4 ms·

If it "simply" allows you a feature that you want and that did not exist otherwise - and there doesn't seem to be anything remotely simple about it (wireless, l

If it "simply" allows you a feature that you want and that did not exist otherwise - and there doesn't seem to be anything remotely simple about it (wireless, low-latency, filtering the input noise, etc) - it seems only normal to pay for it...A one-time fee would be nicer, for sure, as I'm sure AstroPad wouldn't mind - but if you're battling API changes with every OS revision, and trying to provide a product that Apple can cripple any day (like they did with Sidecar), you're primarily forced to go subscription route by Apple to ensure survival...

taneq 7y ago
I think the problem here is that software should not be "as a service". Once a platform starts down the "evergreen" route they stop caring about breaking backward compatibility and then everyone else has to churn along with them. It creates a huge amount of busywork for everyone.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? How long should they keep backwards compatibility in watchOS - which is very resource constrained? Going back further - should they never have dropped 68K support? PPC support from MacOS? Even Microsoft dropped 16 bit support from the 64 bit version of Windows. Before someone posts “proof” that you can still run 16 bit apps on Windows, please read the part about “the 64 bit version of Windows”.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. Microsoft and Intel care(d) a lot about backwards compatibility - even desktop applications that were released 20 years ago usually work on today's Windows/PCs. > Even Microsoft dropped 16 bit support from the 64 bit version of Windows. Only in the 64 bit versions of Windows. Microsoft still sells 32 bit versions of Windows 10 if you want. In the 32 bit versions, 16 bit applications were supported for a long after. I admit that I have not tested whether 16 bit applications still run under the current 32 bit version of Windows 10 - but I consider it as plausible.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? How well is Intel’s backwards compatibility strategy working on mobile where they are basically non existent? Also, Apple sells more devices with ARM chips than all of personal computer manufacturers combined, the performance of their ARM chips is competitive with Intel’s chips except for the server chips and they use less power. It doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy to keep backwards compatibility forever. So backwards compatibility hasn’t exactly helped Intel in mobile - which is a much larger market than the desktop/server market. Even there PC manufacturers are trying to move to ARM for price performance and energy savings. Yes, Microsoft still sells 32 bit Windows. But it can’t take advantage of modern processors - and by “modern” I mean even my circa 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz Dell with 8Gb of RAM (running 64 bit Windows 10) that served as my Plex server until earlier this year. How has backwards compatibility helped MS? Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets.
      - vaxman 7y ago
        How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) > So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. > Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007 Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. > 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets. You might want to look into Xbox, Surface, Foldable Surface the old Casio watch and what kind of boat anchor Apple's Darwin has been for realtime embedded devices like Apple Watch.
  - taneq 7y ago
    It's fine to release new versions, just don't trash the existing ecosystem by forcing updates.
  - vaxman 7y ago
    note: Your questions are in a rhetorical/sarcastic tone; be certain I'm answering only for the benefit of others. > So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yeah, I think so. One would think that Apple would have learned from DEC's mistake in this regard, but such history lessons have been lost with the age discrimination. They should not have made the decision to virtually force consumers that are busy paying rent/mortgages, car payments and putting their kids through school to update software and buy upgraded hardware that breaks apps that they, as consumers, rely upon for home appliances, automotive and online services, especially when those users have gone into debt for upwards of a thousand dollars per device. Someday there will be a transition to radically different devices (projector/visor/voice or whatever) and that would be the time to not support 32-bit. Anyway, they made the decision and there will be all kinds of consequences (with a one trillion market cap, I'm sure they can handle it but what a horrible drain on all of creation for everyone to deal with). > How long should they keep backwards compatibility in watchOS - which is very resource constrained? That's an esoteric cosmetic platform with almost no relevant third-party apps (just second screen notifications) yet, so no need to worry about compatibility. > Going back further - should they never have dropped 68K support? PPC support from MacOS? Of course they should never have dropped support for 68K or PPC, even if it just meant shipping a System 7/macOS 9.04 in an emulator in every new Mac sold, forever. If they wanted to release a computer not called Mac, then that's another story but they clearly wanted to kill off the embarrassment Jobs created back when he was still learning what happens when you consider formal-training/experience to be a handicap. > Even Microsoft dropped Windows' success had almost nothing to do with such technical decisions so it's not real relevant though the compatibility between releases of Windows and Office was remarkable because Microsoft did learn from the lessons of DEC (because it actually had hired much of DEC's team heh).
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Yeah, I think so. One would think that Apple would have learned from DEC's mistake in this regard, Because what killed DEC is leaving backwards compatibility not cheap x86 based servers and people moving to Unix instead of DEC VAX/VMS. No I am not a youngin who doesn’t know about mainframes. My first job out of college was programming VAX/VMS and Stratus VOS mainframes in C and FORTRAN. Anyway, they made the decision and there will be all kinds of consequences (with a one trillion market cap, I'm sure they can handle it but what a horrible drain on all of creation for everyone to deal with). You mean the same decision that they made transitioning from 65C02 Apple //s, to 68K Macs, to PPC Macs, to Intel Macs? That's an esoteric cosmetic platform with almost no relevant third-party apps (just second screen notifications) yet, so no need to worry about compatibility. Yes there are native apps for WatchOS. Of course they should never have dropped support for 68K or PPC, even if it just meant shipping a System 7/macOS 9.04 in an emulator in every new Mac sold, forever. If they wanted to release a computer not called Mac, then that's another story but they clearly wanted to kill off the embarrassment Jobs created back when he was still learning what happens when you consider formal-training/experience to be a handicap. Every piece of code has maintenance and security concerns. The last thing you want is an old security vulnerability showing up because of a bug in QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc and the Publish and Subscribe system A modern low end iPad -the 10.2 inch $329 iPad has 3GB of RAM, no swap and a lower end processor than most modern laptops, yet it runs faster than low end Surface laptops with more RAM and faster processors and has longer battery life. Windows and Intel are albatrosses for mobile devices. As far as what MS “learned”, Microsoft completely missed mobile and every other trend in the last 20 years because they were concerned with backwards compatibility. Seeing where Apple was when Jobs came back and where they are now and comparing them to MS in terms of revenue and profit, can you really say that Apple made a bad decision? On the other hand, where are all of the Apple’s former competitors in the PC market now? As far as “formal training”, how did that help MS during the Ballmer era? Or heck how did it help Apple during the Sculley/Amelio era?

taneq 7y ago

I think the problem here is that software should not be "as a service". Once a platform starts down the "evergreen" route they stop caring about breaking backward compatibility and then everyone else has to churn along with them. It creates a huge amount of busywork for everyone.

scarface74 7y ago
So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? How long should they keep backwards compatibility in watchOS - which is very resource constrained? Going back further - should they never have dropped 68K support? PPC support from MacOS? Even Microsoft dropped 16 bit support from the 64 bit version of Windows. Before someone posts “proof” that you can still run 16 bit apps on Windows, please read the part about “the 64 bit version of Windows”.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. Microsoft and Intel care(d) a lot about backwards compatibility - even desktop applications that were released 20 years ago usually work on today's Windows/PCs. > Even Microsoft dropped 16 bit support from the 64 bit version of Windows. Only in the 64 bit versions of Windows. Microsoft still sells 32 bit versions of Windows 10 if you want. In the 32 bit versions, 16 bit applications were supported for a long after. I admit that I have not tested whether 16 bit applications still run under the current 32 bit version of Windows 10 - but I consider it as plausible.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Yes. That is why x86 became so successful and why Windows is so much loved by big corporations. So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? How well is Intel’s backwards compatibility strategy working on mobile where they are basically non existent? Also, Apple sells more devices with ARM chips than all of personal computer manufacturers combined, the performance of their ARM chips is competitive with Intel’s chips except for the server chips and they use less power. It doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy to keep backwards compatibility forever. So backwards compatibility hasn’t exactly helped Intel in mobile - which is a much larger market than the desktop/server market. Even there PC manufacturers are trying to move to ARM for price performance and energy savings. Yes, Microsoft still sells 32 bit Windows. But it can’t take advantage of modern processors - and by “modern” I mean even my circa 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz Dell with 8Gb of RAM (running 64 bit Windows 10) that served as my Plex server until earlier this year. How has backwards compatibility helped MS? Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets.
    - vaxman 7y ago
      How did you get that Intel and Microsoft failed in mobile "markets" because they had backwards compatibility with 32-bit and 16-bit apps? (I'm thinking you might not know the difference between RISC and CISC --hint: one is not better. than the other.) > So instead of using the die space saved by removing 32 bit support and using it for some combination of increasing performance, improving battery life, decreasing die size etc they should have left it and suffered? Removing the 32-bit instructions/registers isn't what achieves the performance and battery life improvements, those come from eliminating the RAM, cache-misses and context-switches dedicated to the 32-bit apps and that can be more than offset by not activating the 32-bit environment at all, unless it is actually needed by the user for legacy compatibility. > Apple was able to port their core OS to 128Mb RAM/400Mhz iPhone back in 2007 Note that MS ported their core to a 4Mb RAM 36MHz Velo-1 back in 1997 and many Chinese manufacturers make low power chips like that (for DVD players, TV sets, etc.) that ship with operating systems that have exactly the same APIs (knock offs) of Win16 and Win32. > 2007. Since then, they’ve ported it to everything from watches, tablets, and set top boxes. Microsoft has tried and failed in each of those markets. You might want to look into Xbox, Surface, Foldable Surface the old Casio watch and what kind of boat anchor Apple's Darwin has been for realtime embedded devices like Apple Watch.
- taneq 7y ago
  It's fine to release new versions, just don't trash the existing ecosystem by forcing updates.
- vaxman 7y ago
  note: Your questions are in a rhetorical/sarcastic tone; be certain I'm answering only for the benefit of others. > So should Apple have kept the silicon required to support 32 bit apps in their ARM chips forever? Yeah, I think so. One would think that Apple would have learned from DEC's mistake in this regard, but such history lessons have been lost with the age discrimination. They should not have made the decision to virtually force consumers that are busy paying rent/mortgages, car payments and putting their kids through school to update software and buy upgraded hardware that breaks apps that they, as consumers, rely upon for home appliances, automotive and online services, especially when those users have gone into debt for upwards of a thousand dollars per device. Someday there will be a transition to radically different devices (projector/visor/voice or whatever) and that would be the time to not support 32-bit. Anyway, they made the decision and there will be all kinds of consequences (with a one trillion market cap, I'm sure they can handle it but what a horrible drain on all of creation for everyone to deal with). > How long should they keep backwards compatibility in watchOS - which is very resource constrained? That's an esoteric cosmetic platform with almost no relevant third-party apps (just second screen notifications) yet, so no need to worry about compatibility. > Going back further - should they never have dropped 68K support? PPC support from MacOS? Of course they should never have dropped support for 68K or PPC, even if it just meant shipping a System 7/macOS 9.04 in an emulator in every new Mac sold, forever. If they wanted to release a computer not called Mac, then that's another story but they clearly wanted to kill off the embarrassment Jobs created back when he was still learning what happens when you consider formal-training/experience to be a handicap. > Even Microsoft dropped Windows' success had almost nothing to do with such technical decisions so it's not real relevant though the compatibility between releases of Windows and Office was remarkable because Microsoft did learn from the lessons of DEC (because it actually had hired much of DEC's team heh).
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Yeah, I think so. One would think that Apple would have learned from DEC's mistake in this regard, Because what killed DEC is leaving backwards compatibility not cheap x86 based servers and people moving to Unix instead of DEC VAX/VMS. No I am not a youngin who doesn’t know about mainframes. My first job out of college was programming VAX/VMS and Stratus VOS mainframes in C and FORTRAN. Anyway, they made the decision and there will be all kinds of consequences (with a one trillion market cap, I'm sure they can handle it but what a horrible drain on all of creation for everyone to deal with). You mean the same decision that they made transitioning from 65C02 Apple //s, to 68K Macs, to PPC Macs, to Intel Macs? That's an esoteric cosmetic platform with almost no relevant third-party apps (just second screen notifications) yet, so no need to worry about compatibility. Yes there are native apps for WatchOS. Of course they should never have dropped support for 68K or PPC, even if it just meant shipping a System 7/macOS 9.04 in an emulator in every new Mac sold, forever. If they wanted to release a computer not called Mac, then that's another story but they clearly wanted to kill off the embarrassment Jobs created back when he was still learning what happens when you consider formal-training/experience to be a handicap. Every piece of code has maintenance and security concerns. The last thing you want is an old security vulnerability showing up because of a bug in QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc and the Publish and Subscribe system A modern low end iPad -the 10.2 inch $329 iPad has 3GB of RAM, no swap and a lower end processor than most modern laptops, yet it runs faster than low end Surface laptops with more RAM and faster processors and has longer battery life. Windows and Intel are albatrosses for mobile devices. As far as what MS “learned”, Microsoft completely missed mobile and every other trend in the last 20 years because they were concerned with backwards compatibility. Seeing where Apple was when Jobs came back and where they are now and comparing them to MS in terms of revenue and profit, can you really say that Apple made a bad decision? On the other hand, where are all of the Apple’s former competitors in the PC market now? As far as “formal training”, how did that help MS during the Ballmer era? Or heck how did it help Apple during the Sculley/Amelio era?