ericthehalfbee

soundsinmotion said:

I have the last intel MacBook Pro from late 2019. Spent almost $4000 on it. Unfortunately can’t justify upgrading for thousands more when mine works great still. 

I had the 16” MBP with the 8 core i9 and Radeon 5500M. I now have the 16” M2 Max 38 core and 64GB RAM.

The difference in performance and battery life are game changers. My 2019 MBP used to get hot and the fans would spool up as soon as I did anything more taxing than browsing the Internet. I never got anywhere near a day of battery life without having to plug in.

My M2 Max is not only much faster, but I rarely hear the fans and I still have 40% battery after a day of heavy usage.

The upgrade is worth it.

People are missing another obvious possibility: what Apple calls Ultra Fusion or a silicon interposer that allows two M1 Max chip dies to be connected together to make the M1 Ultra.

Gurman simply took the 38 cores of the M2 Max and doubled it as he thinks the Mac Pro will be using an M2 Ultra.

Apple has a very high bandwidth interconnect to pair two M1 Max chips. But who says that this interface can only pair two identical chips? Apple could make a companion chip that was simply made up entirely of GPU cores. So you could have an M2 Ultra with 12 CPU cores, the NPU and encoders/decoders from the M2 Max and have an M2 GPU with a whopping 128 (or more) cores.

Or if Apple went with a 4 die chip (the rumored Extreme version) then 2 x M2 Max along with 2 x M2 GPU and you’d have 24 CPU cores and upwards of 300 GPU cores.

I don’t know why people assume Apple can only connect two identical chips when they make an Ultra version. 

waveparticle said:

Apple, Microsoft, and Google are the only companies that build OSs that are running on personal computers. They will decide the future of AI. 

You mean Apple. Google doesn’t have a real OS on the desktop. They have that wannabee pretend ChromeOS. Microsoft doesn’t have a mobile OS.

Only Apple has a complete OS ecosystem comprising mobile & desktop.

AppleZulu said:

Not that consistency has any relevance in this administration, but you’d still have to think that the existence of the Trump phone, even as temporary vaporware, now shields Apple (and others) against the previous threat of a “smartphone tariff.” 

Trump and Co giving up on the too-easily exposed lie that the T1 would be made in the US means that any tariff on iPhone would also apply to the T1. 

What if they abandon the T1 altogether? Well, that along with the current concession that it isn’t going to be made in the US demonstrates that the expectation that Apple could build iPhone here anytime soon is impossible. If Trump can’t make a phone in America by August, how could anyone else be expected to do it?

Regarding Trump Mobile itself, it seems more questionable than ever that the T1 will ever materialize. That then brings into question the whole enterprise, because whole the point for any MAGA customer would be the conspicuous consumption of the brand. Paying more to bring your own phone to use Trump Mobile while no one can see you’re using Trump Mobile won’t cut it. Selling branded phone cases might help with that, but manufacturing those for dozens of phone models would be too complicated and would involve way too much cost in overhead (including tariffs!) for holding inventory. 

Could Trump Mobile be another failed enterprise before it even gets off the ground? Maybe Apple should just be thankful for the comically unforced error, as Tim Cook gently commiserates with the president over just how hard it would be to onshore production so hastily. 

"For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of 'Whack-A-Mole' contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies," the DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter also said.

Fred257 said:

I’ve been following Apple since 1997. Apple Insider I have been following since 1998. Apple is going to be fined on this one. The lawyers for Apple have made the wrong decision 

Bullshit. The DMA doesn’t have any language that deals with this scenario. This is contract law and it will have to be decided in a court.

Again for the people in the back: The DMA isn’t a blank cheque that says developers have 100% access to Apple or Google App stores and that Apple/Google can’t do anything about bad actors.

Doubtful.

I believe Apple has talked with Google and Microsoft in the past about possible partnerships (like all big companies do).

Then a few journalists looking for their next headline saw this and expanded it into an entire story that Apple has already signed a deal, Gemini will be in iOS 18, and Apple is going to abandon their AI efforts (like they abandoned their Apple Car) because they’re so far behind.

Data that leaves your iPhone doesn’t mean it’s being “collected” by Apple. The article even mentions services like Continuity that require data to be transferred so devices can work together.

Further, data that leaves your device and goes to Apple doesn’t mean it’s being abused (like used for targeted ads).

There’s also a huge difference between data going to a company like Apple and someone like Meta or Google who make 98/80% of their revenue from targeted ads. They need your data to survive. To Apple your data isn’t even pocket change.

I think the word Sherlocked gets used too much.

Certain features are supposed to be a part of the base operating system: File manager, calculator, browser, mail, clipboard, gallery, cloud and so many more.

If you’re a developer that makes an App that’s one of these essential features I don’t think you can complain when Apple (or anyone) adds it to their OS.

If you want to gamble on a feature that people have been asking Apple to add for years, don’t be surprised when Apple finally adds it.

blitz1 said:

To all who write that Epic violated the contract terms: these terms are unlawful.

Of course Epic had to breach them to make their point.