Dear Daniel Eran,
I fucking love your work.
Apple was already ahead of the competition in 1976. It fell behind in the late 80's, but that situation was resolved in the late 90's. The abject awfulness of Eindows and then Android, with their commodity businesses gained popularity not because they were/are excelling at delivering advanced tech, but because they were/are merely accessible - regardless of how hat may be phrased.
OSX, ARM, AX and iOS, and now Swift, Metal, APFS and he soon to be GX render Apple as being ahead, even with a minority market share (of devices, not profits, of course). Android still hasn't been encoded for 64bit, let alone the original iPhone's full disk encryption. Windows is a disaster.
By focussing on us as he customers and making sure we get the best, Apple proves that our satisfaction is where the money and growth are. By looking at next year and next decade, Apple repeatedly makes decisions that take its products, and us the customers, away from x86 and advertiser-first business models and into the future that is still evolving.
It's obvious to me, Dan, that you also see the future, in the context of the past, ensuring your articles are always the most stimulating, deepest, and most rewarding to read! Keep it up!
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
Standards allow some products to work together but in the end hampers development of new technologies. They also keep a few companies in business because they own the patents to those standards and infrequently license them properly under FRAND. Standards attempt to keep the status quo or, worse, lock companies into antiquated technologies many don't have the money to get out of. Regardless of what Apple-haters say, Apple develops for the future. Many people can't see that and only complain. Some people understand what's going on and change their ways to use this new technology. Others are so stuck in the way they work (including many so called pros) they can't or refuse to see the light at the middle of the tunnel much less the end.
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
Better to set the standards, than to follow them !
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
So you like the idea of Apple being restrained by component makers? You want Apple to be just another also-ran PC? I suppose you would want macOS to be a Windows clone too. Ain’t gonna happen sweet pea.
For a long time the Apple naysayers squawked about how the competition had better specs or implemented some new tech first. Hey failed to mention they were cherry picking from the entire rest of the industry to compare against one company. Similar claims could have been made against any of the companies they lumped together against Apple. But here we are, with Apple not merely caught up to the entire rest of the industry, but beginning to pull ahead. Will those same people give credit to this one company for having beat an entire industry? Likely not, but credit is not what Apple seeks. Apple seeks to delight its customers, and in the future their ability to do so will outpace the rest of the field.
Don't forget that they would compare a multicore performance from a 4 core ARM chip that has to be clocked higher to achieve what Apple can do with 2 cores at a lower speed, and that they'd never mention how this would require a larger battery and for the core to become significantly slower when not running a benchmark.
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
So you like the idea of Apple being restrained by component makers? You want Apple to be just another also-ran PC? I suppose you would want macOS to be a Windows clone too. Ain’t gonna happen sweet pea.
The Mac Pro has a pocketable CPU and GPUs, and that's not working out too well for its ales.
What does "The APFS GPU" mean? I read the text three times but was unable to understand the point? Sounds like mixing apples and oranges together in a confusing way. I mean what does APFS have to do with the GPU?
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
So you like the idea of Apple being restrained by component makers? You want Apple to be just another also-ran PC? I suppose you would want macOS to be a Windows clone too. Ain’t gonna happen sweet pea.
Arent we talking about iOS? I understand Apple's need for custom silicon for a phone to differentiate its product from Android and use it for VR/AR. But Mac OS X? The only Mac that can run a modern desktop graphics card is from 2012 (& hackintoshes). I don't know why Apple would want to create a custom graphic solution for the Mac when the Mac Market share is so small and the desktop market share is just a tiny portion of that. It would be nice to just start with up to date hardware and thank NVIDIA for there recent web drivers. And technically MacOSX is certified to run on Intel, sooooo.... yes clone.
Its hard to argue Apples Mac hardware is keeping up with Intel machines running Windows, sans Touch Bar. They just admitted the Mac Pro did not succeed in its intent. It was an amazing feat to get all the power in a small case, but it addressed a very small portion of the market. Remember Apples 2013 Mac Pro was constrained at release because its own components, it wasn't shipping until early 2014.
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
You totally misunderstand the PowerPC fiasco. PowerPC was not a proprietary component, it was outsourced from IBM. The lesson there is not that Apple shouldn't have made its own proprietary CPU (because it didn't in that case), it's that Apple shouldn't rely on a supplier to keep its product, and thus Apple's product too, on the cutting edge.
I would bet that Apple is working on integrating Mixed Reality (MR) into the graphics pipeline. Cameras with depth fields, GPU with native support for MR... now that gets interesting.
I would place bets that Apple is working on integrating Augmented / Mixed Reality into the graphics pipeline. Cameras with depth fields, GPU with native support for mixed reality... now that gets interesting.
If incorporating their own GPU can give not only a speed boost but help keep the price below that all important $1K mark while retaining their margins then good, go for it.
Apple is already the most profitable company. The biggest seller of theirs is the iPhone.
Hence they are already making a buttload of money selling it. So while people are crowing about cheap Android devices, stop and wonder how cheap that iPhone really costs vs the markup you are so willing to pay. That profit isn't just going to appear out of nowhere if the device manufacture cost is high.
Sure, they might make their own GPU but that is just to make the device even cheaper and increase profit even more. What they sell it for doesn't matter, people don't care. It's not your right to be able to afford the iPhone.
San Fransisco was not an attempt at greater legibility but an an attempt to rationalise the vector point count of the font to make it run better on sub optimal systems with poor graphics (Apple Watch), if you work with vector images and bitmap images (a pro user) you will immediately grasp the truth of that. As to custom GPU's all that brute force the other operators have packed into the manufacturers of their product may seem wasteful compared to Apples more streamlined approach but it is precisely that brute force that pro users seek in their GPU's for day to day intensive tasks in their pro apps that non pro users never use. None this would remotely matter if Thunderbolt had parity of speed with with the systems mother board and could talk to the processor at that speed, then whatever smoke and mirrors Apple employed to give the illusion of extra speed would be circumventable by the the pro user who would be free to choose from the free market whatever solution suited them best.
You can't have PCI-E parity speed on a cable. It's the passive back plane upon which all data interconnects are transferred.
The next logical step that has been in the works for over 10 years is optical interconnects. Once achieved, and definitely not controlled by Intel, the market is wide open. Thunderbolt has always reached its zenith and beginning to wind down.
Intel's own slogan makes it clear, ``Thunderbolt 3, the USB-C that does it all,'' and that clarity is Thunderbolt will be be eventually replaced with future version of USB-C.
[1] Google keeps their handsets up to date. They even have Android O and 7.1.2 images for current handsets. They make it clear they do not support devices older than 2 years.
[2] If you buy a device from another party, like Samsung, LG, etc. it is not Google's fault if they do not provide the updates. Or if the carrier is no longer doing updates. That is like the milk farmer complaining that the cupcake shop is using expired milk in their products.
[3] Please have a look and see the MacOS breakdown figures. While Windows 10 might only be on 400 million devices, MacOS is just as fragmented as other operating systems. IOS has such a high upgrade rate because Apple forces you to roll up the new version. Your device might be fine, but do a restore and it gets updated. Other devices you can roll back to older versions if needed.
[4] Just because Apple now has a font doesn't make them king of the GPU world now. What they have done is good, but the competition is just as good - and more focussed on a single product. You can't tell me the company that can't even make a Pro macbook is all of a sudden going to make a Pro GPU.
You're doing a terrible job selling your products, Google dude.
What does "The APFS GPU" mean? I read the text three times but was unable to understand the point? Sounds like mixing apples and oranges together in a confusing way. I mean what does APFS have to do with the GPU?
Presumably it was the same (confusing) stylistic trick as "San Franscisco GPU." As in "I'm going to now talk about the GPU in the context of what Apple has done concerning [insert concept here]. I agree with you; the section headings were more confusing than helpful.
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
Standards allow some products to work together but in the end hampers development of new technologies. They also keep a few companies in business because they own the patents to those standards and infrequently license them properly under FRAND. Standards attempt to keep the status quo or, worse, lock companies into antiquated technologies many don't have the money to get out of. Regardless of what Apple-haters say, Apple develops for the future. Many people can't see that and only complain. Some people understand what's going on and change their ways to use this new technology. Others are so stuck in the way they work (including many so called pros) they can't or refuse to see the light at the middle of the tunnel much less the end.
Standards are fantastic, but they're the past, the base, the tried and true old shoe you put on to get SOMEWHERE NEW
Just about everything that's standardized now started from tech put forward by an organization or company. Many things that are not standardized, even without becoming standards, become defacto ways of doing things, or become so prevalent in culture that they are unavoidable, like smart phones and are the attendant major impacts of the social network explosion.
Being the ones to set those explicit or implicit standards takes risk, to not be afraid to go beyond what's written down, or the popular ways of doing things (horses vs cars, feature phone vs smart phones).
Apple should use standards in the market. Not only ports and connectors, but also unsoldered microprocessors, RAM, SSD, GPU, etc. Otherwise may work in the short term, but not in the long one. Remember the PowerPC fiasco.
Perhaps for ports, but not for internal components -- I want whatever allows them to make the lightest, smallest form factors possible. Not gonna do that with DIMMs.
Comments
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frankzappa122379.html
But Mac OS X? The only Mac that can run a modern desktop graphics card is from 2012 (& hackintoshes). I don't know why Apple would want to create a custom graphic solution for the Mac when the Mac Market share is so small and the desktop market share is just a tiny portion of that. It would be nice to just start with up to date hardware and thank NVIDIA for there recent web drivers. And technically MacOSX is certified to run on Intel, sooooo.... yes clone.
Its hard to argue Apples Mac hardware is keeping up with Intel machines running Windows, sans Touch Bar. They just admitted the Mac Pro did not succeed in its intent. It was an amazing feat to get all the power in a small case, but it addressed a very small portion of the market. Remember Apples 2013 Mac Pro was constrained at release because its own components, it wasn't shipping until early 2014.
The biggest seller of theirs is the iPhone.
Hence they are already making a buttload of money selling it. So while people are crowing about cheap Android devices, stop and wonder how cheap that iPhone really costs vs the markup you are so willing to pay. That profit isn't just going to appear out of nowhere if the device manufacture cost is high.
Sure, they might make their own GPU but that is just to make the device even cheaper and increase profit even more. What they sell it for doesn't matter, people don't care.
It's not your right to be able to afford the iPhone.
Just about everything that's standardized now started from tech put forward by an organization or company.
Many things that are not standardized, even without becoming standards, become defacto ways of doing things, or
become so prevalent in culture that they are unavoidable, like smart phones and are the attendant major impacts of the social network explosion.
Being the ones to set those explicit or implicit standards takes risk, to not be afraid to go beyond what's written down, or
the popular ways of doing things (horses vs cars, feature phone vs smart phones).