DanielEran

About

Username
DanielEran
Joined
Visits
43
Last Active
Roles
editor
Points
2,529
Badges
3
Posts
290
  • Why Apple's new GPU efforts are a major disruptive threat to Nvidia

    Eric_WVGG said:
    This is one of the rare instances where I find myself disagreeing with old DED.
    Coincidentally, there is another company that also has aspirations in self-driving vehicles, which likes to talk about the future of AR and VR, which is rapidly expanding its own Deep Learning, Machine Learning and AI initiatives and which invented and open-sourced the first mainstream cross-platform API for GPGPU (OpenCL). That's Apple. 
    This only makes sense if most applications of deep learning (to use as a shorthand for all this sort of thing) are consumer based. Much of it will be in markets that Apple either consciously has no aptitude for or simply doesn’t care about — I don't see them resurrecting the Xserve brand for selling Apple GPUs by the rack to Palantir or even IBM.

    Furthermore, even in consumer space, nVidia would do just fine. Let's imagine a future where self-driving cars follow the smartphone market, where Apple sells a profitable 30% of vehicles and let's just say Toyota sells an unprofitable 70%. In this analogy, nVidia is not Toyota, it is a combination of Foxconn, Samsung (who sells silicon to both Apple and the entire Android space), and ARM itself. That's not a terrible place to be in!
    It's useful to look at where Nvidia actually makes its money: http://investor.nvidia.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1045810-17-27

    $5.8B of its $6.9B in total annual revenues are from "GPU," 75% of which come from PC desktop users, leaving a quarter for all of its Tesla/data center stuff. 

    So the exciting server/AI stuff "Apple doesn't care about" amount to just $1.45b annually. 

    The $0.8B slice counted as "Tegra" includes the remains of tablets and all automotive . That's pretty small potatoes anyway you slice it. 

    Remember how "alarming" it is that ~60% of Apple's revenues come from iPhone? Well 63% of Nvidia revenues come from PCs. No amount of flashy car, server and AI hand waving changes that. 

    Now, perhaps Nvidia can radically pivot to own new car/AI/ML markets. History shows it couldn't in mobile, despite trying valiantly. 

    caliSoliRacerhomieXcharlesgresnetmageStrangeDaysai46patchythepiratepropodwatto_cobra
  • Justice Department investigating AT&T and Verizon for blocking eSIM adoption, Apple report...

    Apple began working with Gemalto nearly a decade ago on SIM-less (M is for module, the removable plastic mini-card that GSM/LTE devices have always used) devices, and it was expected that iPhone 4S would ship without a SIM card. It was blocked by AT&T.

    "Apple SIM" was a second attempt to achieve device portability using a proprietary solution. Apple then pushed eSIM on Apple Watch 3, with some support of other vendors. Again it is mostly the big two US carriers who are against device portability, even after moving away from subsidising phones.

    You'd be surprised to find out how much tech Apple has developed only to have it blocked by partners/patent trolls/rivals. Apple never talks about the things it worked to do but failed to accomplish, because the only thing that can be accomplished by that is burning bridges. Perhaps eSIM will eventually make its way out, sealing another open hole on iPhones that otherwise needs needs a gasket and which takes up unnecessary space inside the device.
    SoliolsGeorgeBMacronncornchipairnerdjasenj1llamawatto_cobra
  • Up to three Macs coming with T-series security chips, shift to Apple CPU inevitable

    Keep in mind Bloomberg's Mark Gurman also said Apple Watch 2 would definately have a camera for FaceTime, and that this was a key, necessary feature for selling watches. It's not remotely news nor timely reporting that Apple is making its own silicion. Typical recycling of known facts and baseless speculation from an anynomous self-described expert sold as a Bloomberg "report."
    king editor the grateracerhomie3propodjbdragontmayschlackmacxpresschiaksecJWSC
  • Apple fires dozens of Project Titan employees as autonomous car initiative shifts to underlying tec

    Keep in mind that the NYT authors who wrote this, DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI and BRIAN X. CHEN, also wrote extensive reports that maintained for months that Samsung had basically crushed Apple's smartphone business and was fated to knock iPhones out of relevance, and prior to that, that Japan "hated" the iPhone and it would never catch on there, respectively. This year, Samsung limped back toward its all time smartphone performance peak from 2014 while Apple essentially maintained/replicated the world-leading megacycle performance it achieved with iPhone 6. And for the last few years, Japan has been one of the world's top markets for iPhone and everything else Apple makes, with globally leading market share for iPhone sales. What they print is frequently not journalism. It is advocacy mixed with pure credulity in anonymous "sources" with no clear track record. So take their scoop with a grain of salt.
    iqatedofastasleepanantksundarambrucemctmaycalibaconstangwelshdogpropodwatto_cobra
  • One Apple GPU, one giant leap in graphics for iPhone 8

    appex said:
    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.
    "the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from"



    fotoformatradarthekatchuy@mac.comGeorgeBMactmaybrakkenmike1Rayz2016RacerhomieXnetmage
  • Editorial: Will Apple's 1990's "Golden Age" collapse repeat itself?

    IL1 was not built by or for Apple; nor were they the first tenant. 
    Do you know what year Apple moved into the Four-Phase complex? Its HQ was only about half the size of today's Infinite Loop.  
    Colin O’Scopycornchipmagman1979jony0watto_cobra
  • Inside iPhone 8: Apple's A11 Bionic introduces 5 new custom silicon engines

    crosslad said:
    "Google  - aimed at hitting an average selling price of less than $300—Android One phones have an aggressive price target of $100." 

    Not entirely true nowadays; the Pixel phones were priced the same as the iPhones and the new MotoX4, running Android One is around $400. This has got to be good for Apple. I would not pay the same price for an android phone as an iPhone. Now that Apple has phones at every price point  I can only see Apple sales increasing.

    Average selling price of Androids, including Pixel, is actually below $200. Even Samsung’s ASP, which includes its premium-priced Galaxy phones that sell in the 10s of millions, is now at $227. 

    http://www.androidauthority.com/price-gap-samsung-apple-smartphones-769772/

    This isn’t a new development. iPhone ASP has been pretty constant at or above $650 while Androids have have been below $300 since 2013. 

    Having a vanity model that sells in tiny quantities has little impact on an average, whether Pixel or Virtu. 



    tmayStrangeDayspscooter63loquiturcalibrucemcargonaut
  • Editorial: Will Apple's 1990's "Golden Age" collapse repeat itself?

    firelock said:
    Great article. Having run an imaging and design studio for a major ad agency during the mid-90s, I’ll add that another factor in Apple’s near collapse was its inability to deliver on building a major update to its OS. The biggest issue with the legacy Mac operating system was its lack of dynamic memory management. Raise your hand if you remember having to get info on an app and manually adjust its memory allocation. As a pro it was certainly frustrating to have to be constantly adjusting memory allocation on Photoshop and Quark, and closing one app to free up enough memory to run another. Apps would just crash and sometimes corrupt files because they ran out of memory. But as pros, most (some?) of us at least understood the problem and how to deal with it, but consumers were completely at a loss. I don’t know how many friends and family I had phone calls with trying to explain to them how to manage the memory on their Macs. Worse yet they would run off and take their Mac to get “repaired” because their apps were constantly crashing. What they needed to do was increase the memory allocation for the apps, but the shops would instead sell them more RAM which not only cost them hundreds of dollars, but it wouldn’t solve the problem. The problem was so bad that I stopped recommending Macs to non-professionals in my circle.

    Apple had promised year after year to come out with a modern OS that could manage memory dynamically, but they failed to do so year after year and instead just kept issuing minor updates that made small improvements to the user interface (Mac OS 8 & 9). I was very close to switching my entire studio over to PCs over this one issue when the return of Jobs and the promise of OS X convinced me to stick it out. Obviously this paid off and I’m glad because OS X and now iOS are light years ahead of the competition.
    Yes - and iOS employed not just NeXT/MacOS X's modern memory management but added new mobile-ready conservative memory use and liberal recycling of unused memory, something that Android is rather bad at, with a kernel coming from Linux PCs. So that's another example of Google facing an Old Apple problem. Users are left wondering how to diddle with utilities to kill apps in order to get things to run, and Android devices demand far more RAM to work well at all.  
    Folioradarthekatericthehalfbeehcrefugeepropodfirelockcornchipredgeminipapscooter63magman1979
  • iOS 11, Android O: What Apple can learn from Google's IO17


    Soli said:
    longpath said:
    saltyzip said:
    I thought Google also announced an easy way to update android which includes even down to graphics drivers, did I dream that?
    Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google.
    Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google.

    Actually it's not getting better. It's getting worse. At the same time last year, Android 6.x had reached a slightly higher 7.5% penetration, and two years ago Android 5.x was well above 9%. 

    New, commercially relevant Android is effectively going away, sliding into obscurity. To distract, Google is showing off cool apps (Lens, Assistant) that don't even work across more than a tenth of it's installed base. 

    Thats is why Google is bringing those things to iOS, because Apple's platform is modern, functional, growing and healthy. 

    Http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/17/google-io17-android-deployment-rate-continues-to-slip-backward

    The base of "really old Android" is actually growing faster, perhaps in part because some devices don't get upgrades yet stick around, but also because new devices continue to ship in large volumes with very outdated software. 

    The Android apologists like to focus on flagship new Androids, but those models don't sell in enough quantity to matter. Most Androids are barely functional feature phones aimed at selling for $100.

    Low margin exporters don't work to get the most updated software working on their basic hardware for that kind of money. They ship 2-3 year old products, unchanged. That is the majority of Android. 
    ericthehalfbeefotoformatbrucemccalidoozydozenpscooter63watto_cobraspheric
  • How HomePod leverages Apple's silicon expertise to deliver advanced audio performance

    danvm said:
    It would be impossible to cobble a similar platform out of the terrible speakers built into existing Echo and Dot appliances, and neither Amazon, Google, Samsung, Spotify or other speaker makers really have to clout to produce such a sophisticated, premium speaker and sell it to a critical mass of users globally.

    Based in many reviews, the HomePod sound quality is very similar to the Google Home Max, and I wouldn't consider neither of them premium speakers.  And to say that Samsung is not capable of doing sophisticated premium speaker is non sense.  They own Harman Audio, which includes companies like Harman-Kardon, AKG, Infinity and Revel, among others.  Those companies have years of experience in the audio market.  We'll have to see the results of the final product, but I wouldn't count them out.  

    The kicker on that sentence is "and sell it to a critical mass of users globally."

    Samsung developed a Gear watch platform, Tizen, Galaxy Player, all manner of tablets, and no doubt it can make a speaker. But to create an audio platform that matters, it would need to learn how to sell those products to people who would pay any money for them.

    Google hardware is a bullshit exercise in Verge fapping and nobody buys any of it in commercially relevant volumes. It doesn't matter that some bloggers can't tell the difference between a basic speaker and HomePod. If those reviews mattered Google would be a significant hardware seller rather than a source of billowing hot bullshit.
    tmaycornchipStrangeDaysRobPalmer9fastasleeplolliverrobin huberRayz2016pscooter63macky the macky