- Joined: Nov 9, 2011
- Last Login: Nov 23, 2021, 10:34am EST
- Comments: 309
Share this profile
Comment 1 rec
"If it were possible…" It is possible, and Apple did it, using the exact same license that everyone else. The difference is that they actually put in the R&D to do it, because they have money to burn, it allows them to do things with iPhone and Mac that nobody else can do, and now they don’t have to pay hundreds of dollars to Intel for every Mac they sell, they get to keep all that money. Nobody else has done it because they have no reason to. Everyone else is happy to save money on R&D and put out good-enough chips. Qualcomm’s quasi-monopoly on cellular radio tech means there was never a need for them to design an desktop-class CPU. Even if they had, it would have been an uphill climb to get Windows people to drop x86, and it would have put them into direct competition with Intel, who owns their own fabs and could easily (and does) undercut Qualcomm on price. There’s never been a good reason for them to spend R&D dollars fighting Intel when they already have a very lucrative "monopoly" on phones.
Comment 1 reply
Everything that I’ve read points to Hummingbird in the Galaxy S (and the iPhone 4, oddly), being a semi-custom design based on Cortex-A8, not just an off-the-rack ARM design. Whether Hummingbird counts or not, it’s just not the case that Apple is the only company that has a license to design their own CPUs, as the original comment stated. Samsung has had a blanket "do whatever you want" architecture license since 2002.
Comment 1 reply, 8 recs
This is totally false, and always has been. Apple is not the only company with an ARM architecture license. Qualcomm and Samsung have been designing their own cores for at least a decade, even longer than Apple. Qualcomm has been doing it since at least the first Snapdragon, with their custom cores using names like Scorpion, Krait, and Kryo. Samsung has been doing it since at least the original Galaxy S, and their designs have used names like Hummingbird, Mongoose, and Meerkat. Though each company sticks pretty close to ARMs designs, there’s nothing stopping either company from doing something fully custom like Apple has done, except the fact that they don’t want to spend on R&D to compete with Apple. Since Apple does not sell their chips to anyone else, Qualcomm doesn’t need to worry about losing sales to Apple.
Yeah, but it isn’t though. Upgrades are not the same as updates. For the next few years, Windows 10 and 11 will both be updated independently of one another. They’ll always have a common ancestor, but they have different UI elements, different features, etc., and for semantical, practical, and marketing purposes, Windows 11 is a "new" OS.
Comment 2 replies, 8 recs
That’s splitting hairs. It was definitely on the roadmap for Windows 10, it was announced that it would be coming in a future update, and now it isn’t. Unless you consider that Windows 11 is an update to Windows 10, which it isn’t. It’s really a forked version of Windows 10.
Comment 3 recs
Yeah, you misinterpreted my "run whatever apps you want" remark. I simply meant, "but at least your existing apps work," rather than hitting an error message that "this app is not compatible with your system," like what you’d if you tried to run a 64-bit app on ARM before x64 emulation was available. Most people don’t need the best performance, but they do need to know that their apps will at least launch. WoA will do it, but it’s not going to be as fast as a native app, and it’s not going to be as fast as it would be on M1, Intel, or AMD, because Qualcomm’s chips are just a whole lot slower generally.
Comment 1 reply, 11 recs
Depends on how you look at it. Rosetta 2 is like 25% slower than native code, but M1 is so fast that emulated code is still at least as fast as it would be natively on any recent Intel Mac. The x86/64 emulation in WoA is probably at least as efficient as Rosetta, but the native performance of the Snapdragon chips in WoA devices is so much slower than M1 (or modern Intel and AMD chips) that any decrease in performance is much more noticeable. But at least you can run whatever apps you want.
Comment 1 rec
Cool feature, but I don’t know how the data could possibly be "not associated with your Microsoft account." The mere fact that it requires a Microsoft account to be signed in on both devices clearly means that it must be associated with your Microsoft account on some level, otherwise it wouldn’t know what devices to sync to. The lack of a clear explanation of how they’re securing the data is a RED FLAG. There’s no reason not to support end-to-end encryption with a passphrase that is never transmitted to Microsoft (similar to how browser syncing works with Chrome or Brave), and the fact that don’t is cause for concern.
Comment 1 rec
I dunno, man, you could say the same thing about Chrome, and lots of people still use it, even on Linux. if you have to have one company or another track you, I don’t know why you’d choose Google over Microsoft. Edge is really just a better version of Chrome, with less tracking. (I stick to Firefox and Brave myself, but Edge would be totally fine with me if Ctrl+Tab worked in most-recent order.)
I dream of a day when you can install other browsers on Chrome OS for real, with native window support, proper GPU acceleration, and not in a Linux sandbox. I’d love a little ARM-powered Chromebook, but I refuse to use Chrome (lack of proper Ctrl+Tab support to switch to the previous tab is a deal breaker), and there are too many keys missing from the standard Chrome OS layout for it to work for me (I log into a lot of PCs remotely).
You haven’t been paying attention. Epic didn’t sue Apple because Apple is a monopoly, or because the iPhone is a monopoly. They sued because their App Store policies are anticompetitive. For half of the population (in the US), there is only one store where they can buy apps, and prices are artificially inflated due to the lack of competitive. That is a bad thing.
How can you have a monopoly store for a device that is clearly not a monopoly? I mean, if that’s your view, then nothing can ever be a monopoly. How can one railroad be a monopoly if people are free to travel by horse? How can one phone company be a monopoly when the post office exists? Monopolies exist within narrow markets. If there is one railroad company, then the market shipping by rail is not competitive. If there is one App Store, then the market for iPhone app distribution is not competitive.
Comment 2 replies, 1 rec
You’re looking at the wrong market. In the market for iPhone apps, Apple’s App Store has 100% market share. Nobody can install apps unless they go through Apple, use Apple’s payment processing, etc.. There’s no other platform that operates this way. Microsoft and Google will let you install whatever you want, from wherever you want. Nobody ever said Apple was a monopoly, the complaints are about the App Store.