- Last Active
zroger73 said:This change doesn't come without a cost. In addition to a "more complete and rich experience", it also encourages code bloat and reduces the number of installable applications.
This is about assets, not code.
The 200MB limit was stupid. This is long overdue.
Apple could make the AppleTV a decent gaming console if they lifted half a finger. This change is lifting maybe 1/10th of a finger.
AQ said:Makes perfect sense to disable the cache. CR is testing a browser retrieving content from a server, not local files. The animosity from my fellow Apple fanboys is disappointing.
Everyone has handled this well except for the rabid fanboys.
I think CR's rationale for turing of cacheing is perfectly reasonable:
I don't think anybody did anything wrong here -- neither Apple nor CR -- and both are handling it appropriately.
melgross said:Bah! I find this hard to believe. Everyone now attempting to produce 10nm has run into delays from yield problems. Considering the cost of these factories, there is just no way they are going to produce 10nm for less than a year before jumping to 7nm. I don't believe it.
So it's not like the 10nm fabs will be sitting idle after Apple moves to 7nm. They will be cranking out GPUs (among other things).
Also, Apple does still sell older SOCs in older products. For example, the A8 is still being used in the AppleTV and the A8 is a 20nm chip.
I think the scenario in which Apple might move manufacturing to the US is one in which they get substantial incentives to do so.
What would those incentives be? Well... how about
1. a massive tax cut that would allow them to repatriate foreign taxes
2. a massive increase in tariffs on the imports of competing products
3. zero enforcement of anti-trust laws against Apple
4. long term federal government contracts for Macs, iPhones, and iPads
Those things could enable Apple to become the US monopolist (or near-monopolist) in smartphones and tablets, and would give them the opportunity to significantly expand Mac marketshare in the US.
Such a deal would be terrible for consumers. It would create some jobs, and that would be great publicity for Trump. The loss to consumers would be far greater than the gains to workers, but that wouldn't be obvious, certainly not right away.
Yes, there would be a trade war, and that would probably lock Apple out of China. But from Apple's point of view, that tradeoff might be acceptable -- even desirable. China is a risky place to do business for an American company, even in the best of times. Giving up China in exchange for a near-monopoly in the US might be a good deal.
Note -- I'm not happy about the scenario I'm describing here. Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out what might happen.