techconc

AppleZulu said:

It's pretty clear at this point that the decision to create Apple Maps was based on a lot more than a dispute over turn-by-turn directions. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but what was clear at that point was that mapping and location services were going to be a core function of iOS, not just a standalone app. GPS wasn't even included on iPhone until the 3G model was released. Fairly quickly for Google, location data was becoming one more data goldmine to sell to advertisers, and Apple didn't want iPhone to become an unrestrained sellout of its customers. More importantly, Apple couldn't cede what was rapidly becoming a central function of its device to its primary rival.  So a decision was abruptly made to take a hard turn off the previous course and it took a few iterations to get through the "recalculating" phase. 

I think you need to take history into context here.  Back in the day, it was very common to get directions as a series of instructions.  There were many services out there such as MapQuest, etc. to provide this information.  Yes, standalone GPS devices existed, but that typically wasn't what you had with computers.  Apple's first Maps app was just that, you could find things and get a list of directions on how to get there. 

Meanwhile, Google started putting real GPS based turn-by-turn directions onto their Android devices.  Apple wanted that feature as well. That's when Google laid out the demands to Apple to provide user data in exchange for that level of Maps services.  Apple was very privacy minded and unwilling to do that, so they created their own mapping service.  Whatever rift existed between Apple and Google at time from Google copying Apple was more of a sidebar than the driving decision for Apple to role their own maps service. 

cloudguy said:

tmay said:

cloudguy said:

A14 is only hexacore. Strange. Was certain that it was going to be octa-core. Hexacore is good enough to replace the i3 and i5 in the Mac Mini and MacBook Air, but for MacBook Pro and iMac they are going to need an octacore design at minimum.

CloudDude, the A series SOC isn't going to be used in any production Mac, so you can stop clutching your pearls.

I have read in various places that it was. Some have said that it would not be, but more places have stated that it would be than would not. Do you have a link? Thanks.

No link required.  Watch Apple's WWDC presentation.  Near the end, when Johny Srouji presents, they specifically claim they are making an entire "family of Mac specific SoCs".   That's all you need to know.  This is their phone chip that also works well in a mid range iPad.  It's already faster than the vast majority of Intel based laptops.

dewme said:

Ouch. But congratulations to him in his new and expanded role with Intel. 

It's funny when I read comments... not really this one in particular, but the media spins this as if it's a huge loss for Apple, etc.  Not to diminish Mr. Wilcox's contributions, but Apple literally has thousands of chip engineers.  They have over a thousand back when they started making their own chips and that division has only grown in size.  While anyone leaving is a loss for Apple and I'm sure he'll bring back great knowledge to Intel, but in the end, there really isn't anyone that would have a significant impact on Apple's plans.  Maybe if Jonny Sourji left we should pause and take note.  Aside from that, there is no single engineer that leaving would have any real impact on Apple.

elijahg said:

Another point no one seems to have factored is that Intel has tons of extensions to x86 which are essentially never compared in benchmarks against ARM. SSE1/2/3, AVX, MMX, Quicksync etc. Lots of cross-platform software uses these extensions to speed things up, and the code can be directly ported from the huge market that is Windows to the smaller Mac market. Software that makes use of those extensions is much much faster than that which uses general x86 instructions because they come with much less legacy cruft. If Apple switches, cross platform devs aren't going to waste time optimising their software to double the speed on the tiny Mac market, Mac users will just get an inferior experience, again.

For starters, you should understand that ARM has the same kind of SIMD extensions (called NEON).  I don't think you understand how they are accessed though.  Apple has an accelerate framework that leverages these functions natively.  Developers on Apple platforms aren't writing for Intel or ARM instructions specifically.  If they have an application that can leverage this sort of thing, they are using Apple's Accelerate framework and they are getting this huge performance improvement.  Apple abstracts the CPU specific details, so applications can simply be recompiled and they will also be tuned to leverage the SIMD instructions of ARM processors. 

michelb76 said:

Xed said:

bsd228 said:

The Intel NUC hasn't died.   Like the IBM PC, it has been coopted by legions of OEMs offering original NUC sized compute units for $200-500.   
$270 got me a hex core AMD with 2.5gb ethernet, 16gbs, and a win 11 license to toss as I please.  Smaller than the Mac Mini of today, and in the same ballpark on power.  Takes an M2 and a 2.5" drive.  

They won't have the GPU, but that's not what they're used for.   

If they are in the ballpark on power usage of the Mac mini then their performance has to be awful in comparison if they are x86.

Well, it's not. The Intel vPro ones handily beat out the M1 for example, and the new ones are about the same as the M2, except hey use more power on max perf. These NUC's are great for installations, video displays, home control systems, etc. They run a ton of apps that have no equivalent on MacOSX, so depending on use-case these are still very good computers.

Nope.  Your comment is not even remotely true.  The latest NUC 12 pro gets crushed by the M2 Mac Mini.
https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/intel-nuc-12#

randominternetperson said:

In the age of online banking, who still buys programs like Quicken?  $35/year or more?  No thanks.

Online banking doesn't obsolete personal finance. If anything, the two work well together. That said, Quicken, especially on the Mac has been horrible for many years now. I've long since switched to what is now Banktivity (formerly iBank). It's great and far better than Quicken ever was.

No matter how you spin it, the M2 Mac Pro is a real disappointment.  Full stop. 

The only excuse I’d give Apple for this disappointment is if they felt it were more important to formally complete the Apple Silicon transition than it was to provide a proper pro machine.  So, if this is a stop gap measure to hold us until this time next year, then fine.

The Mac Pro is meant to be the flagship device… the pinnacle of Mac performance.  Instead, it’s a Mac Studio with PCI slots.  At the very least, an M2 Extreme (2 M2 Ultra chips) is what users are expecting.  Apple seems content on comparing to a 4 year old Intel Mac Pro while ignoring the current Intel / nVidia 4090 based solutions.   That would address the CPU / GPU scalability concerns or at least help mute them.
The other concern is memory.  192 GB is fine for most solutions, but there are very high end needs which go well beyond that.

It’s pretty ridiculous that anyone thinks Apple (or anyone else) has to justify advertising on X or anywhere else they choose.  Business is business and politics are politics.  Attempting to mix the two is a recipe for disaster. 

blastdoor said:

I'm always a little surprised that Apple isn't more dominant on this ranking, given how Apple's custom silicon dominates in many areas. 

I never use Android phones, so I don't have first hand experience. But I'm wondering if iPhones have an advantage in something not captured by this particular group's reviews? For example, is the iPhone faster at processing a photo once snapped? 

What most people don't realize is that DxOMark is a "pay to win" source.  They offer consulting services to help "improve your score".  Apple obviously doesn't need or use their services, so they will not take the top spot.  It's that simple.  Even Android based sites rightly call this out.
https://www.androidauthority.com/dxomark-ranking-troublesome-805633/

indieshack said:

Really…27”? 

I'm fine with that.  I don't need or even want anything bigger.  I'll be happy to replace my existing 27" Intel iMac.