"Performant" is not recognized as a legitimate English word by Websters, or Merriam-Webster.
Even if you use other references to justify, its use here seems forced.
Let's just say AI isn't particularly *performant* in the copy editing and written tone department. While AI's frequent use of marginal jargon words like "performant" is jarring at best, your protest also edges into rather pedantic territory. :-)
[As an alternative to pedanticism, I suggest you take the more subtle measure of shaming of AI's pathetic use of jargon words in their tragic attempt to appear hip, relevant, or "up to date" by strategically applying humor.]
Perhaps the offending word should be co-opted and repurpose as a descriptor of lameness— AI's writing and editing style is "extremely performant" (sort of like Intel's moble processor division.) Certain forum posters wander into "performant" territory as well!
Intel x86 compatibility is a must. Otherwise, Windows is the only alternative. Hopefully Apple will not repeat older mistakes. And now Intel should make lower TDP microprocessors to compete with ARM.
Intel X86 compatibility isn't an necessary as it once was. Google's crippled new laptop and Apple's iPad has made that evident. Balmer allowed the genii to get out of the bottle and there;s no getting it back in...
Intel had a dominate position at the start of the ARM cellphone market with X-Scale and the StrongARM / PXA but again didn't have the guts to make their divisions truly compete (see Andy Grove's "Rise of the SuperChips' speeches re competing with Chips and Tech and so many to follow, A lesson never truly learned for Intel). Couldn't hear the many cries from engineers saying they are too expensive and use way too much power. Even the newest M series has one hand tied behind the back so to speak.
They should swallow their pride and strike a deal to fab all of Apple's CPUs.
They could have had that Biz back in 2007 but blew it... maybe someday Apple can buy them.
If not Apple should at least buy Micron and Intel's SSD product group; it deserves a better steward.
Nobody will get Apples chip business for iOS devices, just the fabbing business. Now that Apple has developed the A series of chips, they have been able to demonstrate what they can do when they are free to differentiate themselves from the pack. Apple is in the enviable position of having the best chips, with unique, non-reproducable capabilities and nobody else can follow them. They will continue down this strategic path for the foreseeable future.
I don't know "real story" behind why Intel chose to reorganize and report financial differently. But I do know that most of the mobile communication group "loses" are based on manufacturing spending. CFO explained either earlier this year or last year that high spending by mobile communication group is due to "evenly dividing" manufacturing cost between PC, server, and mobile. Which essentially means that most of the spending for mobile is not even for that organization itself.
So yeah, I think this makes sense. But again, I'm pretty sure this is not the reason for why Intel decided to reorg. (ie. I'm pretty sure reason for reorg is to hide high spending.) I'd think it's more to do with the fact that mobile communication group can't be a stand alone group considering its financial strength or technical strength.
Wouldn't it be novel if AI posted a positive note on Intel? There's a first for everything. and let's admit it. Without Intel there would be no Mac.
Sorry, how the hell do you figure that? Especially since Macs only switched to intel relatively recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
who cares.
Apple is doing the same thing with the Watch, hiding it in Other.
IMO, the less info Wall Street has to manipulate the better. If I was Apple I would just release the bare minimum. Forget about unit sales. All Wall Street does is manipulate that information.
Case in point. iPad unit sales. Apple destroys Revenue, Profit expectations. Destroys Mac sales, destroys software sales, and crushes iPhone sales. Yet Wall Street manipulators bring up iPad units. That kind of BS is ridiculous.
If I was in charge I would just give Wall Street Revenue, expenses, Profits. Then I would release unit sales when I want. No one else releases unit sales except for Apple.
Actually I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for Apple to group all iOS devices together, just like Macs. Tey dont break down iMacs vs Macbooks, they report it as one category. They should lump the iPhone with the iPad and iPod Touch, and report total numbers. At the end of the day, the fact that they run iOS trumps all else. Further breakdowns does nothing but hurt them, because even if one product destroys expectations (iPhone) and another doesn't (iPad), it is a net negative. Lump them all and be done with it.
Sorry, how the hell do you figure that? Especially since Macs only switched to intel relatively recently.
Macs were a niche product before Apple switched to Intel. Macs exponential growth and popularity began in 2007 as a result of putting Intel inside. Numbers tell the story. More Macs sold last year than combined Mac sales from 2002-2007.
Macs were a niche product before Apple switched to Intel. Macs exponential growth and popularity began in 2007 as a result of putting Intel inside. Numbers tell the story...
I am not going to discount Intel's effect completely (as a comparison to some magical processor of the same specs etc.), but there is another effect that has fed back into those numbers are those that became Apple customers through other devices (as they became more popular) then when it came to replacing existing existing hardware..... and becoming the "in" devices and becoming much more popular on University campuses. It is hard to figure out what percentage would have been held back by not being able to run Windows in a vm or bootcamp.
Sorry, for some reason I thought Core M was a rebranding of an Atom processor. I must have been getting mixed up with the upcoming Cherry Trail rebranding, where they are changing the Atom naming scheme to be more like Core.
This isn't the New York Times. It's a tech blog using a word that is used sometimes in tech/software/engineering vernacular.
AppleInsider, as a news and rumour website ("Apple news and rumors since 1997"), has a general rather than technical readership and as such a less awkward, jargon sounding word might draw less attention to itself and better fit in to the context of the article: Apple's A-series chips have become so capable...
Apple is doing the same thing with the Watch, hiding it in Other.
IMO, the less info Wall Street has to manipulate the better. If I was Apple I would just release the bare minimum. Forget about unit sales. All Wall Street does is manipulate that information.
Case in point. iPad unit sales. Apple destroys Revenue, Profit expectations. Destroys Mac sales, destroys software sales, and crushes iPhone sales. Yet Wall Street manipulators bring up iPad units. That kind of BS is ridiculous.
If I was in charge I would just give Wall Street Revenue, expenses, Profits. Then I would release unit sales when I want. No one else releases unit sales except for Apple.
On the face of it I agree, but then again thinking about it a bit more, it could very well be a marketing tactic, and a very special one at that because no one else can do it because they don't really have anything to boast about. It is probably a deliberate strategy, as people like to be on the winning team, or more simply if everybody is buying the iphone in spite of 'bendgate' and antennagate and all the other gategates, then perhaps all these 'gates' are just bollox.
On the face of it I agree, but then again thinking about it a bit more, it could very well be a marketing tactic, and a very special one at that because no one else can do it because they don't really have anything to boast about. It is probably a deliberate strategy, as people like to be on the winning team, or more simply if everybody is buying the iphone in spite of 'bendgate' and antennagate and all the other gategates, then perhaps all these 'gates' are just bollox.
There are a whole lot of guidelines for what can just be classified as "other income/revenue" .... their financial reports are governed by the SEC (I just don't know what they are exactly), but I can guess they have leeway for income that is for new divisions or relatively insignificant in relation to the rest. I suspect that it would just get wrapped into iOS division once it has proven itself to be more than a fleeting revenue (after all it is really just an iPhone accessory for the most part -- at least until it can be a totally independant device).
Sorry, for some reason I thought Core M was a rebranding of an Atom processor. I must have been getting mixed up with the upcoming Cherry Trail rebranding, where they are changing the Atom naming scheme to be more like Core.
The Atom processor has already been rebranded.... Atom x3, x5, x7 (Surface 3 uses Atom x7-z8700).
The Core M is a notch above and I believe they are the 5Yxx CPUs.
Then the Core i3, i5, i7.
Unfortunately people have been brainwashed over the years to think the CPU is the end-all be-all of computer performance.
Computer performance is much much more complicated, but it is often driven by the slowest components (Hard Drives, then Memory) each of these are orders of magnitude below the power of the CPU so even if you can get the CPU to speed ahead at 5+ Ghz.... it is still held back by the speed of memory and if the operating system/programs have to swap out to the hard drive then by the hard drive itself.
Performance is about perception, I click something and it opens immediately or it takes several seconds (fast vs slow). I drag something across the screen and it is there any lag time etc. The actual CPU itself is rarely loaded for 90%+ of users. It just has to have just enough power exactly when you want it -- the rest of the time the CPU is idle most of the time. For the longest time machines were underpowered in both memory and disk speed (too little memory and it swaps out to hard drive and hard drive is slower). SSDs are one of the biggest advances when it comes to performance (at least it is for me). SSDs are both extremely fast in comparison to Hard Drives (especially in the latest Mac hardware) and have very little latency in comparison as well.
The headlines recently indicated that the Core M is the same speed as a 2011 Macbook air i7.... That comparison itself is unfair on the face of it because the base processor was always an i5 (top of the line i7) and the majority don't get top of the line.... unless the price difference is relatively insignificant.... base model should be compared against base model. (not to mention for the last 3 years the performance gains of the CPU on the annual refresh have been extremely modest -- i.e. not really noticeable).
Luckily we will only have a few more days until it is all cleared up.
Intel has lost the mobile market. Unless they do something about trying to win Apple's business in simply becoming a fab for the A series, they are certainly going to become a far smaller company and may end up going under.
Their real problem is that they are unable to make a profit selling x86 chips at ARM prices. With the A series performance, I am unwilling to pay what Intel demands.
The price issue is likely why Otellini turned Jobs down in the first place for the original iPhone.
As Intel tries to win the mobile market, they are going to hemorrhage cash and hemorrhage lots of it. Eliminate all the ARM manufacturers and we can ultimately have x86 chips for hundreds of dollars more goes their thinking.
Thankfully Apple isn't going along with their game. Intel is likely giving Apple a good price for the Core M, but I will wait for an A powered MacBook which very likely would have been priced lower. For now I anxiously await the iPad pro.
Comments
Without Intel there would be a much cheaper Mac (about $350 cheaper I estimate).
Without Intel there would be a much cheaper Mac (about $350 cheaper I estimate).
Without Intel there would be no CPU
"Performant" is not recognized as a legitimate English word by Websters, or Merriam-Webster.
Even if you use other references to justify, its use here seems forced.
Let's just say AI isn't particularly *performant* in the copy editing and written tone department. While AI's frequent use of marginal jargon words like "performant" is jarring at best, your protest also edges into rather pedantic territory. :-)
[As an alternative to pedanticism, I suggest you take the more subtle measure of shaming of AI's pathetic use of jargon words in their tragic attempt to appear hip, relevant, or "up to date" by strategically applying humor.]
Perhaps the offending word should be co-opted and repurpose as a descriptor of lameness— AI's writing and editing style is "extremely performant" (sort of like Intel's moble processor division.) Certain forum posters wander into "performant" territory as well!
Intel X86 compatibility isn't an necessary as it once was. Google's crippled new laptop and Apple's iPad has made that evident. Balmer allowed the genii to get out of the bottle and there;s no getting it back in...
What's the difference?
Intent.
Intel had a dominate position at the start of the ARM cellphone market with X-Scale and the StrongARM / PXA but again didn't have the guts to make their divisions truly compete (see Andy Grove's "Rise of the SuperChips' speeches re competing with Chips and Tech and so many to follow, A lesson never truly learned for Intel). Couldn't hear the many cries from engineers saying they are too expensive and use way too much power. Even the newest M series has one hand tied behind the back so to speak.
They should swallow their pride and strike a deal to fab all of Apple's CPUs.
They could have had that Biz back in 2007 but blew it... maybe someday Apple can buy them.
If not Apple should at least buy Micron and Intel's SSD product group; it deserves a better steward.
Nobody will get Apples chip business for iOS devices, just the fabbing business. Now that Apple has developed the A series of chips, they have been able to demonstrate what they can do when they are free to differentiate themselves from the pack. Apple is in the enviable position of having the best chips, with unique, non-reproducable capabilities and nobody else can follow them. They will continue down this strategic path for the foreseeable future.
The intent is still deception. The end result might be different, but the intent is the same.
So yeah, I think this makes sense. But again, I'm pretty sure this is not the reason for why Intel decided to reorg. (ie. I'm pretty sure reason for reorg is to hide high spending.) I'd think it's more to do with the fact that mobile communication group can't be a stand alone group considering its financial strength or technical strength.
Wouldn't it be novel if AI posted a positive note on Intel? There's a first for everything. and let's admit it. Without Intel there would be no Mac.
Sorry, how the hell do you figure that? Especially since Macs only switched to intel relatively recently.
who cares.
Apple is doing the same thing with the Watch, hiding it in Other.
IMO, the less info Wall Street has to manipulate the better. If I was Apple I would just release the bare minimum. Forget about unit sales. All Wall Street does is manipulate that information.
Case in point. iPad unit sales. Apple destroys Revenue, Profit expectations. Destroys Mac sales, destroys software sales, and crushes iPhone sales. Yet Wall Street manipulators bring up iPad units. That kind of BS is ridiculous.
If I was in charge I would just give Wall Street Revenue, expenses, Profits. Then I would release unit sales when I want. No one else releases unit sales except for Apple.
Actually I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for Apple to group all iOS devices together, just like Macs. Tey dont break down iMacs vs Macbooks, they report it as one category. They should lump the iPhone with the iPad and iPod Touch, and report total numbers. At the end of the day, the fact that they run iOS trumps all else. Further breakdowns does nothing but hurt them, because even if one product destroys expectations (iPhone) and another doesn't (iPad), it is a net negative. Lump them all and be done with it.
Sorry, how the hell do you figure that? Especially since Macs only switched to intel relatively recently.
Macs were a niche product before Apple switched to Intel. Macs exponential growth and popularity began in 2007 as a result of putting Intel inside. Numbers tell the story. More Macs sold last year than combined Mac sales from 2002-2007.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/276308/global-apple-mac-sales-since-fiscal-year-2002/
Macs were a niche product before Apple switched to Intel. Macs exponential growth and popularity began in 2007 as a result of putting Intel inside. Numbers tell the story...
http://www.statista.com/statistics/276308/global-apple-mac-sales-since-fiscal-year-2002/
I am not going to discount Intel's effect completely (as a comparison to some magical processor of the same specs etc.), but there is another effect that has fed back into those numbers are those that became Apple customers through other devices (as they became more popular) then when it came to replacing existing existing hardware..... and becoming the "in" devices and becoming much more popular on University campuses. It is hard to figure out what percentage would have been held back by not being able to run Windows in a vm or bootcamp.
Core M =\= Atom.
Sorry, for some reason I thought Core M was a rebranding of an Atom processor. I must have been getting mixed up with the upcoming Cherry Trail rebranding, where they are changing the Atom naming scheme to be more like Core.
This isn't the New York Times. It's a tech blog using a word that is used sometimes in tech/software/engineering vernacular.
AppleInsider, as a news and rumour website ("Apple news and rumors since 1997"), has a general rather than technical readership and as such a less awkward, jargon sounding word might draw less attention to itself and better fit in to the context of the article: Apple's A-series chips have become so capable...
who cares.
Apple is doing the same thing with the Watch, hiding it in Other.
IMO, the less info Wall Street has to manipulate the better. If I was Apple I would just release the bare minimum. Forget about unit sales. All Wall Street does is manipulate that information.
Case in point. iPad unit sales. Apple destroys Revenue, Profit expectations. Destroys Mac sales, destroys software sales, and crushes iPhone sales. Yet Wall Street manipulators bring up iPad units. That kind of BS is ridiculous.
If I was in charge I would just give Wall Street Revenue, expenses, Profits. Then I would release unit sales when I want. No one else releases unit sales except for Apple.
On the face of it I agree, but then again thinking about it a bit more, it could very well be a marketing tactic, and a very special one at that because no one else can do it because they don't really have anything to boast about. It is probably a deliberate strategy, as people like to be on the winning team, or more simply if everybody is buying the iphone in spite of 'bendgate' and antennagate and all the other gategates, then perhaps all these 'gates' are just bollox.
On the face of it I agree, but then again thinking about it a bit more, it could very well be a marketing tactic, and a very special one at that because no one else can do it because they don't really have anything to boast about. It is probably a deliberate strategy, as people like to be on the winning team, or more simply if everybody is buying the iphone in spite of 'bendgate' and antennagate and all the other gategates, then perhaps all these 'gates' are just bollox.
There are a whole lot of guidelines for what can just be classified as "other income/revenue" .... their financial reports are governed by the SEC (I just don't know what they are exactly), but I can guess they have leeway for income that is for new divisions or relatively insignificant in relation to the rest. I suspect that it would just get wrapped into iOS division once it has proven itself to be more than a fleeting revenue (after all it is really just an iPhone accessory for the most part -- at least until it can be a totally independant device).
Sorry, for some reason I thought Core M was a rebranding of an Atom processor. I must have been getting mixed up with the upcoming Cherry Trail rebranding, where they are changing the Atom naming scheme to be more like Core.
The Atom processor has already been rebranded.... Atom x3, x5, x7 (Surface 3 uses Atom x7-z8700).
The Core M is a notch above and I believe they are the 5Yxx CPUs.
Then the Core i3, i5, i7.
Unfortunately people have been brainwashed over the years to think the CPU is the end-all be-all of computer performance.
Computer performance is much much more complicated, but it is often driven by the slowest components (Hard Drives, then Memory) each of these are orders of magnitude below the power of the CPU so even if you can get the CPU to speed ahead at 5+ Ghz.... it is still held back by the speed of memory and if the operating system/programs have to swap out to the hard drive then by the hard drive itself.
Performance is about perception, I click something and it opens immediately or it takes several seconds (fast vs slow). I drag something across the screen and it is there any lag time etc. The actual CPU itself is rarely loaded for 90%+ of users. It just has to have just enough power exactly when you want it -- the rest of the time the CPU is idle most of the time. For the longest time machines were underpowered in both memory and disk speed (too little memory and it swaps out to hard drive and hard drive is slower). SSDs are one of the biggest advances when it comes to performance (at least it is for me). SSDs are both extremely fast in comparison to Hard Drives (especially in the latest Mac hardware) and have very little latency in comparison as well.
The headlines recently indicated that the Core M is the same speed as a 2011 Macbook air i7.... That comparison itself is unfair on the face of it because the base processor was always an i5 (top of the line i7) and the majority don't get top of the line.... unless the price difference is relatively insignificant.... base model should be compared against base model. (not to mention for the last 3 years the performance gains of the CPU on the annual refresh have been extremely modest -- i.e. not really noticeable).
Luckily we will only have a few more days until it is all cleared up.
Their real problem is that they are unable to make a profit selling x86 chips at ARM prices. With the A series performance, I am unwilling to pay what Intel demands.
The price issue is likely why Otellini turned Jobs down in the first place for the original iPhone.
As Intel tries to win the mobile market, they are going to hemorrhage cash and hemorrhage lots of it. Eliminate all the ARM manufacturers and we can ultimately have x86 chips for hundreds of dollars more goes their thinking.
Thankfully Apple isn't going along with their game. Intel is likely giving Apple a good price for the Core M, but I will wait for an A powered MacBook which very likely would have been priced lower. For now I anxiously await the iPad pro.