mcdave

MacQuadra840av said:

Finally an article that clearly points out the unfortunate limitations of the M1.  Everyone is so blinded in tunnel vision of 3x performance that they are completely missing out on the fact that the M1 is a low-end base model CPU with less features than the models it replaced.  

It was not long ago that all the commenters were complaining of soldered memory, soldered storage, no upgrades, etc.  All Apple has to do is slap an Apple logo on a pig and the fanatics think it is the best thing in the world.  It wasn't long ago that people were complaining about 16GB RAM in the MacBooks and then they cheered when Apple bumped it up to 32GB and 64GB.  Now suddenly they are all happy that the M1 is capped at 16GB?  Suddenly they are excited that integrated graphics in the M1 are faster than the integrated graphics on the intel Macs, but still much slower than discrete graphics?  WTF?  

Could you imagine if Apple introduced an iMac with only 16GB of RAM (instead of 128GB), 2TB of storage (instead of 8TB), two USB-C (instead of 4 USB/2 Thunderbolt), and integrated graphics driving a 27+" 5K display?  It would be a joke!  Or a Mac Pro with those specs?  Suddenly people think a 16GB M1 can do anything?  Not when you throw a huge graphics file at it.  Let's not forget about the excessive read/writes that is occurring in the M1 Macs, wearing out the flash storage prematurely.

cloudguy said:

tmay said:

I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.

I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.

You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last. 

Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly). 

dk49 said:

If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence? 

shareef777 said:

I'm confused, what's the diff with how Roblox and Fortnite were treated? Both have in-game currency that must be purchased via IAP so that Apple gets their 30% fee. I don't see how they were treated any differently.