Who invented what

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
Maybe, just maybe, we can start redirecting these endless "Apple didn't make that" arguments to this thread. Then, when the argument resurface again, we can direct people to the history of the discussion and save ourselves the pain of going back through it all again.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
I'll kick it off with this one:

Not really, other companies are innovating in many different areas as well. Apple in particular set forth some really nice innovations in OS X Mavericks (battery and performance related improvements
give proper credit where it's due - intel
Intel wrote the App Nap feature in Mavericks? :rolleyes:
oh please.. roll your eyes somewhere else.. another one who thinks apple innovated someone else's work. go look up reviews of haswell in other notebooks. here i'll start you off:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7047/the-haswell-ultrabook-review-core-i74500u-tested/5
For the record, I don't see anything in the supplied link that suggests that the power saving features of OS X were invented by Intel, and I don't see anything in the earlier comments that suggest that Apple invented low static current capabilities of Haswell.

To claim that Intel can somehow see that one application is occluded by another, and therefore invented AppNap, is kinda crazy.

Can we call this one done?
 
Last edited:

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
For the record, I don't see anything in the supplied link that suggests that the power saving features of OS X were invented by Intel, and I don't see anything in the earlier comments that suggest that Apple invented low static current capabilities of Haswell.

To claim that Intel can somehow see that one application is occluded by another, and therefore invented AppNap, is kinda crazy.

Can we call this one done?
clearly you misunderstood the discussion.. and i never said that Intel developed App Nap.. you seem defensive also. you really think that App Nap is the main reason for the battery improvements? come on now.. all i said was that give the proper credit where it's due for the real and major reason why battery life has significantly improved.. which is clearly Intel.. it's as if some of you think that App Nap is the main reason why there's a significant bump in battery life. i even gave you a source link to prove otherwise. App Nap is just another power throttle mode.. just look at all the Haswell reviews.. even Windows based notebooks have gained battery life similar to the MBA, so it shows that App Nap is not the main reason.

Also, what do you expect.. Apple is notorious for suing others for some of the most petty things when it comes to "similarities".. You know what I'm talking about.. this is the same company who tried to sue for rounded corners, slide to unlock, bounce back... It's funny that when others point out Apple "borrowing" others' ideas.. all of a sudden, it's not cool to discuss it? Apple has taken more blatant ideas recently. So how come you only clean up when it's obvious that now Apple is "borrowing". Where were you the past few years when it was almost everyday.. all you see in the forums were "Android is clearly a straight copy of iOS".. those threads went on and on.
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,275
4,803
clearly you misunderstood the discussion.. and i never said that Intel developed App Nap.. you seem defensive also. you really think that App Nap is the main reason for the battery improvements? come on now.. all i said was that give the proper credit where it's due for the real and major reason why battery life has significantly improved.. which is clearly Intel.. it's as if some of you think that App Nap is the main reason why there's a significant bump in battery life. i even gave you a source link to prove otherwise. App Nap is just another power throttle mode.. just look at all the Haswell reviews.. even Windows based notebooks have gained battery life similar to the MBA, so it shows that App Nap is not the main reason.
Uhm, I think you are confusing a number of things... first of all, MBA's battery improvements have nothing to do with OS X 10.9 (it still comes with OS X 10.8 :p ). It is a fact that 10.9 has improved battery life because of its power-saving features and somehow I don't believe that Intel broke into my home while I was sleeping and replaced my Ivy Bridge CPU with a Haswell one ;)

And you would be surprised if you knew how much Intel and Apple cooperate on different projects. ULV CPUs? The first one was made by Intel specially by Apple's request. Thunderbolt was developed jointly by Intel and Apple.
 

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
Uhm, I think you are confusing a number of things... first of all, MBA's battery improvements have nothing to do with OS X 10.9 (it still comes with OS X 10.8 :p ). It is a fact that 10.9 has improved battery life because of its power-saving features and somehow I don't believe that Intel broke into my home while I was sleeping and replaced my Ivy Bridge CPU with a Haswell one ;)

And you would be surprised if you knew how much Intel and Apple cooperate on different projects. ULV CPUs? The first one was made by Intel specially by Apple's request. Thunderbolt was developed jointly by Intel and Apple.
not confused at all.. since mod here wanted to hide our comments from the iOS Apple "Now" discussion.. so one thing led to another.. i was also wondering why this mod moved it to Mavericks..
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
clearly you misunderstood the discussion.. and i never said that Intel developed App Nap.. you seem defensive also. you really think that App Nap is the main reason for the battery improvements? come on now.. all i said was that give the proper credit where it's due for the real and major reason why battery life has significantly improved.. which is clearly Intel.. it's as if some of you think that App Nap is the main reason why there's a significant bump in battery life. i even gave you a source link to prove otherwise. App Nap is just another power throttle mode.. just look at all the Haswell reviews.. even Windows based notebooks have gained battery life similar to the MBA, so it shows that App Nap is not the main reason.

Also, what do you expect.. Apple is notorious for suing others for some of the most petty things when it comes to "similarities".. You know what I'm talking about.. this is the same company who tried to sue for rounded corners, slide to unlock, bounce back... It's funny that when others point out Apple "borrowing" others' ideas.. all of a sudden, it's not cool to discuss it? Apple has taken more blatant ideas recently. So how come you only clean up when it's obvious that now Apple is "borrowing". Where were you the past few years when it was almost everyday.. all you see in the forums were "Android is clearly a straight copy of iOS".. those threads went on and on.
I'm certainly not defensive since I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just tired of having interesting conversations constantly derailed into troll wars.

Take a moment to read the quotes above again-- I cropped that first one to match your original edits. The commenters are clearly discussing features of the OS, you are clearly saying that Intel deserves credit for those features. That wasn't a thread about Apple's lawsuits, or a continuation of some fight you had with someone else in some other thread. It was a thread about adding Traffic to Apple's answer to Now.

As I said, nobody was discussing the CPU before you brought it up. Nobody was giving Apple credit for silicon improvements. Do I think Mavericks and AppNap are more responsible for battery improvements in my 2010 MBP than Haswell is? Yes.
not confused at all.. since mod here wanted to hide our comments from the iOS Apple "Now" discussion.. so one thing led to another.. i was also wondering why this mod moved it to Mavericks..
One thing isn't leading to another, you're either confused or creating confusion.

I'm not a mod; I didn't want to continue an unrelated argument in that thread. You have the power to create threads for your pet subjects as well-- and I wish you would.

I moved it to Mavericks because that is what this discussion is related to-- Evoken pointed to innovations in Mavericks, you said those innovations are Intel's (and Intel doesn't make the chips driving iOS after all), blackcrayon pointed to AppNap specifically (a Mavericks API), and you pointed to a random post on the web. This isn't an iOS discussion, this isn't a Today discussion, this isn't an Apple lawsuit discussion, this is a Mavericks discussion.
 

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,931
1,598
New England, USA
Maybe, just maybe, we can start redirecting these endless "Apple didn't make that" arguments to this thread. Then, when the argument resurface again, we can direct people to the history of the discussion and save ourselves the pain of going back through it all again.
I have a question...no sarcasm intended.

The question is... why is it important who invented what. Isn't what's important is whether something works, and meets your needs?

Again, this is intended as a serious question.:)
 

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
I'm certainly not defensive since I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just tired of having interesting conversations constantly derailed into troll wars.

Take a moment to read the quotes above again-- I cropped that first one to match your original edits. The commenters are clearly discussing features of the OS, you are clearly saying that Intel deserves credit for those features. That wasn't a thread about Apple's lawsuits, or a continuation of some fight you had with someone else in some other thread. It was a thread about adding Traffic to Apple's answer to Now.

As I said, nobody was discussing the CPU before you brought it up. Nobody was giving Apple credit for silicon improvements. Do I think Mavericks and AppNap are more responsible for battery improvements in my 2010 MBP than Haswell is? Yes.

One thing isn't leading to another, you're either confused or creating confusion.

I'm not a mod; I didn't want to continue an unrelated argument in that thread. You have the power to create threads for your pet subjects as well-- and I wish you would.

I moved it to Mavericks because that is what this discussion is related to-- Evoken pointed to innovations in Mavericks, you said those innovations are Intel's (and Intel doesn't make the chips driving iOS after all), blackcrayon pointed to AppNap specifically (a Mavericks API), and you pointed to a random post on the web. This isn't an iOS discussion, this isn't a Today discussion, this isn't an Apple lawsuit discussion, this is a Mavericks discussion.
you clearly are defensive or taking the criticisms on apple personally.. since you continue to twist my own words and points.. failing to comprehend the whole situation and discussion that went on. i'm done with this discussion, since you will probably just move it again to somewhere more hidden when it doesn't agree with your opinions. why don't you go move some more of the posts all over the forums then.. instead of singling just my posts. that way you'll comprehend more of why i was trying to justify my reasons for the counter arguments.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
I have a question...no sarcasm intended.

The question is... why is it important who invented what. Isn't what's important is whether something works, and meets your needs?

Again, this is intended as a serious question.:)
The short answer here is, I don't know.

It matters to the companies themselves, getting paid for their work is their livelihood. Patents give them a way to protect the upfront investment in innovation. The patent system is also horribly broken, but that's a discussion for a thread in the Politics section, I suspect.

Personally, I admire innovative companies on an intellectual level. I'd rather work for a company that is inventing new ways of doing things than one that is always playing catch up.

As a user, I'm with you. And I think most people are. We don't care where the good ideas come from, we just want to benefit from as many as possible. I think that's why people were so frustrated by the one button mouse for so long-- it felt like Apple was refusing to copy a good idea.

I think some people get annoyed when marketing people try to make small innovations look like big ones. Most innovation is incremental, small improvements. Apple didn't invent the tablet, though they sometimes speak as though they did. What they mean, of course, is that they made the tablet successful by tweaking it in just the right ways.

And I also think there's a fair amount of trolling going on right now to try and dull the shine of Apple's big presentation. People are happy and excited about getting new features in their phones and computers, Apple has the spotlight for a few days, and there are people who want to sow discontent. It has the same feel as the old Apple Maps fiasco-- sure there were issues, but the furor seemed a bit over the top...
 

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,931
1,598
New England, USA
The short answer here is, I don't know.

It matters to the companies themselves, getting paid for their work is their livelihood. Patents give them a way to protect the upfront investment in innovation. The patent system is also horribly broken, but that's a discussion for a thread in the Politics section, I suspect.

Personally, I admire innovative companies on an intellectual level. I'd rather work for a company that is inventing new ways of doing things than one that is always playing catch up.

As a user, I'm with you. And I think most people are. We don't care where the good ideas come from, we just want to benefit from as many as possible. I think that's why people were so frustrated by the one button mouse for so long-- it felt like Apple was refusing to copy a good idea.

I think some people get annoyed when marketing people try to make small innovations look like big ones. Most innovation is incremental, small improvements. Apple didn't invent the tablet, though they sometimes speak as though they did. What they mean, of course, is that they made the tablet successful by tweaking it in just the right ways.

And I also think there's a fair amount of trolling going on right now to try and dull the shine of Apple's big presentation. People are happy and excited about getting new features in their phones and computers, Apple has the spotlight for a few days, and there are people who want to sow discontent. It has the same feel as the old Apple Maps fiasco-- sure there were issues, but the furor seemed a bit over the top...
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. It was an interesting post.:)
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
you clearly are defensive or taking the criticisms on apple personally.. since you continue to twist my own words and points.. failing to comprehend the whole situation and discussion that went on. i'm done with this discussion, since you will probably just move it again to somewhere more hidden when it doesn't agree with your opinions. why don't you go move some more of the posts all over the forums then.. instead of singling just my posts. that way you'll comprehend more of why i was trying to justify my reasons for the counter arguments.
No, I take chaos in my playground seriously.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm repeating them and you're just realizing how twisted they were to begin with. If I'm misunderstanding, clarify.

I didn't hide the discussion, I just didn't want to annoy everyone else with an off topic discussion. I moved it to Mavericks because that's what was being discussed. The mods just moved the whole thread here, which is probably more appropriate.

Everyone quoted was notified, if they want to continue talking. I publicly posted the new thread. If you were interested in making a point about Haswell versus Mavericks to people who are interested in listening to it, this is the place to do it.

I suspect you're ending the conversation because it's not as much fun when you can't make a scene in front of a large captive audience. You don't appear to be trying to make a point so much as cause a distraction.

So, getting back to the discussion at hand:
Nobody was trying to give Apple credit for work done by Intel, they were making the point that Apple made improvements in power consumption that are likely to benefit all users. Intel has also made improvements to power consumption that will only benefit future users. To answer your question as to whether I think AppNap is the main reason the battery life in my 2010 MBP will improve, as opposed to Haswell, I'd have to answer "yes". Do you agree?
 

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
I suspect you're ending the conversation because it's not as much fun when you can't make a scene in front of a large captive audience. You don't appear to be trying to make a point so much as cause a distraction.

So, getting back to the discussion at hand:
Nobody was trying to give Apple credit for work done by Intel, they were making the point that Apple made improvements in power consumption that are likely to benefit all users. Intel has also made improvements to power consumption that will only benefit future users. To answer your question as to whether I think AppNap is the main reason the battery life in my 2010 MBP will improve, as opposed to Haswell, I'd have to answer "yes". Do you agree?
again, you being in defense mode and making more assumptions about me.. this is why i choose not to continue.. because you clearly are biased and can't even comprehend my point.. and have you not realized that Mavericks isn't even out yet?? how can you even give the new OS credit for the 12 hour battery life when it's not even out yet? that was my point! how are you claiming it almost as a fact that APP Nap will improve your 2010 MBP when it's not even out yet?? that was my point and relates back as to why I made my original comment about giving the proper credit to the battery life with what is out NOW. jeez you are being dense. i think you are the one who likes attention, as this wouldn't have extended this far had you just left the discussion as is.

and just for the record.. a point i was trying to make in other threads.. is actually the same as yours and the others below.. i pointed out that by Apple now being obvious to their "borrowing".. that hopefully we could end this "but Google, Samsung, Android copied this and that.."

I agree, the whole "we were first!" or "you copy!" thing is a bit silly. But I'm thinking the responses on this thread regarding Today is partly due to the harsh criticisms on the forums in the past directed at any company (Google, Samsung, etc) copying Apple.
No it is not that. Why Apple gets rip on so harshly for the copying is how big of hypocrites they are. Apple and its army of Apple fanboys are massive cry babies over anything that remotely copies something Apple has done but then Apple turns around and does very blatant copying everyone else.

if you notice Android fans do not scream fowl over MS copying or Blackberry copying ect nor do those companies really scream fowl over Android. Heck they do not even make much noise over Apple but Apple on the other hand makes a huge deal over minor offenses.

The issue at hand is how big of a hypocrite Apple is being.
The irony is had people not made a big deal about Samsung/Google/etc copying Apple features, nobody would care that Apple copied Now... And it's still relatively civil compared to the pro-Apple posts in the past (SAMEsung, samDung, etc).
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 4, 2003
4,805
2,837
again, you being in defense mode and making more assumptions about me..
Maybe it would help if you quoted something from me that you're taking to be defensive. I don't have a point to defend here, which makes it kind of logistically difficult to be defensive.

Mostly I'm trying to bring these random conversations to resolution in a way that we have a shared understanding of things so that they don't start all over again later.
this is why i choose not to continue.. because you clearly are biased and can't even comprehend my point.. and have you not realized that Mavericks isn't even out yet?? how can you even give the new OS credit for the 12 hour battery life when it's not even out yet? that was my point!
You're right, I can't comprehend your point, but I'm trying hard to.

I'm wondering if the problem is that you aren't really reading what you're quoting, and that we're assuming you are. Evoken made a long list of Apple innovations in response to a claim that only Google is innovating. Intel wasn't part of the conversation at that point, nor was the MBA. You cut the list short after "battery and performance" and threw credit to Intel. blackcrayon sounded equally confused by the non-sequitur, to which you responded with CPU metrics in a response to a Mavericks comment in an iOS feature thread.

Maybe I'm just confused because you quoted the wrong comment?

I agree with you that Haswell will improve power consumption. It will do so in part because of Apples improvements to CPU loading in Mavericks. To quote that link you directed us to:
Workloads with greater idle time will show the biggest improvement in battery life thanks to Haswell ULT.
So much of the Haswell benefit will come because of improvements in the software running on it. Conversely, the software improvements are helped along by underlying hardware improvements in static power draw.

Do you agree with this assessment?
how are you claiming it almost as a fact that APP Nap will improve your 2010 MBP when it's not even out yet?? that was my point and relates back as to why I made my original comment about giving the proper credit to the battery life with what is out NOW. jeez you are being dense. i think you are the one who likes attention, as this wouldn't have extended this far had you just left the discussion as is.
If I liked the attention, I wouldn't have moved this into sidebar I'd have made a spectacle of myself in the main news thread...

How am I claiming that AppNap will help? I've been watching the WWDC sessions on power management, for one. I've done a lot of engineering of deeply integrated hardware/software systems and it's clear that the changes Apple is introducing are going to be a big help. Do I know it for an absolute fact? Not until I install it, I suppose, but then I don't have a Haswell processor to know that those improvements are a fact either, and I'm willing to accept them as such until I learn otherwise.

Software plays an enormous role in power consumption. Ever had your fans kick on because of a flash animation in a tab you're not viewing? The difference in power draw between active and idle in a modern CPU is enormous, so the real benefit comes from idling those cores as much as possible. Mavericks is starting to introduce the infrastructure to do that.

Do you agree?
and just for the record.. a point i was trying to make in other threads.. is actually the same as yours and the others below.. i pointed out that by Apple now being obvious to their "borrowing".. that hopefully we could end this "but Google, Samsung, Android copied this and that.."
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but for me that message would be easier to consume if you weren't so insulting about it.

It's also worth keeping in mind that you're railing against something someone said in an different thread at a different time about a different topic to a bunch of people who weren't involved then, aren't interested, and want to talk about something else. They aren't going to like that, nor are they going to understand why you appear to keep changing the subject.