Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You'd be foolish to release a 64-bit binary for a phone that hasn't even been tested on. Which is probably why Apple removed the note -- the last thing they want is bad press about ios7 or the 5s from lazy developers with crashing apps.

The app won't get approved if it crashes.
 
I love Apple products, especially Macs, but I agree---fanboys are often ignorant of Android and arrogant for Apple. The Nexus 4 (if purchased with stock Android straight from Google Play) is an outstanding phone.

No it isn't. By definition, no Android product is an outstanding consumer device since Android itself is particularly viscous malware given how badly Google and their carrier partners abuse it to snoop on their customers. Advertising supported system software is an extremely evil concept. This or that Android device may have impressive technical performance from time to time, but that does not make Android a good consumer choice.
 
Then, the AppStore should deliver the one suitable for your device. My point is that a Universal binary is not convenient as it increases the size of the download for nothing.


Indeed. The download should just work. It seems trivial to detect which version should automatically get selected.

And I agree that doulbleing the download size is a foolish way to avoid the need for the customer to have to choose the version himself. Some sort of auto-detect seems like the way to go.
 
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is irksome.

Not only is the A7 not anywhere near desktop performance, on the very same day Intel was showing 64 bit cpus for Android.

http://www.dailytech.com/IDF+2013+Intel+Distances+Itself+From+Windows+8+Microsoft/article33363.htm

Apple is, unfortunately, ahead of precisely no one.

Your link does not make your point. It looks like the Atom chips you cite are for tablets and Chromebooks, not phones. So far, Atom continues to be a no-show in the phone market since it can't compete with the lower power usage of ARM. Your link does not appear to invalidate Apple's claim of first 64bit chip in a smartphone.
Nor did you prove your point about A7 not having desktop performance. I'm not sure there is a definition of 'desktop performance' in the first place and in the second, I've yet to see any specs on the A7's performance other than the Apple presentation bullet points. I think we'll have to wait for some data to argue their statements.
 
Indeed. The download should just work. It seems trivial to detect which version should automatically get selected.

And I agree that doulbleing the download size is a foolish way to avoid the need for the customer to have to choose the version himself. Some sort of auto-detect seems like the way to go.

Yes, this would be fantastic. Also, this should be used to detect non retina devices and retina to give the smallest sized app download; this should've shipped with iOS 4 in my opinion!
 
And the irony is that Android phones actually have 2 to 3 times more RAM than iPhone. As was mentioned by many, at this point there are probably more disadvantages than advantages for phone applications to go 64bit. Because they all will get fatter (require more RAM and make app loading slower) without any performance benefits for the vast majority of them.

Also, most Android apps are Java apps. They are agnostic as to the CPU architecture. Android will just need new version of Dalvik (virtual machine) and all those apps will run just fine. In a way, Android is in much better shape with regard to switching to 64bits than iOS is.

Oh, please no. I don't want my lethartig java apps to become bigger bigger and even slower to start or switch :p in between Closing the browser and starting the camera app I could sometimes eat a double whopper meal, shave, shower and take a nap. Damn, my Note needs probably more RAM and 16 cpu cores :rolleyes:
 
Yes, this would be fantastic. Also, this should be used to detect non retina devices and retina to give the smallest sized app download; this should've shipped with iOS 4 in my opinion!


That's the way Android does it in the Google Play store.
 
I guess you ignored the responses saying it would improve performance. Of course, part of the reason people wanted to see the app go 64 bit was because that would force it to go Cocoa at the same time. And sure enough, when it went 64 bit there was a noticeable improvement in performance.

But the real problem with iTunes was that it wasn't optimized for multiple cores/threads. Sadly, after all these years they inexplicably STILL haven't done that yet.

Transcoding audio with iTunes 11.1 Beta 2 uses over 400% CPU. :/ Unfortunately, I can't remember if that's new to iTunes 11.1, or if we had that on earlier versions.

Mavericks version is bringing better GPU acceleration (or acceleration for the first time, embarrassingly?), so that will be an improvement, too. Not to mention the new accelerated scrolling, which will make things SEEM faster.
 
Okay thanks for your post. I understand It a bit better now. However to an average joe user I guess they won't notice much of a difference between the two right? And will app developers introduce 2 versions for phones that support 64bit and 32bit apps?

I don't see a lot of value in creating separate 64-bit & 32-bit versions, or even a 64-bit only vs Universal version. The lions share of the download size for an App is not code, it's media - which are quite happily shared between both architectures. So a slightly larger download size is much better than creating consumer confusion with multiple versions.

Having said that, I can see it being feasible for the AppStore to host multiple builds and deliver just the build that is relevant for the user's current device. Since Apps are not (often at least...) shared from device to device (who really uses iTunes to manage their iOS apps anymore :confused:) this would be completely transparent to the user, with the benefit of faster download times, less storage required, and better (potentially at least) performance when it's available. This would also be cool for Retina/non-Retina versions - maybe the Asset Catalog feature in Xcode 5 will make this feasible, or maybe we'll see an end to non-Retina devices before that, who knows :)

You didn't mention that it's not always best to juggle bigger balls. I tested 32-bit Java vs 64-bit Java in a program that just adds to a 32-bit integer (int) repeatedly. The 64-bit process took almost exactly TWICE as long.

sounds like your JVM wasn't properly optimized for the architecture... Such is life when you're compiling to bytecode and not native code. :rolleyes:
 
Hey look devs! Single app binaries to support 32 and 64 bit versions! In other words, there's really no need to try and sell us 64-bit versions of apps we've already paid you for when all you've done is recompiled them. I'm sure that won't stop some houses trying though.

Double binaries are only coming later though, so in the meantime, we should expect 64-bit only apps. And I doubt the single binaries will be pulled once they are compiled together.
 
I really don't understand this 32bit and 64bit information either.

Can someone explain the me in simple non technical non geeky language what this is all about when it comes to apps.

I mean I have an iPhone 5 since my iPhone wont support 64bit apps what am I going to be missing out on for example having a 32bit app compared to a 64bit app.

Also are apple app developers going to ensure that apps will be compatible for both devices. Devices that only handle 32 and 64bit apps?
In simplest terms, the number of bits refers to word size.

Word size determines the size of the chunks of data a processor can look at at once. 64-bit processors can look at larger chunks at once.

The new Apple processor is most likely only 40-48-bits, BTW.
 
Doesn't anyone realize it yet? iOS and the A7 have gone 64-bit, not for the iPhone, but for the iPad and the iMacbook to be based on the ARM chip running OSX on ARM. The iPhone is just the beginning.

People were complaining years ago about Apple making an iOS-based laptop and how it could never replace a full-blown Macbook Pro, but the reality is that the processor will have the power and flash will be cheap enough for it to happen.

Maybe there will be a version of OSX for the ARM and a "laptop" to go with it? I can't tell you it will be more like an iPad or more like a laptop, but people need to open their minds regarding the future of computing. It's not Intel Desktop or Mobile x86-based CPUs. It's ARM.
 
I still don't understand which apps will run better on 64bit? Maybe games, a'though infinity blade III didn't seem particularly impressive versus the previous version. All this bragging and chest pounding, but. what is the tangible benefit?
 
Oh, please no. I don't want my lethartig java apps to become bigger bigger and even slower to start or switch :p in between Closing the browser and starting the camera app I could sometimes eat a double whopper meal, shave, shower and take a nap. Damn, my Note needs probably more RAM and 16 cpu cores :rolleyes:

You must be a very fast eater because on my Galaxy Note 2 closing the browser and starting camera app takes about 1.5 seconds (combined). Be careful with exaggerations for some people may believe you. Then of course it may keep some iPhone owners happy longer if they believe claims like yours and think that Android is slower than iOS.

----------

I still don't understand which apps will run better on 64bit? Maybe games, a'though infinity blade III didn't seem particularly impressive versus the previous version. All this bragging and chest pounding, but. what is the tangible benefit?

The answer is very simple - the only apps that are going to benefit will be the apps that do a lot of calculations with double point precision (like nuclear reaction simulation). In case of phones what applications would that be? I have no clue. As far as games are concerned, the bottleneck is usually in the GPU and 64-bit CPU architecture will not help here at all. Most likely at this point 64-bit switch will be detrimental for phones and even tablets. It will help is and when RAM reaches 4GB or if Apple wants to switch to ARM chips for Macs. Neither on of these developments is likely in the near future (2 years for former, never for latter)
 
Indeed. The download should just work. It seems trivial to detect which version should automatically get selected.

And I agree that doulbleing the download size is a foolish way to avoid the need for the customer to have to choose the version himself. Some sort of auto-detect seems like the way to go.

What if you download using iTunes to sync to multiple devices?

----------

As far as games are concerned, the bottleneck is usually in the GPU and 64-bit CPU architecture will not help here at all.

Except that the GPU is integrated into the A7 SoC, so it might--but we don't know exactly what Apple has done with it yet, as far as I can tell.
 
No it isn't. By definition, no Android product is an outstanding consumer device since Android itself is particularly viscous malware given how badly Google and their carrier partners abuse it to snoop on their customers. Advertising supported system software is an extremely evil concept. This or that Android device may have impressive technical performance from time to time, but that does not make Android a good consumer choice.

Then would you say Yale isn't a good university by definition because it's in New Haven?
 
What if you download using iTunes to sync to multiple devices?

----------



Except that the GPU is integrated into the A7 SoC, so it might--but we don't know exactly what Apple has done with it yet, as far as I can tell.

Apple has no knowhow for GPU development. They use solutions from other vendors. Besides, GPU bit-ness has nothing to do with CPU architecture. It's a separate part of SOC. What matters is the bit-ness of the bus between CPU and GPU and this one also is a separate thing from CPU architecture.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.