x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution?

How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution?

How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution?
There has been a lot of talk over the past few months about the move to 64-bit processors mobile processors. Obviously, the talk began with Apple's surprise announcement that the A7 system-on-a-chip (SoC) that would be found in the iPhone 5s was a 64-bit processor, making it the first 64-bit processor in a smartphone. But, as always happens when Apple does something like this, there is a debate about who was really "first"; so, I wanted to take a look at the entire ecosystem and talk about how much credit Apple really deserves in the coming mobile 64-bit evolution.

The conversation about the topic has gotten quite muddled since Apple surprised us with the 64-bit A7, mostly because of a combination of bad choices by Qualcomm, and the unsurprising response from Samsung saying that it was working on its own 64-bit mobile processors. Qualcomm notoriously had an employee who called Apple's A7 a gimmick, saying that it would have "zero benefit" for users. Qualcomm distanced itself from the comments, and quietly reassigned the employee. That response might make you think that Qualcomm didn't agree with the statement, but really it was a public relations move because Qualcomm didn't want the backlash when it introduced its own 64-bit processors, one of which was unveiled recently

The thing is that the Qualcomm employee who was a bit too candid wasn't wrong. Today, a Qualcomm insider claimed that the Apple "set off panic in the industry" when it introduced the A7, not because it was something revolutionary, but because it was a natural evolutionary change on which Apple jumped the gun. The insider went on to basically reiterate points that I had made when Apple first announced the A7 - the chip is a great building block for the future and has more value as a marketing tool for Apple, because it has limited performance benefits right now since most software isn't optimized, and the hardware is nowhere near where you would expect for 64-bit. 

It's an evolution, not a revolution

And, that's really the issue here when I ask the question: How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution? Because, at the end of the day, no matter what company did it first, the change was bound to happen. In fact, it was already in the process of happening. We have to keep in mind that while Apple's A7 is the first 64-bit processor to be put into a smartphone, the iPhone 5s was not the first mobile device to be running a 64-bit processor and 64-bit OS. Remember, the original Microsoft Surface Pro which debuted last year was running 64-bit Windows 8 Pro on a 64-bit Intel Core i5 Ivy Bridge. 

How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution?
Sure, the chip wasn't designed for mobile, and the system was only halfway designed for mobile, which led to laptop-level battery life in a tablet. We were able to get around 6 hours of battery life, but other testers put the number closer to 4 hours. And really, if a tablet can only get about 4 hours of battery life, can it really be considered a "mobile" device? Technically, the answer is yes, but that just doesn't feel right. Regardless of where you feel comfortable landing on this, the point still stands that the idea of "first" is already a bit nebulous. 

So, yes, Apple's iPhone 5s was technically the first smartphone that featured a 64-bit processor, and it was the first mobile-only OS to be completely optimized for 64-bit. But, there's another caveat that must be made: iOS 7 is the first mobile-only OS to be fully optimized for 64-bit. Windows 8 Pro was on mobile devices beforehand; and, while Android as a whole isn't optimized for 64-bit, it does have 64-bit support in its kernel, which was inherited from Linux. 

Of course, there is still the issue that one of the main reasons for the use of a 64-bit processor is to handle the memory addressing when a device has 4GB of RAM or more. This again is something that will be useful in the future, but given that current iOS devices top out at 1GB of RAM, it's unclear exactly when that work will bear fruit.

The credit that Apple deserves

All of this adds up to a simple realization: the move to 64-bit was not only an inevitable shift, but it is one that has been in the works in various ways with multiple platforms. Given that, it is very difficult to claim that Apple deserves a large amount of credit. But, that's not to say that Apple doesn't deserve any credit. Remember, there were MP3 players before the iPod, smartphones before the iPhone, and tablets before the iPad; but, it is undeniable that Apple had significant impacts on those markets once it released its products. 

How much credit does Apple deserve for the coming mobile 64-bit evolution?
As you can see with MP3 players, smartphones, and tablets, Apple's true success has always come not from being the first to market, but rather from being the first highly visible product to be successful in the market. You can have the best product on the market, but it doesn't really matter if no one knows about it.  This has always been Apple's greatest strength, and why it garners so much hatred. Apple strives to make sure that its devices are always the ones that others are compared against. Even if Apple's devices don't match up, it is still seen as a standard-bearer, and it is always in the conversation. And, there's no such thing as bad press. 

When you look at the 64-bit conversation, Apple's major contribution follows its company history by helping to fuel the media frenzy around 64-bit (something that Apple has always been good at), and to push other platforms to speed up the evolution to 64-bit. Now that 64-bit has been pumped into the general lexicon so much with Apple's launch of the iPhone 5s, iPad Air, and iPad mini with Retina display, Apple has once again given another point of comparison when you inevitably see the various articles pitting an iOS device against an Android, Windows Phone, or other devices. 

As laid out earlier, the distinction doesn't really mean anything right now. iOS is optimized, but the apps aren't; Android isn't optimized, and neither are the apps; and, while Windows 8 has been optimized, Windows Phone and RT haven't been optimized for 64-bit. Apple has said that all new app submissions and updates after February 1st must be "optimized for iOS 7", but that doesn't necessarily mean optimized for 64-bit. Apple's focus right now seems to be on apps getting the visual update to feel more at home in iOS 7. Apps must be made using Xcode 5, which offers support for optimizing for 64-bit, but the note that Apple sent out to developers didn't mention 64-bit at all and only pointed developers to the iOS Human Interface Guidelines. 

...Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

So, whether or not the Samsung Galaxy S5 launches with a 64-bit processor in February or March won't mean anything until Google updates Android, and gets developers to update their apps as well (a notoriously long and slow process when it comes to Android). Ultimately, manufacturers are in an arms race not to get to a certain goal first, but rather to see who can build a foundation the fastest. It is inevitable that an Android smartphone will cross the 4GB of RAM barrier before any other smartphone (unless Canonical can somehow convince a hardware partner to build the Ubuntu Edge). But, Apple will undoubtedly have the majority of its app ecosystem updated for 64-bit well before any other platform.

No matter how you slice it, 64-bit for mobile is nothing more than a work-in-progress at this point. It will eventually become the standard, as anyone could have predicted far before Apple announced its A7. Apple hasn't really started anything, but it has certainly brought more awareness to the topic, for good and for bad. The best that can be said for now is that the evolution to 64-bit may happen a bit faster than before Apple's iPhone 5 announcement. The worst that can be said is that there will be plenty of comparisons that list "64-bit support" as a pro for iOS, when no one is really going to feel the benefits for a while to come. 

  • Options

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 17:25 17

1. Ninetysix (Posts: 2622; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)

Apple the trend-setter. Fandroids pray to the Operating System Gods that v5.0 will be 64-bit aware.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 17:35

5. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)

Or the OEM ships a dalvik that works with armv8, which it has done for the 3 arm instruction sets android has used.


posted on 18 Dec 2013, 18:10 24

11. tedkord (Posts: 13785; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

Only if the device has 4gb or more of ram. Even then I won't care much.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 18:24 7

20. PBXtech (Posts: 1032; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)

Exactly. Google has done major progress on getting Android fast and smooth without 64 bit processing. Until flagship, medium level, and entry level phones can run it, going 64 bit isn't necessary at this point in time.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 22:02 3

62. Finalflash (Posts: 3485; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)

Problem is that Apple has started a numbers game that does nothing to push the industry forward. It is purely marketing which really gets the consumer no benefit because everyone will expend a ridiculous amount of resources catching up to Apple's marketing genius. Regardless, I am hoping the Android OEMs keep delivering multiple upgrades (useful and not so much) unlike Apple and their 1 new marketing point every year.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 04:12 2

93. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)

Since when is a 64bit SoC a marketing strategy? It might be but the performance benefits are also there.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 04:33 1

98. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)

It's not just about RAM. There is more to 64bit than using more than 4GB of RAM.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 18:50 8

29. grahaman27 (Posts: 361; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)

Android has supported 64bit since 2.3...

Hi, have you met java?

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 19:01

31. grahaman27 (Posts: 361; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)


posted on 18 Dec 2013, 19:23 7

34. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)

An article from September right after the A7 announcement, a pathetic excuse resorting to Intel versions.

You may google for 64-bit Android. You will find nothing since then.

Why? Cuz there is nothing to talk about. A 64-bit version of the Linaro toolchian. That's all.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 10:16 1

117. Pancholo (Posts: 380; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)

You seem relatively annoyed, brother.

Are you a fangirl or a tecchie? Here - Let me help you answer... *hugs*

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 19:37 3

36. fanboy1974 (Posts: 1345; Member since: 12 Nov 2011)

64-bit is a gimmick until one of 2 things happen.

1. When we start seeing 4gig's of ram on phones.


2. When 64-bit apps have a clear advantage over it's 32-bit counterpart.

Now I'm not saying that Apple should not have released a 64-bit processor and OS. What I'm saying is that Apple is a long way from having either of the 2. Even if you use a iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s side by side it's not a night a day difference. Actually I noticed more crashes on the 5s vs the 5. I had the iPhone 5s and the joy of knowing that it's 64-bit wore off after 1 day of use. The sad part is that the phone is still gimped with 1gig of memory. The only reason why were talking about 64 bit is because the phone blogs bring it up. Your average Apple user don't even know (or care) what 64-bit is. But I bet that those same people will understand 1gig vs. 2gigs of ram.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 19:49 2

39. Zero0 (Posts: 592; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)

Three things:
3. It's 2038.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 02:38 1

86. TheOldOne (Posts: 196; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)

Acctually, after step2 "When 64-bit apps have a clear advantage over it's 32-bit counterpart." we will discover that acctually we need more than 4GB.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 04:07 3

92. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)

64 bit isn't just about supporting more than 4GB of RAM. Why does everybody think it's just that? There is more to it than that.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 21:24 2

56. taikucing (unregistered)

As a fandroid, I respect Apple for making 64-bit chip with more than 1 billion transistors (almost reaches Core i7 transistor count) & making ARM architecture almost competitive to x86 architecture (it even blows Intel bay trail out of the water with just 1.2 GHz). I hope someday ARM can surpass Intel. And what I've heard, Apple will replace intel CPU for the desktop with its own ARM CPU.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 04:20

94. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)

If it continues to go like this I can't see a reason not to replace x86 CPUs. The power usage and heat is incredibly reduced compared to most ARM chips and WAY lower compared to any x86 CPU. In a few years it might easily catch, in performance, most laptop CPUs. The evolution of performance has doubled every year while the heat and power usage has always stayed the same. In a few years we might have Macbooks with ARM chips with equivalent performance to Intel CPUs and have better battery life and reduced heat, so less fans and more space for thinner laptops. And lets not forget that the mobile GPUs have also taken a big step forward, specifically nVidia Tegra, PowerVR and others.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 09:32 1

116. nlbates66 (Posts: 328; Member since: 15 Aug 2012)

sorry, but the reality is still that no ARM chip has anywhere near the processing power of a standard mid-range x86 chip from even 4 years ago

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 21:34 4

58. taikucing (unregistered)

FYI, Apple A7 smokes Intel Celeron 2955U (1,4 GHz) & Intel Pentium 2117U (1.8 GHz) in some benchmarks.


respect Apple for making ARM architecture competitive to x86...

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 00:42 2

80. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)

An interesting possibility :

- Apple can and will omit Aarch32 on the upcoming A8 thanks to the completed transition.
- Apple replaces the GPU with a simple 2D graphics IP.
- Apple makes it 16 core

What do we have here? A top-notch chip feasible for servers.

And what prevents Apple from dominating the server market?
- Top-notch SoC almost FREE of the heavy design cost every year
- Top-notch HW
- Top-notch design
- Top-notch OS
- Top-notch SW
- Top-notch IDE (XCode)
- Top-notch marketing
- Top-notch buying power

Apple will sell servers to Google!

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 04:57 1

100. brrunopt (Posts: 742; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)

comparing to a very low end x86 cpu, right , makes total sense... The a7 reaches the very low end of x86...

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 00:54

81. mayur007 (Posts: 577; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)

exactly you took my words lol .. this exactly i think of apple

i always see apple as trend starter not a innovator..

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 05:35 1

105. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 2223; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)

Not at all. 64-bit archs aren't useful in mobile phones. Just waste of bits.

posted on 19 Dec 2013, 15:20

118. designerfx (Posts: 76; Member since: 26 Mar 2013)

Hahaha, what?

64 bit is potentially useful, but that's not a guarantee. It's entertaining in that it brings things closer to par with laptops, etc - but Apple is about as much a trendsetter as nothing - look at their wonderful battery life with the 5s!


posted on 18 Dec 2013, 17:29 5

2. W.P._Android_in_that_Order (Posts: 208; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)

Everything will be 64 bit in a few years anyway.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 18:29 4

23. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)

Dalvik is a *32-bit* machine.

Even if the OS and VM get 64-bit porting, Dalvik is and remains a *32-bit* machine.

It's set to stone.

And it won't change.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 18:53 2

30. grahaman27 (Posts: 361; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)

Source? Dalvik supports 64 bit since android 2.3


posted on 18 Dec 2013, 19:14 5

33. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)

Here you are.
It's kinda a definition of the Dalvik machine, a 32-bit one.

I repeat : the bit numbers emulators are running in doesn't affect the bit numbers of the emulated machines.

And the link you gave just shows how sensitively they reacted to Apple's A7. Cuz they had and have nothing comparable.
They were so desperate that they had to resort to Intel versions.
What have we been hearing from them since then so far?
64-bit Linaro toolchain. That's all. Nothing in sight.

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 21:00 2

49. grahaman27 (Posts: 361; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)

Eh hem the linaro toolchain was released: years after gingerbread came out. you are not proving anything other than how misguided you are

posted on 18 Dec 2013, 21:20 3

54. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)

Linaro, founded in June 2010, released its *first* 64-bit toolchain in September 2013.

We were talking about 64-bit ones, right?

Stop talking about things you don't know a thing about.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories