Last Active
  • How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

    cloudguy said:
    Good grief. The Intel Core i3 chips that Apple puts in the entry level MacBook Air costs less to buy from Intel than it will cost TSMC to make the A14 chip. And the chip cost is only a fraction of the cost of the device. For example, the Qualcomm charged Google only $50 for the Snapdragon 765G that is in the $700 Pixel 5. I know that there are rumors that Apple will sell the ARM laptops starting at $799, but only because they want to sell more of them. The tradeoff is that Apple will have lower margins in return for that increased market share. That will make ARM-based Macs the equivalent of the iPhone SE 2020, for example. 
    This is completely false. Every word is dripping with ignorance.
  • How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

    cloudguy said:
    First off, never forget that this is from the same guy that as late as 2015 was claiming that no profits were being made on Android

    This is simply false. 

    and that Google, Samsung and the rest were going to abandon it. He never took responsibility for those false claims.

    Samsung did abandon Android everywhere it could. Look up what OS runs its TVs and watches and attempted to run its phones. Same with LG. And now Huawei is desperately trying to replace Android and claims that was its plan all along. Nobody with any autonomy would use Android, apart from the dodos at Microsoft floating out a demo phone prototype using Android because Windows is shit on mobile. Wake me up when that takes off. 

    Even Google shifted to using Chrome everywhere possible. How is Android doing these days? Google didn't even bother to have an online IO for it this year. 

    Every time some bozo (and I think it's all just you, creating new accounts to troll my articles) tries to suggest I was wrong about Android, I have to laugh at how dumb you sound. I was literally the only person who called out Android as a liability and a failure.  

    Second, please realize that right now Apple has 8% market share in PCs. ChromeOS - which already includes ARM devices like the Lenovo IdeaPad Duet, the #1 selling ChromeOS device this year - has 11%. Were it not for mass shortages of Chromebooks caused by COVID-19 induced supply chain disruptions, ChromeOS would have 13-14% market share.

    Percentages of "market share" are meaningless when "8%" represents $9 billion quarter for Macs while 11% equals a loss leader for Lenovo. On a quarterly basis, Lenovos entire PC business profits (Win+Chrome) earns ~$600M. Market share is a really dumb delusion when you're counting $2000 Macs and $200 netbooks. Chromebooks are not at all popular outside of cash-starved US schools trying to hand out disposable web books as cheaply as possible. 

    Third, this fellow writing off the success that is Android is hilarious. It has 75% - 85% market share. And the only reason why Google Play has less revenue than the app store is because Google chooses not to operate in China. In other words, the gap between Google Play and iOS is much closer than the gap between macOS and Windows. Yet he wants us to believe that Android is somehow a failure? That Samsung and the rest would be better off by not manufacturing Android apps? Or that all these developers and software companies have not gained tons of revenue off Android apps? 

    Yes, "Google chooses not to operate in China." What a dumb thing to say. Google stole American tech and gifted it to the PRC to sell ads. Yes it ended up collecting some money from it. But no, it is not some great success story. The most useful thing Android did was to stifle competition from Microsoft and everyone else, funneling all profits and control of mobile devices to Apple. That's why Google now has to pay Apple $10B per quarter to buy ad eyeballs on iOS. 

    Fourth, [irrelevant squawking about PC games]

    So long story short, don't believe anything this guy says. Just do an Internet search on his rants about how Android was NEVER going to catch iOS in market share and Google - who now has a $1 trillion and counting capitalization - was on the verge of going belly up. That will let you know how you shouldn't rely on this fellow for predictions.

    Post links where I claimed "Android was NEVER going to catch iOS in market share" and Ill wire you $10,000. Add some reference to where I ever claimed that Google "was on the verge of going belly up" and I'll double it. Stop lying and writing garbage. It makes you look like a total jerk. 

  • How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

    There are two really big announcements that Apple will have to make in the next year that will shape the future of both Apple and the entire computer industry:
    1. A desktop scale CPU. Thus far all of the CPUs Apple has made have been targeted at mobile devices. They are limited by the power they use and the heat they generate. A desktop scale CPU can draw 100 watts or more (280 for a Threadripper). How will these CPUs compare with ones from Intel and AMD given that Apple's current mobile processors compete well with Intel's laptop processors?
    2. A discrete GPU. Apple's current GPUs are built into the processor. They are great for playing games on mobile devices but they are at least ten times slower than current discrete GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA. For ray tracing they are about a hundred times slower than the hardware based ray tracing in the current crop of GPUs. Will Apple integrate AMD GPUs into the Apple Silicon iMac or will they announce their own discrete GPU?
    Apple has already detailed why putting CPU and GPU cores on the same SoC using a shared memory architecture is an advantage, not a problem. 

    The fact that historical "integrated GPUs" from CPU vendors like Intel have been lessor performers is not intrinsic to the GPU not sitting on its own chip. 

    Any time you have separate chips linked by an interconnect you're going to have more of a bottleneck between them vs putting both on the same wafer with direct access to the same shared data.
  • How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

    lmasanti said:
    One point in the PowerPC to x86 transition that you forgot to mention is that the NeXT OS was already running in x86 hardware.
    The Motorola to PowerPC was a ‘new writing.’
    This is the same situation in x86 to ARM on Macs: the OS is already written-at-large in iOS.
    This makes this transition more similar to the 2005 transition that to the 1990.
    NeXT ported to x86 in 1995 but Apple didn't actually use any of that x86 port until 2006 (it did ship early DR releases shortly after buying NeXT). So that wasn't very relevant to the development of OS X that initially shipped for PPC. NeXT also ported its OS to PPC, which did end up being useful for Apple in shipping OS X. None of that was very relevant to the point of this article, which is detailing the strategic reasons Apple made various processor transitions and the outcomes.  

    Also, the port of Classic Mac OS from Motorola to PPC largely continued to use emulated, not new, code. From 94 thru the early 2000s, Macs dragged a lot of 68k code along that wasn't entirely let go until the OS X transition to x86! 

  • How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

    dinoone said:
    ARM recent vulnerabilities (incl. Checkm8, Spectre and Meltdown) surfacing in past Apple silicon efforts, including the currently pervasive T2, are concerning indeed. 
    Hope Apple is finally reacting to such Achilles’ heel in its Apple Silicon strategy. Which, if appropriately handled, could turn into a strategic advantage on competing mainstream silicon.
    Checkm8 could affect T2 Macs with an intel processor, but Spectre and Meltdown are vulnerabilities that relate to branch processing, which isn't something a T2 would be doing and says nothing about Apple's silicon itself. These vulnerabilities affected all modern CPUs, and Apple was best positioned to protect users with OS-level fixes. 

    None of this is "concerning indeed."