciate you financing their vacation homes though.
Oh, looky here!
Another ANONYMOUS HATER. WHAT A SURPRISE...
Maybe if you stopped wasting your money on iPhones you could afford to get your own place.
Maybe if you stopped posting all your senseless Apple-Hater drivel, there would be more internet bandwidth for the rest of us.
Hint: It would make about the same amount of difference as what you proposed, Anonymous HATER.
Hey! I think we need a new classification on Slashdot: Anonymous Hater; since by far, it is ACs that spew the senseless Hate; because they ARE COWARDS, and are SCARED to risk their precious KARMA, unlike ADULTS like me.
So the upshot... Apple 6s has better graphics performance than a phone released 6 months ago. The new CPU is good... better at single threaded than anything out right now due to faster cores, but it still lags in multithreaded due to only having 2 cores despite them being faster, and I don't know which core strategy ends up being actually better.
Past two well-designed CPU cores (which apparently the A9 has), it is largely just a dick-measuring contest.
The reason being that, almost NO mobile software is actually designed to take advantage of "relatively-massive" parallelism. And even with something like Apple's GCD (Grand Central Dispatch) (which I am pretty sure iOS doesn't support) to automagically dole-out threads to multiple CPU cores, the point of diminishing returns with multiple cores happens pretty quickly. So, in most cases, the extra cores are either at idle, or kept alive just enough to eat some extra battery life.
How does the battery compare? I was happy with an iphone 3GS years ago, then I was disappointed with my S3 battery, but am quite happy with my current S5. I expect I'd be happy with the battery on an iphone 6s.
Well, if it is anything like my iPhone 6 plus, the battery life will be stellar. I never get less than three days' use, and most often, about 5 days.
And since this is a "die-shrink" to 10 nm, I would expect even better battery life, since the battery-eating Miller-effect (charging and discharging all those tiny little junction capacitances). THAT's what actually consumes battery in a FET-based CPU topology. And the smaller the junctions, the smaller the junction-capacitance (which also helps with speed and heat-dissipation; because during "Miller Time" (as we used to call it at one job), the FETs are actually in a LINEAR state.
Did you use the A9 processor?
LOL! Good one!
Spoken like a true apple shill. Apple use ARM CPUs, an open CPU design.
While the ARM CPU architecture itself is essentially "Open", Apple, like Qualcomm and Samsung (and VERY few others) are actually licensed to "roll their own" ARM Designs, IIRC.
And, BTW, do you know who has more years of ARM design and development knowledge than pretty much everyone besides the Acorn Group?
They've been using other to design and fab them for most of their iThing history, only changing after they bought an entire fucking corporation company that did it. So spare us your zealot bullshit.
Are you talking about PA Semi? They bought that Fabless Design Company for its designs that Apple hoped would get them to a Mobile PowerPC chip, not for its ARM expertise. PA Semi never could have done any "Fab", and as far as Design, I am pretty sure that is actually Apple. Apple has been in the custom chip design business for a few decades now; so spare us your hater bullshit.
Buying a complete company and sticking your logo on the outside doesn't mean they're the ones doing the work. Just wait until the existing plant needs retooling, that'll cost them billions and they'll go back to China fab plants expecting Samsung & Co to make them once more.
Again, you are sadly misinformed, brother hater.
Apple used Samsung to Fab (only!) its SoCs. Then, when they suspected Samsung of ripping-of elements of Apple's Design, and because of the Apple v. Samsung v. Apple v. Samsung v... lawsuits, they tried to "uplift" their second-source supplier, TSMC. That must not have worked out as well as Apple hoped; because for the A9, they seem to be back to Samsung for the Fab work (probably with TSMC as an alternate-source).
I'm struggling to understand how apple get away with not announcing any info about the codes, the cache size, memory bandwidth etc. Surely on a mobile device with limited power, optimisation of applications is a priority. How do people manage this without any idea of the physical architecture of the machine they are developing for?
Maybe i'm just old school, but knowing what hardware you are targeting is almost the first bit of info which informs an efficient use of the resources available.
Ah, you must be nearly as old as I!
Nowadays, that stuff is almost always left up to the Optimization "pass" of the Compiler. These young whippersnappers wouldn't know how to code tightly in Assembly if their life depended on it.
And have you ever coded in ARM Assembler?!? Talk about an instruction set that is optimized for Compilers, not humans!!! I did do some stuff in ARMv7 Assembly; but I wouldn't have enjoyed coding a bunch of stuff in it (and I LOVE coding in Assembly Language!).
And as far as "efficient use of resources" goes: Again, that is largely a consideration of the past. These systems have SOOOOO much available, well, everything that, in a lot of use-cases, you can just code as if the sky's the limit. Because it usually is...
To the 3party developer house that made this for apple.. congrats.. I know there must be a 3rd party entity somewhere.. Because the product seems to work..
Sorry. Apple did the R&D on this themselves.
I also find it interesting how those surface with the "shiny look in their eyes" Ohh New Apple product "pretty, pretty, pretty" without truly understanding the premise of what they are getting into..
What in the Hell are you even blathering-on about? is your Apple Hatred so strong that you can't speak; or are you just incapable of composing a sentence?
Much like the Lisa, the Newton, and the i-ball, this too will pass. "like a wet fart in an elevator"
The Lisa was a wonderfully-engineered machine, built (and priced) for business; with an integrated Office suite, Suspend/Resume for all open Applications and Documents, the first consumer-ready GUI, and much more; the Newton was a game-changer; but suffered from bad management at Apple at the time; WTF is the "i-ball"?
Congrats Apple on your new adventures..
I also find it funny that up-untill recently, Samsung made the apple chips.. Now that they are out of the loop.. lets see what happens..
thanks
Samsung NEVER Designed Apple's CPUs; they were (and are now again) Apple's "Fab House" for CPUs. BIG Difference.
TSMC was briefly the Fab House for the A8 SoC; but Apple went back to Samsung after that experiment. Actually, I think that Samsung was even listed as a "Second Source" Fab for the A8, and I'll bet that TSMC is listed as the "Second Source" on the A9.
Such is the way when it comes to custom IC manufacturing.
Was this before or after the carrier bloatware was added?
Um, in case you didn't know, on the iPhone, the Carriers aren't allowed to add ANY bloatware whatsoever.