On September 10 2013 Apple launches the iPhone 5S. The company also discusses the A7 chip inside the new smartphone, heralding the start of 64-bit mobile computing on iOS,” Ewan Spence writes for Forbes. “Rival smartphone manufacturers were left to blog hollow promises that they would quickly follow with their own 64-bit smartphones. To date the results have been staggering for Apple and woeful for the Android competition.”
“With Android devices marketed on ‘bigger, better, bolder, specifications,’ Apple bounced them into a CPU upgrade [for which] they were not ready,” Spence writes. “The time spent in solving this issue means time was taken away from other issues that could have brought the Android ecosystem closer to iOS and therefore more of a threat to the high-end high-profit market that the iPhone currently dominates.”
“Apple forced a play out of the Android ecosystem, and it has not been a pleasant experience for Team Google,” Spence writes. “Samsung promised in the fateful month of September 2013 that its next flagship would be 64-bit. That would be the Galaxy S5… and it wasn’t. Neither was the next milestone device, the Galaxy Note 4… Well played, Mr Cook. Well played.”
It doesn’t matter if the Android hardware ever gets to 64-bit, since the OS and software can’t take advantage of it. In Android world, “64-bit” only serves to further fragment the platform, alienate app developers, and confuse customers. In Apple’s world, the advantages are integrated and seamless.
I believe Android 5 is 64 bit capable but it doesn’t matter.
With control over the hardware, OS and the only source of third party software, Apple can drag the whole kit and kaboodle into the future without a hitch.
It will take years for Android to catch up. Android chiefly caters to a demographic that doesn’t like to spend money. That means that the use of the more expensive 64 bit hardware will be relegated to high end models for the foreseeable future and cheaper 32 bit models will remain the norm.
Where’s the incentive for Android developers to upgrade their software to 64 bit when the vast majority of hardware will be remaining 32 bit? Where’s the incentive for OEMs to build more expensive 64 bit hardware when the vast majority of software will be remaining 32 bit? It’s a vicious circle.
Google was trying to be Microsoft of the handheld world. Okay they got their wish. Now comes the downside to that. They made one big mistake that M$ never made. Backwards compatibility, Google lacks it. Does anyone remember how long it took M$ to go full 32-bit??? Not support 32-bit apps..go FULL 32-bit. Took forever because of the backwards compatibility issues they had to address. Google now owns the part of Motorola that made cell phones. They can still pull out of this nosedive if they wish.
I can assure you that Wall Street has never considered a 64-bit processor in an iPhone has any advantage over any 32-bit processor Android smartphone. They believe all smartphones are created equal and valued as such. It’s still all about whichever platform has the most market share is the superior platform.
I’m already constantly reading about how Samsung’s 64-bit Galaxy S6 is going to put Apple out of the iPhone business by offering more of everything plus the kitchen sink.
The Galaxy S6 was slated to have Qualcomm’s 810 Processor until the numerous issues force Samsung to bail for their own sorry Exqunos chipset. Supposedly this has delayed all Android phones to the point that they’ll launch up against iPhone 6s and its gonna be brutal for the android faithful.
Is Wall Street aware that you are their spokesperson? I mean, you’re talking about a lot of people buying and selling stuff, and I’m sure there’s at least one person who disagrees with such a blanket statement who is part of Wall Street.
What Apple’s A series 64 bit chips has done is to totally disrupt the market for high-end chips for Android smartphones. There is only a limited amount of money available to develop chips that are to compete with Apple’s chips as the market is smaller than originally anticipated.
Apple sells IOS devices in vast numbers and can be sure of easily covering chip development costs because those costs are aggregated over something like a hundred million devices. Apple’s chips are performing incredibly well while rival chips are failing to deliver. Samsung recently had to abandon plans to use Qualcomm chips. On top of that, the high-end smartphone market is being increasingly dominated by Apple, so the potential market for chips for high-end Android phones is constrained, which means that the economies of scale are not working in their favour.
Apple is being very classy. Instead of paying for adverts rubbishing the opposition, they’re making customers slowly realise that the opposition really is rubbish.
There is clear blue water between Apple’s 64 bit chips and the ones that are available to other manufacturers. Eighteen months on, there is still just the one company delivering 64 bit phones and Apple’s chips which power it and the iPad have already been surpassed by Apple’s second generation of 64 bit chips, with subsequent generations in an advanced state of development.
By choking the demand for high end chips, Apple is limiting further development of those chips, while at the same time pushing the envelope further with their own chips and taking full advantage of the very tight integration that is possible when you design your own chips exclusively for your own products.
I understand the 64-bit chip enables the “secure enclave” and enables ApplePay without having to wake up the phone and the Passbook app. I understand this also aids Apple’s proprietary fingerprint ID protocol. Well-played, Apple.
Funny, I enjoy my 32 bit iOS6 devices as much, sometimes more, than the 64-bit iOS7 and later experience. MDN, you keep wanting it both ways. You claim that user experience matters more than hardware spec, but then when Apple has a bigger spec, you boast endlessly about it. Same for market share numbers.
Reality is, Apple made many tradeoffs to offer 64 bit. Cost and battery life, for example. Yes, 64 bit improves performance in many areas, but in other areas, it’s more overhead. As Apple so often likes to do, it forced massive changes to 3rd party software and effectively bricked many users’ 32-bit iOS devices. I have a perfectly functioning first generation iPad that has several apps that have been abandoned by the developer and no longer operate at all — not because the software or hardware has any problem, but because the service has intentionally dropped support for older devices in order for them to concentrate only on 64-bit development. Sure, we can blame app developers, but the sea change was driven by Apple, which clearly doesn’t give a shit about anyone who doesn’t run the latest iOS version.
Finally, the A chips are made by Samsung, which means that Samsung will copy them soon enough. If Apple actually wanted to maintain a strong lead in hardware design, it wouldn’t outsource its manufacturing to known copycats and IP thieves.
How sweet it is !
It doesn’t matter if the Android hardware ever gets to 64-bit, since the OS and software can’t take advantage of it. In Android world, “64-bit” only serves to further fragment the platform, alienate app developers, and confuse customers. In Apple’s world, the advantages are integrated and seamless.
I believe Android 5 is 64 bit capable but it doesn’t matter.
With control over the hardware, OS and the only source of third party software, Apple can drag the whole kit and kaboodle into the future without a hitch.
It will take years for Android to catch up. Android chiefly caters to a demographic that doesn’t like to spend money. That means that the use of the more expensive 64 bit hardware will be relegated to high end models for the foreseeable future and cheaper 32 bit models will remain the norm.
Where’s the incentive for Android developers to upgrade their software to 64 bit when the vast majority of hardware will be remaining 32 bit? Where’s the incentive for OEMs to build more expensive 64 bit hardware when the vast majority of software will be remaining 32 bit? It’s a vicious circle.
Google was trying to be Microsoft of the handheld world. Okay they got their wish. Now comes the downside to that. They made one big mistake that M$ never made. Backwards compatibility, Google lacks it. Does anyone remember how long it took M$ to go full 32-bit??? Not support 32-bit apps..go FULL 32-bit. Took forever because of the backwards compatibility issues they had to address. Google now owns the part of Motorola that made cell phones. They can still pull out of this nosedive if they wish.
I can assure you that Wall Street has never considered a 64-bit processor in an iPhone has any advantage over any 32-bit processor Android smartphone. They believe all smartphones are created equal and valued as such. It’s still all about whichever platform has the most market share is the superior platform.
I’m already constantly reading about how Samsung’s 64-bit Galaxy S6 is going to put Apple out of the iPhone business by offering more of everything plus the kitchen sink.
The Galaxy S6 was slated to have Qualcomm’s 810 Processor until the numerous issues force Samsung to bail for their own sorry Exqunos chipset. Supposedly this has delayed all Android phones to the point that they’ll launch up against iPhone 6s and its gonna be brutal for the android faithful.
Wall Street also considers any phone running Android to be a smartphone when, in reality, many Android phones are little more than feature phones.
Is Wall Street aware that you are their spokesperson? I mean, you’re talking about a lot of people buying and selling stuff, and I’m sure there’s at least one person who disagrees with such a blanket statement who is part of Wall Street.
Now where is that insufferable android blockhead Altman hmm ?
Just searched and also Eric the Mole seems inordinately silent (Humiliated?) after his infamous 2013 comment in Oct. 2013 at ITxpo Symposium.
Eric Schmidt said Android was a more secure OS than Apple’s iPhone. “You can just imagine the resulting laughter.”
That’s amazing.. given that the Android chief said that Android wasn’t designed to be safe:
macdailynews.com/2014/02/27/googles-sundar-pichai-android-not-designed-to-be-safe-if-i-wrote-malware-id-target-android-too/
the advantage of Android phones is that they are also time machines. Use one and you are so 2012.
Can’t innovate my ass!
No sign of the ‘fire Tim Cook’ clown (not that we miss him)!
What Apple’s A series 64 bit chips has done is to totally disrupt the market for high-end chips for Android smartphones. There is only a limited amount of money available to develop chips that are to compete with Apple’s chips as the market is smaller than originally anticipated.
Apple sells IOS devices in vast numbers and can be sure of easily covering chip development costs because those costs are aggregated over something like a hundred million devices. Apple’s chips are performing incredibly well while rival chips are failing to deliver. Samsung recently had to abandon plans to use Qualcomm chips. On top of that, the high-end smartphone market is being increasingly dominated by Apple, so the potential market for chips for high-end Android phones is constrained, which means that the economies of scale are not working in their favour.
Apple is being very classy. Instead of paying for adverts rubbishing the opposition, they’re making customers slowly realise that the opposition really is rubbish.
There is clear blue water between Apple’s 64 bit chips and the ones that are available to other manufacturers. Eighteen months on, there is still just the one company delivering 64 bit phones and Apple’s chips which power it and the iPad have already been surpassed by Apple’s second generation of 64 bit chips, with subsequent generations in an advanced state of development.
By choking the demand for high end chips, Apple is limiting further development of those chips, while at the same time pushing the envelope further with their own chips and taking full advantage of the very tight integration that is possible when you design your own chips exclusively for your own products.
Well said. Its a case of quality wins overs quantity. In this situation though Apple played it so well that they achieved both quality and quantity.
Oh, the humanity!
I understand the 64-bit chip enables the “secure enclave” and enables ApplePay without having to wake up the phone and the Passbook app. I understand this also aids Apple’s proprietary fingerprint ID protocol. Well-played, Apple.
Funny, I enjoy my 32 bit iOS6 devices as much, sometimes more, than the 64-bit iOS7 and later experience. MDN, you keep wanting it both ways. You claim that user experience matters more than hardware spec, but then when Apple has a bigger spec, you boast endlessly about it. Same for market share numbers.
Reality is, Apple made many tradeoffs to offer 64 bit. Cost and battery life, for example. Yes, 64 bit improves performance in many areas, but in other areas, it’s more overhead. As Apple so often likes to do, it forced massive changes to 3rd party software and effectively bricked many users’ 32-bit iOS devices. I have a perfectly functioning first generation iPad that has several apps that have been abandoned by the developer and no longer operate at all — not because the software or hardware has any problem, but because the service has intentionally dropped support for older devices in order for them to concentrate only on 64-bit development. Sure, we can blame app developers, but the sea change was driven by Apple, which clearly doesn’t give a shit about anyone who doesn’t run the latest iOS version.
Finally, the A chips are made by Samsung, which means that Samsung will copy them soon enough. If Apple actually wanted to maintain a strong lead in hardware design, it wouldn’t outsource its manufacturing to known copycats and IP thieves.