New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
They can't be forced to give them up. They actually own them. They are on legacy contracts before the RIR's
Everyone on the net @ IPv6 seems to be still far away, but I must say we do see a significant increase in IPv6 traffic passing through our network. Especially traffic from/to countries like Belgium, Sweden, Portugal and the USA.
If you ask me, it's just a matter of time - especially with the price of IPv4 blocks increasing..... who wants to pay $30 (as example) for an IPv4 address.
It's common for the uneducated to think that every new toy is "progress" just because.
It is you who has the deeply flawed argument. Everything "works just fine" . . . until it doesn't. Do you still use floppy disks? There's no technical reason not to! The same holds true for things like the 2038 problem and IPv6. You can sit on your hands until the last possible minute, or you can be smart about it and solve the problem you know is coming. Some of us learned that lesson from Y2K. If you didn't, that's on you.
Don't buy Apple. And if you're really sincere in your beliefs that 32-bits should be enough for anyone, never purchase anything that supports 64-bit addressing (or, heaven help us all, 128-bits like IPv6! :-).
Just because there might be some NAT access to some truly legacy systems doesn't mean that IPv4 won't be dead for all intents and purposes. Did you watch the WWDC video that is available through the top link? It clearly lays out the case that all future mobile networks are expecting to be exclusively based on IPv6. The wheels are in motion.
You're certainly welcome to ignore it for now and rely on NAT for the time being, but if you're still sticking with IPv4 in 10 years, just because you refuse to use IPv6 at that late date doesn't make IPv4 any less dead.
It's common for the uneducated to make straw man arguments. I never claimed anything was "progress", just that there are newer technologies that solve problems that weren't anticipated by the older technologies. Just like there are ways you could keep using 2 digit dates after 2000, or could keep using 32-bit dates after 2038, you could work out even more and more convoluted solution to keep using IPv4 addresses. But you have to measure the work of doing that compared to the work of just switching to IPv6. There's no "just because" in the decision making process.
Wonderful strawman.
Where? Raindog complained about Apple requiring 64-bit code, and I told him to simply buy something that stuck with 32-bit code. Problem solved, forever and ever! :-)
Sigh.
One of the main issues is that some of the big players either have more than enough space left or are fine with using CGNAT for the time being.
You have a point. Especially the big players around us will definitely care less about IPv6 than all others with limited IPv4 space. But still, if prices of IPv4 addresses on the IP market increase, i'd expect that the big players will also increase the costs of additional IPv4 addresses.
In my opinion the big players (especially the dsl/cable/fiber ISPs) are one of the problems that IPv6 adoption is going slowly. They simply don't care about IPv6 because "we have enough IPv4 addresses on stock".
I expect that IPv6 will get a huge boost once those ISPs are finally implementing IPv6 on customer lines. Look at Belgium for example - the larger cable ISP over there provides IPv6 - the reason why we see much IPv6 traffic coming from that country.
Flag them into hands, they love to disturb and dictate own rules. No flash, micro SIM than nano SIM, why need follow them all time?
You have to admit, a lot of the innovations they've made are positive. May be innovation is too strong of a word, Apple mostly commercializes existing ideas.
But the point is that other companies follow in Apple's footsteps. If the ideas are bad why are their competitors following them?
Any recent phone with flash? Any recent phone with keyboard? Full sized SIM?
Our Chinese friends offer everything
most modern smartphones have full size two SIM cards inside. Get keyboard handset not such a problem. Many of them around.
You really think those are comparable? One is physical, one is software.
Dude, WTF are you talking about? There's no "last possible moment" for when Apple decides to drop 32-bit support. There were hard stops for Y2k and there will be for the 2038 epoch, etc. but this was not one of them. Your argument is specious. Does Intel still support 32-bit on x86_64? Yep, have for 10+ years.
So should everyone who uses 32-bit VMs upgrade? I mean, 64-bit CPUs have been out for a couple decades now. What, 64-bit uses more RAM on a 128MB VM? Too bad, you luddite! You sat on your hands!
Ignoring the fact that you're bordering on an ad hominem, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that based on the photo on your home page, you were not working in the IT industry 17+ years ago.
Congratulations for validating my argument. I understand you don't realize wtf I just said, but it's ok, it's not unheard of for people to get smarter with age - just keep your fingers crossed and you'll be fine.
I can't hide my disappointment though, I had expected more fun.
Only that wasn't your original argument - which was: "You're a bunch of know-nothing-fools who are not rationally capable of using the best tool for the job, given the set of constraints that accompany its use, compared with the competition", or in a layman term, "Ludites".
What's a man who needs to change his argument on the very first hint of a challenge called? Dazzle me with your literacy skill.
I disagree. Go on GsmArena and look at the top 10 phones by daily interest. 3 of them are Chinese, the rest are Korean. They are all either Micro (Apple invention) or Nano (also Apple invention) SIM. They are all touch-only (Apple commercialization). These are what I would call "modern" smartphones. I am sure you can find some obscure Chinese device on Aliexpress with full sized SIM slot and/or keyboard, but the truth it nobody cares about these devices in the developed world.
I am by no means an Apple fanboy, I don't use an iPhone and I disagree with many decisions Apple makes, but I have to admit they are (or were?) able to change the world the way they want. Getting back on topic I see why they would be capable of pushing IPv6 onto the world. Why IPv6-only? Because Apple doesn't sell things that "mostly work" or "kind of work sometimes". I am sure they have plans to introduce some services/apps that leverage direct p2p communication between phones and they don't want to have to deal with double-NATs, changing IPs and all kinds of crap that comes with the caveman IPv4. And Apple has the power to force carriers to offer IPv6 for all iPhones.
What? Do you think a 64-bit chip is just a 32-bit chip with extra software? The opposite is usually true; you have to do special things with a 64-bit OS to take advantage of any 32-bit compatibility that a 64-bit chip may offer.
And that's the key thing to think about when a company like Apple tells you to go 64-bit with your software. It likely means that they're eyeing a switch to a chip that might not have much in the way of 32-bit support, so they want to make sure the software is all updated long before they have to roll out the hardware.
Apple's head isn't just stuck in the Intel sand. All you're succeeding at doing here is showing you're unwilling or unable to wrap your head around the kinds of big decisions that companies like Apple have to make.
Same could be said for support of 16-bit and 8-bit chips. Are you still crying because you don't have widespread support for that technology? Why is it unthinkable to consider retiring 32-bit support from end-user computing?
Such flattery makes it hard to be mad at you. :-) Rest assured, my first computer purchase was a Mac SE. I actually still have it (upgraded to an SE/30 long ago) gathering dust somewhere. If you're really nice, I could take (beardless) pic of me with it. :-)
If you watch the video, the presenter makes it pretty clear that it's the carriers who are looking to force the issue. The only question in my mind is how much Apple is going to get behind the changes and "own" the switch to IPv6. That why I say they'd be well served by also making a big PR announcement about giving up some of their IPv4 space. The geek in me likes the idea of them going down to 17.0.0.0/17. Seems like it could be done over the next 4 years.
Till they ban Apple?
I am responding to @raindog308's complaint about the "no more 32-bit nonsense."
If I read the information correctly, the requirement was not "no more 32-bit" but "must support 64-bit." App developers may choose to continue to provide apps with 32-bit support as long as the apps also support 64-bit.
@raindog308 also said, "The flaw in your argument is that 32-bit code works just fine - there's absolutely no technical reason to force people to use 64-bit."
@raindog308 is partially right. As long as Apple continues to support the underlying 32-bit code (libraries) in iOS, the code should continue to work fine.
Here is the issue for Apple: There are apps that will benefit from 64-bit code, and that is the direction that Apple wants to go. Supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit code represents a significant recurring cost for Apple - increased maintenance, testing, code management, etc. Clearly Apple wants to get to the point where they no longer must support 32-bit code. Not today, but in the future.
By imposing the 64-bit requirement for new or updated apps, Apple is pressuring developers to move to a place where Apple can drop support for the underlying 32-bit infrastructure, eventually freeing up Apple resources and improving overall ecosystem quality (by eliminating a large path of potential bugs).
The more your company must support legacy code and products for backwards compatibility, the less resources it has for developing cool new technologies that bring new customers (and new developers) and retain old customers in your ecosystem.
The question of when to drop legacy support is always tricky. If you do it suddenly and capriciously, then you may lose a critical mass of developers. By coaxing them slowly along and carefully managing the process, you can migrate everyone forward toward the future of your platform.
Of course, there is collateral damage. If there are products that depend on a third-party library that cannot easily migrate to 64-bit, then the developers of those products face a serious problem - they may not be able to migrate to 64-bit. That's what happened to developers who used the Slitherine libraries.
that makes no sense
Android market much bigger and better than single iOS More than 80% smartphones Android powered
Really doesn't matter that what you're saying is true when it has absolutely zero relevance to a discussion or is offered as a completely incoherent response to an equally incoherent statement of your own creation.
Market share means nothing when you aren't making money: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-now-inhaling-94-percent-of-global-smartphone-profits-selling-just-145-percent-of-total-volumes
Looking at that article I get the impression that they are bragging about people paying for over priced phones. Comparing a Samsung El cheep to their 800 dollar phone. That provaly costs them 100 to make. Of course their profits are higher.
Apple is not the only one who makes expensive phones The Samsung s7 is like $800. The article more shows the distribution of profits in the industry. That though android obviously has a much larger market share, not much money is coming from it. In fact only like 1-2 players (android wise) are even making profit.
Recently a cab driver struck up a conversation and said "The best business to be in is the cell phone business. What are they selling? Nothing! The phone costs, what, five dollars to make? And they sell for a thousand. And then all these minutes and limits and data charges. What is all that? You already have the phone and the other person has the phone so what are they selling? They are making you pay for air! It is criminal!"
Did not understand folks who pay $800 for handset, really cost $50. That company make overpriced phones. Same with their desktop PC and notebooks
The phone situation is different and isolated from their Mac situation.
The Mac simply works. That's the best part about it. I'll be more happy with a Mac than a crappily-built PC from just another vendor that comes with no significant userbase and has its own issues that I'll never be able to solve.
Also, there's more support for Macs, such as keyboard covers, cases and even screen protectors. Compare that to your PCs. Not many models get such treatment.
OS X is the nearest you can go to a Linux distro. But yeah, it's really polished compared to your Linux distros out there.