Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjftsjthsd-h | Hacker News Reader

> Apple invents stuff which surfaces later. Appletalk over twisted pair had device discovery almost perfect. Printers shouted "I'm here" and everyone heard. It's taken years to get zeroconf and auto discovery out into the world of gigabit networks.

In fairness, this is hardly unique... if I had a dollar for every great thing someone got working and then it went nowhere, I could build a company to popularize solutions to all the dumb problems that still persist. Capability-based security, secure X11, ZFS, fully inspect/edit-able environments like smalltalk, 90% of everything Oberon was doing, graphical programming like hypercard, smartwatches as good as Pebble, Ada-level language safety, BeOS filesystem metadata... we barely need to invent anything new for the future, we could progress for ages just by mining the past...

View on HN

Apple still does things that other companies won’t even consider, though. I mean look at the M1 and Rosetta 2. Nobody knew what their plans for ARM were, and out of the gate they had a processor that was not only faster than anything Intel or AMD could provide, but also a system for translating x86 applications such that they ran with comparable performance on ARM. Even Microsoft didn’t have that on the Surface Pro X!

I think it’s easy to forget because of how secretive they are, but it’s pretty clear from their output that Apple has one of the best software engineering teams in the world, if not the absolute best.

I'm not even the smartest person in my family and I figured out where Apple was going before they even announced the M1, like a year or more before... I am sure that many here on HN were well ahead of me.

Which is an understatement haha. Apple’s Rosetta 2 runs intel applications faster than it used to run natively on intel chips.

i think this is pretty misleading. apple silicon started in 2010, it was a decade in the making. how can this be reconciled with "nobody knew what their plans for ARM were"

In hindsight it’s easy to say that, but would you have guessed in advance that they would succeed like they have? In the span of a year they have made x86-based products look obsolete.

>but would you have guessed in advance that they would succeed like they have?

Not guessed but projected. I was called an idiot, or son of bitch liar when I suggested its Geekbench score along with all other performance metric it was faster with A12. Only to be met with Intel Fan boys saying Geekbench is not reliable because of a Linus' comment ( That was on Geekbench 3 in case you are wondering, he is fine with GB4 ).

x86-based products look obsolete because Intel is now one and half node behind, and nearly 2 generation ( or three years ) of uArch behind their original schedule. And TSMC will officially leap ahead of Intel no later than 2020. I make that projection in 2014. That was before 99% of the internet even knew what TSMC was.

From 2011 to 2019. Dumb, stupid, idiot, Intel will get their 10nm done. Intel will have capacity expansion. You dont think the analyst would notice their lack of CapEx? Those were the words of many including senior analyst, two ex Intel engineers, current senior editor. It was only starting in 2020 everything was proven to be correct. ( And they shall remain nameless. But the records are still on certain forums and twitter )

It was painfully obvious. And yet somehow most want to believe the mainstream media narrative rather than actually think and analyse it themselves.

My biggest worry for Apple Silicon was that ARM’s obviously only suited for mobile devices, so it’d only really land in the Air, maybe mb13 - with the concern that this would cause fracturing where “pro” apps were intel only and armbook turned into an AppStore full of flatulent soundboards.

ARM seemed obvious but their results certainly didn’t.

no doubt the performance is impressive. it just sounded like you thought apple developed m1 faster than the process actually took. a very minor quibble

The jury is still out on Apple Silicon. Initial reception was incredibly positive but let's let it all marinate and see what happens.

One of the things I think Apple does best is reads the tea leaves on where things are headed, takes their time to develop a solid product but a couple years after they launch, are met with stiff competition on what is considered "best".

> The jury is still out on Apple Silicon.

In no sense is the jury still out. The x86 hegemony on laptops and desktops is dead.

Every time I'm doing a lift and shift, I'm glad I don't have to move an OS around on different chip architectures, maintaining performance speed. PowerPc to Intel, and now Intel to Arm. That's nuts.

That's a great example - because they specifically built an Intel-compatible TSO memory model into the M1 CPUs that can be toggled at runtime to avoid a ton of fencing (and at about 70% the performance of ARM64 natively). This let Apple's Intel emulation on ARM run way faster than Microsoft's. They also added hardware support for ObjC/Swift reference counting. These are things no other vendor on earth would do.

> They also added hardware support for ObjC/Swift reference counting.

Not true. It just has fast atomics because it’s a single SoC.

Ah yes, it looks like it's just super-fast/almost-free uncontended atomic operations.

> These are things no other vendor on earth would do

I really wonder why. Microsoft has some great engineers. I would assume some of the compiler or kernel people regularly meet up with people from Intel or Qualcomm and talk about future development.

It's not really the same, but when I was working in particle physics I remember some Intel engineers really trying hard to get into contact with researchers, and trying to figure out what we need, because they wanted to sell their Xeon Phi / Knights Landing cards to us (basically GPUs for general purpose computing based on X86, now discontinued).

Chip support for reference counting goes back to 1960's microcoded CPUs, plenty of other vendors have done it.

Indeed, and I was also wrong about that, to be clear. I did some research based on your comment, it's really cool too see. I'm a huge fan of old CPU architecture.

>we could progress for ages just by mining the past...

How much of that progress would be hindered by the mines being patent incumbered?

A lot of this work, such as work done on Smalltalk, is old enough to where any patents on it would be expired. There's a treasure trove of technologies invented in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's that haven't been fully exploited. For example, there are some regular posters on Hacker News that rant and rave about the Lisp machine development environments of the 1980's, some going as far as to say these environments were the most productive environments they've worked in, despite all the advances in editors, IDEs, compilers, and other tools that happened since the 1980's.

It varies. As sibling comments, some of it is so (depressingly) old that patents don't matter, and a surprising amount was released as FOSS (the best thing Sun ever did for its legacy was OpenSolaris). Other could probably be safely recreated independently; things like Pebble where it wasn't even novel tech, just a well polished combination of parts that nobody seems to want to bother with, or things like capability-based security where the idea is in the open and all that's needed is for people to put in the work and for it to actually catch on.

But yes, some gems are lost to copyright and patents, or at least much impeded by them.

The general issue here is that compatibility and vendor independence are both highly desirable features in the market, which tends to favor lowest-common-denominator technology standards, since all of the vendors want to maintain their competitive advantage. This goes both ways: keeping the good stuff proprietary and locked in, and refusing to buy into attempts at open standards offered by a competitor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com