This is a bad HN comment, not because you don't have anything solid to contribute (I'm sure you do), but because by choosing an uncharitable reading of the OP just in order to smack it down, you make the discussion less specific and substantive.

That's why we have this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> But he described the Apple ecosystem as if nothing outside it even exists.

I did no such thing. I focused on Apple because my blog focuses on Apple, but at no point did I state or imply that nothing outside of Apple exists. I even went out of my way to say that multicore systems have "become the norm in many parts of the computing world."

Very little more predictable in technology than kneejerk reactions to anything involving Apple.

In no way the author — a vey respected engineer in the Apple community BTW — pretended to provide an exhaustive overview of the multi-core heterogeneous computing world (or assert that Apple invented all this tech on its own).

I honestly think that he just wanted to provide a very brief comparison between A10 and the latest A11, and then go on with his article core subject ;)

Unless he edited the post after you commented, I don’t quite agree with the comparison. He states “in the Apple world” as a qualifier to his history lesson. He doesn’t say “Apple invented multi core CPUs” or “Apple had multi core CPUs first”.

The only edit I've made so far was to correct a massive brain fart in my summary of the cluster means at the end. People just can't handle a focused post, apparently.

I didn't see the author present any technology as being novel industry-wide.

He did present big.LITTLE architecture as novel to the Apple and iOS ecosystems, which is correct.