04-16-15 01:59 PM
116 ... 2345
tools
  1. dolco's Avatar
    Heh-heh, 'cept Microsoft's lawyers are smarter than that.

    IIRC, Microsoft agreed to the use of Nokia's name for 1 year, bought the rights to the Lumia name, and Nokia agreed not to make smartphones (for at least 10 years, IIRC) in a "will not compete" clause. Nokia can only build feature phones under their name.

    I'm not sure that building a range of feature phones will benefit BB much.
    Your informations are just wrong.
    MS bought complete mobile HW division of Nokia, feature phones include. Agreement is:
    - MS can use Nokia brand for Lumias to end of 2015. Nokia can use own brand for smartphones after this date. Nokia will offer its brand to producers of smartphones. MS has started to use Microsoft brand on smartphones in advance.
    - MS can use Nokia brand for feature phones for 10 years.
    eyesopen1111 likes this.
    04-11-15 11:57 AM
  2. JeepBB's Avatar
    Your informations are just wrong.
    MS bought complete mobile HW division of Nokia, feature phones include. Agreement is:
    - MS can use Nokia brand for Lumias to end of 2015. Nokia can use own brand for smartphones after this date. Nokia will offer its brand to producers of smartphones. MS has started to use Microsoft brand on smartphones in advance.
    - MS can use Nokia brand for feature phones for 10 years.
    Microsoft and Nokia complete mobile phone unit deal - BBC News

    What you need to know about Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia

    See links above, I'm sure you can google for more if you'd like. If you'd prefer to think that Nokia will soon be free to start manufacturing phones for BlackBerry; then go ahead. I can't stop you, nor would I want to.

    MS bought Nokia's HW division - all of it - for $7Bn. And soon after made most of the ex-Nokia employees redundant.

    MS acquired the full rights to the Lumia, Asha, and Nokia X lines. Nokia can't make any of those types of phones, and have no HW division left to make them even if they wanted to.

    Nokia was left with networks and mapping. It'll be their core business now that they're done with phones.

    MS agreed to licence Nokia's mapping software (not the Nokia name on phones) for 10-years. In fact, the "Nokia" has already gone from the latest released WinPhones.

    Nokia is free to earn money from its large patent catalogue, which Nokia retains.

    Like I say, if you prefer to think that Nokia will be back building smartphones any time soon, then do that.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    04-11-15 04:24 PM
  3. dolco's Avatar
    In your first comment on Nokia/MS deal you were wrong when you claim:
    - Microsoft agreed to the use of Nokia's name for 1 year
    - and Nokia agreed not to make smartphones (for at least 10 years...
    - Nokia can only build feature phones under their name
    at least 70% of your comment was wrong.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    04-12-15 01:33 AM
  4. greenberry666's Avatar
    MS bought Nokia's HW division - all of it - for $7Bn. And soon after made most of the ex-Nokia employees redundant.
    It's sad.
    The more I hear about the world we live in, the closer I get to making a bow and arrow, tying a deerskin bandana around my head and running wild in the forests, camouflaged with streaks of moose poo.



    Posted via CB10
    04-12-15 03:13 AM
  5. JeepBB's Avatar
    It's sad.
    The more I hear about the world we live in, the closer I get to making a bow and arrow, tying a deerskin bandana around my head and running wild in the forests, camouflaged with streaks of moose poo.
    Yes, I agree with you. It was a terrible way to treat long-serving and loyal Nokia employees, and a bad example of corporate excess. Stephen Elop did well out of it, but I doubt that makes the Nokia employees who lost their jobs any happier.

    Nokia are now a networking, mapping and licencing services company. And though I do seem to have mis-remembered the 10-year aspect in my post above, which apparently means Nokia could design and build a Nokia range of smartphones from tomorrow morning... I doubt that will happen. Who is left in Nokia to design and build such devices?
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    04-12-15 03:21 AM
  6. dolco's Avatar
    Originally Posted by JeepBB View Post

    MS bought Nokia's HW division - all of it - for $7Bn. And soon after made most of the ex-Nokia employees redundant.

    It's sad.
    The more I hear about the world we live in, the closer I get to making a bow and arrow, tying a deerskin bandana around my head and running wild in the forests, camouflaged with streaks of moose poo.



    Posted via CB10
    "Ex-Nokia employees" means workers in factories. MS closed two factories in China and one in Hungary. Ex-Nokia engineers, developers and designers, are still current MS engineers, developers and designers.
    04-12-15 04:51 AM
  7. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    The only reason Nokia was popular in Europe was because it was European (Finnish). The second Microsoft took over and even before when Nokia was pushing Windows Phone, Nokia sales softened.
    I firmly disagree.
    Nokia ruled the World, when early smartphones were still a thing. (S60*Symbian, UIQ for Sony Ericsson, S80 for the Communicator)

    Nokia was popular because they made the best phones back then, and tried to be innovative on a non touchscreen form factor (compared to WM. I am talking about the 1998-2006 period).
    The Nokia N95 changed everything, for example.
    Just like the Communicator.

    If you want to go back even further: First phone with WAP (7110), first phone with "useful" integrated camera (7650. SE had the T60i with an optional camera dongle thing), first phone with a useful GPS (N95, even though the sat fix took like 20 min), first phone with a "huge" HDD in it (N91).

    There was only one region in which Nokia wasn't popular and that was the US.
    Which funnily enough has mostly to do with Americans being very patriotic buyers.
    Motorola was completely irrelevant outside of the US (except for the RAZR), when it came down to cell-phone sales (in the time frame I am speaking of. Until the OG Droid, this didn't change though).

    The moment Nokia went with WP, sales plummeted because people don't really care for WP. Not even the Nokia brand was able to overcome that issue.
    Patriotism however, never NEVER had to do anything with Nokia being popular.

    You probably also have a false understanding of the EU, if you think that a product made in the EU will be treated better than another one, not from the EU.
    It much rather depends on where it comes from, within the EU, as most Germans will prefer local (and typically) German products over other ones.
    The German however won't care if his/her non german product comes from Spain or from Japan (generally speaking in aggregates).
    04-13-15 11:41 AM
  8. sentimentGX4's Avatar
    I firmly disagree.
    I would like to preface this by citing the context to the post you are quoting is in response to whether Blackberry should buy rights to the Nokia name or not right now.

    Given the context of speaking about Nokia's current brand name value, the "was" refers to S^1 onward to Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia hardware and what the "Nokia" brand means to consumers today.

    It does not refer to Symbian S60v3 and prior devices like the N95 which you appear to be defending.

    The moment Nokia went with WP, sales plummeted because people don't really care for WP. Not even the Nokia brand was able to overcome that issue.
    This is a very distorted revision of the events. Why did Nokia abandon Symbian (and Meego/Maemo) in the first place if it were so great? Nokia smartphone sales were already plummeting even before Windows Phone and there was no question as to why.

    The OS and smartphone specs were horrible (even compared to Windows Phone). They were using ARM11 434 mhz (5800 and N97) and then 634 mhz (N8) when everybody else was using ARM Cortex A8 1 ghz (iPhone 4)!! Even their last phones the N9 and 808 were a complete embarrassment. We had a 1 ghz ARM Cortex A8 (N9) when everybody else was dual core and even their Lumia 800 was 1.4 ghz Snapdragon. 808 was stuck in 1 ghz ARM11.

    Windows Phone was to Symbian very much like BB10 was to BB OS. The latter OS was already in steep decline and then the transitional OS kind of just sealed the deal but wasn't really the "root" of the problem. Nokia smartphones post-iPhone were never competitive.

    Patriotism however, never NEVER had to do anything with Nokia being popular.
    I actually acknowledged Nokia hardware's distinctiveness in the latter half of the very post you are quoting and explained that was a reason why Blackberry has no use for the Nokia brand name because it could not imitate the hardware.

    What I'm saying is that toward the end of Nokia's life (5800+), the primary appeal of Nokia's brand name is patriotism and that would be what Blackberry would be trying to capitalize on if it bought rights to the Nokia brand. During its heyday, of course Nokia had its merits.

    Nokia is kind of like Blackberry once again in that regard. When the product started a downward spiral, the loyalists were left and for Nokia those were in Europe and for Blackberry those were in Canada.
    Last edited by sentimentGX4; 04-13-15 at 03:10 PM.
    04-13-15 12:11 PM
  9. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    I would like to preface this by citing the context to the post you are quoting is in response to whether Blackberry should buy rights to the Nokia name or not right now.

    Given the context of speaking about Nokia's current brand name value, the "was" refers to S^1 onward to Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia hardware and what the "Nokia" brand means to consumers today.

    It does not refer to Symbian S60v3 and prior devices like the N95 which you appear to be defending.

    This is a very distorted revision of the events. Why did Nokia abandon Symbian (and Meego/Maemo) in the first place if it were so great? Nokia smartphone sales were already plummeting even before Windows Phone and there was no question as to why.

    The OS and smartphone specs were horrible (even compared to Windows Phone). They were using ARM11 434 mhz (5800 and N97) and then 634 mhz (N8) when everybody else was using ARM Cortex A8 1 ghz (iPhone 4)!! Even their last phones the N9 and 808 were a complete embarrassment. We had a 1 ghz ARM Cortex A8 (N9) when everybody else was dual core and even their Lumia 800 was 1.4 ghz Snapdragon. 808 was stuck in 1 ghz ARM11.

    Windows Phone was to Symbian very much like BB10 was to BB OS. The latter OS was already in steep decline and then the transitional OS kind of just sealed the deal but wasn't really the "root" of the problem. Nokia smartphones post-iPhone were never competitive.

    I actually acknowledged Nokia hardware's distinctiveness in the latter half of the very post you are quoting and explained that was a reason why Blackberry has no use for the Nokia brand name because it could not imitate the hardware.

    What I'm saying is that toward the end of Nokia's life (5800+), the primary appeal of Nokia's brand name is patriotism and that would be what Blackberry would be trying to capitalize on if it bought rights to the Nokia brand. During its heyday, of course Nokia had its merits.

    Nokia is kind of like Blackberry once again in that regard. When the product started a downward spiral, the loyalists were left and for Nokia those were in Europe and for Blackberry those were in Canada.
    I'll give you a better answer when I land...

    But overall I do not disagree that much with you.

    Nokia's most embarrassing decision was to kill MeeGo and go with WP.
    That's obviously only my opinion, but they had 2 years on BB10 with that OS.
    They had a real chance to actually build an app store. They had a chance to rival Apple in the "walled garden" approach. And they still had the brand power to do it.
    After going down the WP route though, everything was too late for Nokia, the phone manufacturer.

    This is what I meant, when I said that not even the Nokia Brand was able to make WP attractive (it changed, as WP now is firmly set as the 3rd ecosystem, but that was because of low-cost devices).

    In the here and now, I believe that Elop really was a Trojan horse from MS, and that the conspiracy guys found a real conspiracy for once.
    eyesopen1111 likes this.
    04-13-15 05:09 PM
  10. sentimentGX4's Avatar
    Nokia's most embarrassing decision was to kill MeeGo and go with WP.
    That's obviously only my opinion, but they had 2 years on BB10 with that OS.
    They had a real chance to actually build an app store. They had a chance to rival Apple in the "walled garden" approach. And they still had the brand power to do it.
    After going down the WP route though, everything was too late for Nokia, the phone manufacturer.
    The choice to adopt Windows Phone versus Android was a bad one; but, Meego was doomed to fail and there was actually a very detailed Bloomberg/Businessweek article about it.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine...2056703101.htm

    Basically, with Maemo/Meego, Nokia had trapped itself into a Z10 situation. While BB10 only runs on Snapdragon S4, Meego could only run on a 1 ghz ARM Cortex A8. Nokia suffered precisely the same problem with Symbian except their S^1 devices were stuck on an ARM11 434 mhz configuration and their early S^3 devices were stuck on a 680 mhz ARM11 configuration.

    The Meego team failed to produce a diverse portfolio of devices despite years and years of work. Maemo was supposed to replace Symbian since the N900. That is how long the Maemo/Meego team were screwing up. The N9 was ultimately the best and only device they could produce at the time. This was too expensive to use for a low-/mid- end device and yet not high end or cutting edge.

    Now how could Nokia, a company that catered to everybody, replace its entire smartphone lineup with the N9? Elop came to Nokia and recognized the nonsense and scrapped Meego immediately.
    mornhavon, dolco and Bbnivende like this.
    04-13-15 06:20 PM
  11. eyesopen1111's Avatar
    I still have my Nokia 900 and Nokia N9 and I hated Nokia's choice to go with Windows Phone. But to me, the most important parallel between this situation and the Classic 's situation is the lure of low specs.

    Once a company goes with low specs, they will end up in the bottom of the market, and by the nature of things, their low-spec devices cant be competitive with high-spec devices. Such a company is immediately irrelevant to smartphone enthusiasts, of which I am one, so this particular error is very frustrating to me. More broadly, it is very difficult to come back from this error and the companies who make it spiral down the toilet bowl until they are flushed.

    I watched this error kill Nokia and now Im watching it kill BlackBerry, so its very fatal. Why? At the end of the day, people (at least the economically significant people) want the best and are willing to pay for the best when it comes to smartphones. People look at their smartphones hundreds of times a day. We rely on them for so much, and even non-techies mostly admit that their phones are the first thing they look at in the morning and the last thing they look at at night. In such a situation, it makes sense to get the best for a bit more cash, even year after year. This is the real reason that iPhone and high-spec Androids perform so well in both the consumer and the enterprise markets. The winners are willing to win. They have high-end specs, attract the best customers, and those customers attract all sorts of developers and companies that make the premium ecosystems even more dominant.

    Meanwhile, low-spec apologists discuss how little they need from their phones, how they dont need apps, and how certain they are that the mass market will soon abandon iPhone and other high-end phones, and they argue that some piece of cr4p low-end phone is "nearly as good" as the top-end brands. Then, the next quarter happens, iPhone beats the living shyte out of them yet again (destroying their stupid theory of how the smartphone market works), but they ignore this reality check (uhm, until the company dies or is bought or whatever) and they continue to insist that low-end specs will somehow recover. Even if this were true, which it isnt, no high-end smartphone buyer would care because low-end phones are yucky.
    sentimentGX4 and phuoc like this.
    04-13-15 08:32 PM
  12. phuoc's Avatar
    If the Classic were selling well, we would have heard from Chen.
    eyesopen1111 likes this.
    04-13-15 08:50 PM
  13. white shirt only's Avatar
    Illusions. Very few people care about specs. 1gb of ram in the iphone is far from high end specs. People care about the brand and the full experience.

    (And there are many good reasons to prefer ram over CPU.)

    Posted via CB10
    04-13-15 08:52 PM
  14. eyesopen1111's Avatar
    Illusions. Very few people care about specs. 1gb of ram in the iphone is far from high end specs. People care about the brand and the full experience.

    (And there are many good reasons to prefer ram over CPU.)

    Posted via CB10
    People, especially on this forum, frequently bring up the iPhone's 1GB of RAM to make the case that it is not a high-spec device. It is a high-spec device. If Apple's being the first to have a custom 64-bit chip wasnt enough to convince you, or if the camera wasnt enough, just look at the iPhone's Geekbench scores. You dont get those kinds of scores with anything other than high-end specs.

    Since Geekbench has a native BB10 app, you can have a true head to head comparison to see how BlackBerry stacks up to Apple. Weve even had a member of Geekbench on this forum discuss how they look for cheating because Apple's scores were so good that they made some people suspicious!

    So, yes, some people may say that they like the "smooth performance" of iPhone, but that performance is only possible because of the device's specs. And Apple's brand is only positive and relevant because it is associated with excellent performance. If Apple makes bad choices in the future like BlackBerry has made in the recent past, then the Apple brand will go down the tubes just like the BlackBerry brand has.
    Bbnivende, phuoc and sentimentGX4 like this.
    04-13-15 09:49 PM
  15. white shirt only's Avatar
    So are high end specs the $3,000 MacPro, the $1,500 new Macbook, the Macmini, the $600 iphone 5c, etc...

    I know that the A9 is powerful. But I prefer ram. I have the iphone 6 and safari reloads tabs consistently when bb10 never does.

    Apple has always offered products with lower specs than the market. The last macbook is more expensive and less powerful. To me that's not a problem because I value the full experience and not the specs. But it has to be acknowledged.

    Posted via CB10
    04-14-15 06:11 AM
  16. bitek's Avatar
    I wonder how much Blend has to do with it. My wife started using it with her new Classic a few weeks ago, and now she is totally and completely hooked! She was really ticked a few days ago when it wasn't working. Turns out that she couldn't find the icon to get it running. There was nothing wrong with Blend.

    I wish that BlackBerry would start to promote this feature a bit more.

    Posted via CB10
    Blend is good on PC. It makes sense. Not so much on iPad with its lack of multitasking

    Posted via CB10
    04-14-15 06:34 AM
  17. gokulesh's Avatar
    I don't think it's ironic at all, actually: BlackBerry has a unique offering on devices with the toolbelt and keyboard, and for those who love it and for those for whom communication efficiency is paramount, BlackBerry should have maintained a device portfolio that acknowledged what they do very well (PKB / Toolbelt devices) and what many customers do want (full touchscreen devices). If anything the 'white elephant' of the BB10 lineup is the Q5/Q10: PKB devices without the toolbelt.

    Hopefully, BlackBerry Ltd. has it sorted out now, they can offer three or four form factors in modest volumes that cover the spectrum of what BB10 users want, which includes the "Classic" form factor, the full touch, the Passport, and now the Slider (and I could see the next device in the Q series having a touch sensitive PKB but not quite so large as the Passport... in fact, I hope the Passport three row keyboard doesn't see another iteration: put a traditional BB PKB on it that is touch sensitive, and keep the screen for screen stuff, not a row or more of virtual keys).
    I agree with everything you said except....passport. My kids would have a fit if this was the last model ever made and I agree with them.

    For our family, best BlackBerry ever. So much so that I am stuck with a classic (my son took my passport) and waiting to upgrade.

    Thankfully JC is on record as saying there will be a passport 2.

    Posted Via The Classic
    04-14-15 06:38 AM
  18. mnc76's Avatar
    People, especially on this forum, frequently bring up the iPhone's 1GB of RAM to make the case that it is not a high-spec device. It is a high-spec device. If Apple's being the first to have a custom 64-bit chip wasnt enough to convince you, or if the camera wasnt enough, just look at the iPhone's Geekbench scores. You dont get those kinds of scores with anything other than high-end specs.

    Since Geekbench has a native BB10 app, you can have a true head to head comparison to see how BlackBerry stacks up to Apple. Weve even had a member of Geekbench on this forum discuss how they look for cheating because Apple's scores were so good that they made some people suspicious!

    So, yes, some people may say that they like the "smooth performance" of iPhone, but that performance is only possible because of the device's specs. And Apple's brand is only positive and relevant because it is associated with excellent performance. If Apple makes bad choices in the future like BlackBerry has made in the recent past, then the Apple brand will go down the tubes just like the BlackBerry brand has.
    64-bit was a gimmick. Completely unnecessary for smartphone workloads. That goes for 64-bit Android CPUs as well. If you've had experience in CPU design and architecture, you'll know that 64-bit brings literally no tangible benefits to smartphones. When you need heavy floating point work done, you use a GPU or other application specific coprocessors... not the CPU.

    Every CPU generation sees it's architecture become more optimized and efficient (larger caches, optimized pipelines, uodated instruction set, more instructions retired per clock, etc...), so of course the newer 64-bit CPUs perform better than their predecessors with 32-bit registers. The major error people make is attributing that increased performance to the new 64-bit registers. Larger caches and faster memory will have exponentially more impact on performance than going to 64-bit.The performance increase in the Apple CPUs have literally nothing to do with the fact they now have 64-bit registers -- its all the other optimizations Apple/ARM made to the CPU. You can have 64-bit (or even 128-bit) buses in a 32-bit CPU, so you don't need 64-bit to increase you io bandwith either (another common misperception).

    I realize the general public will never ever ever believe this though, so I'll just leave it at that!

    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    ArcPlug likes this.
    04-14-15 02:09 PM
  19. Bbnivende's Avatar
    What are you saying about Geek bench tests. For example, should not the Classic and Leap have much faster processors given that users expect to get three years use?

    Posted via CB10
    04-14-15 02:57 PM
  20. mnc76's Avatar
    What are you saying about Geek bench tests. For example, should not the Classic and Leap have much faster processors given that users expect to get three years use?

    Posted via CB10
    I was only talking about 64-bit. I definitely agree that -- particularly the Classic -- should have had at least z30 specs. Ideally the Galaxy S4's SOC would have been a good balance between cost (so BlackBerry could still make a decent margin) and performance.

    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    04-14-15 03:08 PM
  21. eyesopen1111's Avatar
    64-bit was a gimmick. Completely unnecessary for smartphone workloads. That goes for 64-bit Android CPUs as well. If you've had experience in CPU design and architecture, you'll know that 64-bit brings literally no tangible benefits to smartphones. When you need heavy floating point work done, you use a GPU or other application specific coprocessors... not the CPU.

    Every CPU generation sees it's architecture become more optimized and efficient (larger caches, optimized pipelines, uodated instruction set, more instructions retired per clock, etc...), so of course the newer 64-bit CPUs perform better than their predecessors with 32-bit registers. The major error people make is attributing that increased performance to the new 64-bit registers. Larger caches and faster memory will have exponentially more impact on performance than going to 64-bit.The performance increase in the Apple CPUs have literally nothing to do with the fact they now have 64-bit registers -- its all the other optimizations Apple/ARM made to the CPU. You can have 64-bit (or even 128-bit) buses in a 32-bit CPU, so you don't need 64-bit to increase you io bandwith either (another common misperception).

    I realize the general public will never ever ever believe this though, so I'll just leave it at that!

    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    I never said that the increased speed was due to the 64-bit, only that it is a higher spec component as part of my overall argument that the iPhone is a high-spec device. I take it as proof that other OEMs are chasing or copying this particular spec on their newest devices, but iPhone was the first major OEM to get it. And, if there's anything of worth to your claim that 64-bit is only a "gimmick," why are other top OEMs rushing to adopt it? Why is this "gimmick" going to be the future of smartphones? Have a look at this article:

    http://www.androidpit.com/six-reason...-phone-in-2015

    The geekbench performance score has more to do with other factors of performance.

    And while your post fails in every way, but especially as a rebuttal, its real fault is being both misleading and incredibly dull.
    sentimentGX4 likes this.
    04-14-15 03:23 PM
  22. mnc76's Avatar
    I never said that the increased speed was due to the 64-bit, only that it is a higher spec component as part of my overall argument that the iPhone is a high-spec device. I take it as proof that other OEMs are chasing or copying this particular spec on their newest devices, but iPhone was the first major OEM to get it. And, if there's anything of worth to your claim that 64-bit is only a "gimmick," why are other top OEMs rushing to adopt it? Why is this "gimmick" going to be the future of smartphones? Have a look at this article:

    http://www.androidpit.com/six-reason...-phone-in-2015

    The geekbench performance score has more to do with other factors of performance.

    And while your post fails in every way, but especially as a rebuttal, its real fault is being both misleading and incredibly dull.
    First, I never said the iPhone wasn't a high spec device.

    Second, I've looked at that article and there are many errors in it. For example, you think 4K video encoding/decoding is done by the CPU and not the GPU? As for memory -- until any smartphone ships with more than 4 GBs of RAM, the memory addressing benefit of 64 bit is useless as well. As for security, the iPhone 6 for example, has a dedicated encryption coprocessor, so again, the 64 bits of the CPU are not used for security either.

    64 bit will eventually be needed, but it isn't needed now, nor will it be for at least 2 years. Right NOW it's a gimmick to have it on a smartphone. It's not doing anything to make your smartphone experience better today.

    Third, the reasons Apple added 64-bit was for marketing. The reason Qualcomm etc... are adding it now is to be able to say "we're 64 bit too!"... all for marketing. Qualcomm never even planned to make their latest SOC 64-bit until Apple did. They then rushed out the 64 bit Snapdragon 810 which (due to their rush) is now suffering from overheating. To prevent overheating, phones like the HTC One M9 have to do a lot of CPU throttling, and use reduced clock speeds to keep it cool. Qualcomm knew 64-bits was unnecessary, but decided to jump into the 64 bit "numeric specs" race before they were ready.

    This is why Samsung surprised everyone and went with their own Exynos SOC for the Galaxy S6 instead of the Snapdragon 810 as they originally planned to.

    Finally, I suggest you take a walk outside and get some sun and calm yourself down. Geeze.

    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    Last edited by mnc76; 04-14-15 at 04:04 PM.
    Andy_bb_king and ArcPlug like this.
    04-14-15 03:34 PM
  23. eyesopen1111's Avatar
    I've looked at that article and there are many errors in it. For example, you think 4K video encoding/decoding is done by the CPU and not the GPU? As for memory -- until any smartphone ships with more than 4 GBs of RAM, the memory addressing benefit of 64 bit is useless as well. As for security, Apple for example, has an encryption coprocessor, so again, the 64 bits of the CPU are not used for security either.

    64 bit will eventually be needed, but it isn't needed now, nor will it be for at least 2 years. Right NOW it's a gimmick to have it on a smartphone.

    I suggest you take a walk outside and get some sun and calm yourself down. Geeze.

    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    Let's get this straight. Both iOS and Android's new ART are both based on 64-bit, but you dismiss 64-bit as a "gimmick." So who's the moron here? Is it all the Google and iOS engineers who have introduced this "gimmick" that wont, as you claim, be useful for another two years? And what of all the developers for those systems who are updating more and more apps TODAY to be compatible and optimized with 64-bit, are they wrong too? And all the largest OEMs in the world, who are adopting 64-bit devices for release THIS YEAR, are they clueless suckers who are developing a gimmick technology that you claim wont be needed for another two years?

    I mean, either youre right and all the top minds in mobile technology are wrong, or you are using this forum to demonstrate how very, very little you know about the present and future of mobile tech. You and BlackBerry are both two years behind the race's leaders. A match made in the land of irrelevance.

    I think the best way to demonstrate that you have deceptively misrepresented the first article I linked is to link a few more articles showing that 64-bit has the speed benefits, memory benefits, and that it is the choice of top-spec current 2015 smartphones:

    Here's a Gizmodo article discussing that 64-bit can make some operations "up to twice as fast" compared to 32-bit. http://whitenoise.gizmodo.com/64-bit...s-f-1295764870

    Here's a Phone Arena article describing that top 2015 phones will be dominated by 64-bit. http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-6...phones_id63442

    And here's an article how 64-bit improves the "speed, stability, and security" of Chrome, including "improved speed on many of our graphics and media benchmarks." http://blog.chromium.org/2014/08/64-...ws_26.html?m=1

    I just how that this is enough to undo the nonsense youve brought to this forum.
    04-14-15 05:30 PM
  24. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    64 bit will eventually be needed, but it isn't needed now, nor will it be for at least 2 years. Right NOW it's a gimmick to have it on a smartphone. It's not doing anything to make your smartphone experience better today.

    Third, the reasons Apple added 64-bit was for marketing. The reason Qualcomm etc... are adding it now is to be able to say "we're 64 bit too!"... all for marketing.
    Consider the huge amount of money that goes into designing something like a 64-bit SoC. Then consider that it will take quite a while for smartphone OS makers to modify their OSs to not just run on them, but to be optimized for them. By releasing those processors before they are actually "needed", it gives the OS developers - and app developers - a chance to "get to know" the differences and capabilities and do whatever optimizations may be necessary. That way, by the time 64-bit stuff is needed, the software for it will have some developmental maturity.
    04-14-15 06:43 PM
  25. mnc76's Avatar
    Let's get this straight. Both iOS and Android's new ART are both based on 64-bit, but you dismiss 64-bit as a "gimmick." So who's the moron here? Is it all the Google and iOS engineers who have introduced this "gimmick" that wont, as you claim, be useful for another two years? And what of all the developers for those systems who are updating more and more apps TODAY to be compatible and optimized with 64-bit, are they wrong too? And all the largest OEMs in the world, who are adopting 64-bit devices for release THIS YEAR, are they clueless suckers who are developing a gimmick technology that you claim wont be needed for another two years?

    I mean, either youre right and all the top minds in mobile technology are wrong, or you are using this forum to demonstrate how very, very little you know about the present and future of mobile tech. You and BlackBerry are both two years behind the race's leaders. A match made in the land of irrelevance.

    I think the best way to demonstrate that you have deceptively misrepresented the first article I linked is to link a few more articles showing that 64-bit has the speed benefits, memory benefits, and that it is the choice of top-spec current 2015 smartphones:

    Here's a Gizmodo article discussing that 64-bit can make some operations "up to twice as fast" compared to 32-bit. http://whitenoise.gizmodo.com/64-bit...s-f-1295764870

    Here's a Phone Arena article describing that top 2015 phones will be dominated by 64-bit. http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-6...phones_id63442

    And here's an article how 64-bit improves the "speed, stability, and security" of Chrome, including "improved speed on many of our graphics and media benchmarks." http://blog.chromium.org/2014/08/64-...ws_26.html?m=1

    I just how that this is enough to undo the nonsense youve brought to this forum.
    As for Gizmodo. Yes, you can perform a single operation on two 32 bit integers in 'parallel' in one 64-bit register (making it 'twice as fast' as doing the operation separately on two 32 bit ints), but the question you've avoided is : How often is being able to do that useful or even needed in 99.999% of smartphone tasks? And as I keep saying, "not very!". And if these kinds of mathematical operations are needed, they are usually done in a GPU that was designed from the ground up to do multiple SIMD operations per clock cycle (SIMD = 'single instruction, multiple data').

    Most apps don't require data that needs to range over anywhere near the 18 quintillion possible values that can be stored in 64 bits (a quintillion is a billion billion by the way).

    As for Google's 15% faster decoder. First, I stated that 64 bit is unnecessary for today's smartphones, and yet you provide an article for Chrome running on 64-bit Windows. Well done. You're one smart guy.

    I also said that there are very few tasks that require 64 bit processing that aren't better done in a GPU or coprocessor.

    The VP9 decoding discussed there is not GPU accelerated. GPU accelerated VP9 decoding is much much more efficient than CPU-only VP9 decoding and frees up the CPU to do the general purpose tasks it was actually designed to do.

    The reason Google is using a software-only solution is that VP9 is a new codec standard they're pushing which currently has no widespread support from GPU manufacturers. They hope the software solution in Chrome will drive widespread adoption and be a catalyst to get GPU makers onboard.

    As for mobile devices, this is what Google has said:

    Mobile phones and tablets are a key domain for video consumption. As a result, one of Google's top priorities is building in battery-efficient decoding abilities into processors.

    "We are trying to get the hardware adoption. We're working with chipset makers to get the decoder in. The licensing is free as well as the decoding technology," Ramamoorthy said, and Google supplies actual designs that hardware makers can use at no charge. Ramamoorthy believes VP9 hardware support will be a given, eventually.
    http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-web...ustry-reality/


    Posted from my awesome White Z30
    Last edited by mnc76; 04-15-15 at 03:59 AM.
    04-14-15 09:26 PM
116 ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. BBos apps on BB10
    By Soapm in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-04-15, 09:51 AM
  2. Why doesn't my Classic ring?
    By Mani yerramsetti in forum BlackBerry Classic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-03-15, 09:54 PM
  3. How do I troubleshoot BBM which suddenly stopped working on my BB Q5?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-01-15, 03:01 PM
  4. Print To Go on Z10 OS 10.3
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-01-15, 03:40 AM
  5. What if? 911 call on toy battery of an Iphone
    By dartdriver in forum BlackBerry Z30
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-01-15, 01:21 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD