Dan_Dilger

About

Username
Dan_Dilger
Joined
Visits
54
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,480
Badges
2
Posts
1,583
  • China ready to retaliate against Apple after U.S. moves to ban chip shipments to Huawei

    "That ban inspired a "Boycott Apple" movement in China, with some companies in the country threatening to fire employees who used the company's products instead of Chinese ones."

    "Some companies" here is Huawei, a direct competitor to Apple. It's not surprising that Huawei doesn't want its employees using iPhones in public or on Twitter, etc, any more than Microsoft discouraged employees from brandishing Macs and iPods. And while Huawei is run by Communist Party members, it is not China. The suggestion of "boycotts" against Apple were not real or at least not material enough to notice. China is boycotting Samsung, but that is more from a general hatred of Korea in general. China doesn't have that kind of prejudice against Americans.

    Sure the State is going to order Huaweis and can push back against Boeing and do nothing to help Qualcomm collect its licensing revenue from Chinese firms, but it's not really incentivized to kill the manufacturing of, or domestic sales of, most of the higher-end phones sold globally and across China. The suggestion of "investigating" Apple among "companies that block or shut supply chains, or take discriminatory measures for non-commercial reasons" doesn't seem like it would get very far. 
    spock1234Anilu_777JWSCmacplusplusjony0prismaticsRayz2016watto_cobra
  • S1: How Apple's custom iPad silicon powered a leap into wearables

    viclauyyc said:
    I really hope this article is about the innovation and technology of Apple Watch and the S chip.

    But sadly, more than 60% is about how the media is being unfair and how other companies fail.

    Please don’t act like Donald.
    If you were telling the history of Ford or Xerox or Coca-Cola or any other company, would you daintily tiptoe around any mention of its competitors to avoid upsetting people who don’t want to know certain facts? 

    That’s so nutty I can’t even entertain it. 

    Also, the article isn’t saying the media is “unfair,” it’s outlining how analysts, observers and yes also journalists were wrong in their outlook despite backing up their ideas with facts that sounded legitimate and common sense logic that appeared to make sense. 

    They were still wrong. 

    Those comments are there to make intelligent people think. Sometimes when you’re sure of something, it’s best to critically examine that perhaps you are wrong. 

    For example, when somebody writes something for free for you to think about, you can critically examine it and perhaps offer your own perspective or challenge the facts presented. I’d recommend you do that rather than just lazily dump out a character assassination and some lazy, thoughtless logical fallacies and try to turn it into a dumb, polarizing political argument. 
    cornchipjony0CuJoYYCwatto_cobra
  • S1: How Apple's custom iPad silicon powered a leap into wearables

    mattinoz said:
    viclauyyc said:
    I really hope this article is about the innovation and technology of Apple Watch and the S chip.

    But sadly, more than 60% is about how the media is being unfair and how other companies fail.

    Please don’t act like Donald.
    Indeed on a technical level it never connects the innovation in the iPad to the watch!
    if anything it was the iphones demands that drove the small core development that made the watch possible not the iPad.
    It was iPad that necessitated the development of A4. Apple could have continued to deliver iPhones with Samsung SoCs (just as it had with iPod) if it hadn’t aimed to produce the tablet, which as you might recall was envisioned before iPhone. 

    Most other phone makers similarly relied on a third party to supply their phone chips, and did the same for their tablet experiments.

    After building SOTA silicon for 5 years, Apple was positioned to to borrow its older A5 era tech and repurpose it for a wearable. Without having gone down the road to build custom silicon for iPad, Apple would have to have relied on Samsung’s Silicon, and revealed more of its plans to Samsung to enter wearables earlier. Samsung did build the S1, but Apple spent years developing it in secret before it began production for Apple Watch. 

    So yes, while the silicon for Apple Watch was closer to iPhone than iPad, it likely wouldn’t have even existed without iPad. 

    The entire point of this series is to outline Apple’s work each year over the past decade of its custom silicon and try to explain the strategy that appeared to guide the decisions that were made, contrasting the decisions others made to highlight the difference in result achieved from those decisions.  
    cornchipjony0CuJoYYCwatto_cobra
  • S1: How Apple's custom iPad silicon powered a leap into wearables

    mattinoz said:
    viclauyyc said:
    I really hope this article is about the innovation and technology of Apple Watch and the S chip.

    But sadly, more than 60% is about how the media is being unfair and how other companies fail.

    Please don’t act like Donald.
    Indeed on a technical level it never connects the innovation in the iPad to the watch!
    if anything it was the iphones demands that drove the small core development that made the watch possible not the iPad.
    And yet, there were many fairly successful phone makers. There were effectively no commercially successful tablet makers. So when watches arrived, it’s pretty clear that the best positioned were the companies with custom silicon and experience in other form factors. 

    iPad supported iOS as a real platform beyond just small phone apps, so when Watch arrived, there was a large ecosystem it could fit into without being expected to be an “app platform” identical to iPhone. 

    Samsung nearly had all the pieces. It was emulating the surface of everything Apple was doing. It actually shipped out watches first. But without a real platform for tablets holding up its version of Android, or Tizen, its Gear watches were of little value. 

    And as the article notes, Apple relentlessly advanced Apple Watch in a coherent series of annual releases that got faster and more useful.  Samsung threw out a variety of wearables that all worked different, with some getting slower and using basically the same silicon because it didn’t have any vision or direction. It was just throwing out stuff to see what might stick.
    cornchipjony0watto_cobra
  • Macs 'partially affected' by unpatchable Thunderbolt security exploit

    mjtomlin said:
    cpsro said:
    Anybody know why a Mac running Windows or Linux is vulnerable and why that hole couldn't be plugged with software?

    As the article mentioned, it's because Windows and Linux machines make use of the security features that are built into the Thunderbolt controller firmware. macOS does not - it uses Apple's own security system.
    Correct. The report notes:

    MacOS: Regarding Thunderbolt security, MacOS employs (i) an Apple-curated whitelist in place of Security Levels [7], and (ii) IOMMU virtualization when hardware and driver support is available [1][3]. Vulnerabilities 2–3 enable bypassing the first protection measure, and fully compromising authenticity of Thunderbolt device metadata in MacOS “System Information”. However, the second protection measure remains functioning and hence prevents any further impact on victim system security via DMA.


    watto_cobra