Last Active
  • 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. 
  • 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.  
  • A year after media doubting, Apple's Services save a difficult year

    lkrupp said:
    The only thing about DED’s editorials is that he is a sort of Don Quixote fighting windmills. The tech media doesn’t like Apple, they never have and never will. Apple is anathema to most tech writers, geeks, nerds, and many AI commenters. For this crowd Apple shouldn’t even exist and they cannot accept that it does. No other big tech company triggers so much hate and vitriol, not even Google. The knives are constantly out looking for potential ways to take Apple down. If there’s even a glimmer of hope for a failure of some sort it is trotted out like a prize catch. So fight on, Mr. Dilger but I doubt you will change any minds, especially here in AI forums.
    Full disclosure: I’m not trying to change minds. I’m trying to establish a pattern of being consistently correct.
  • Dire predictions for Apple's supply chain, retail demand were wrong

    firelock said:
     without a functional public health system”

    Oh please. I generally like DED articles but this is just a hyperbolic political screed.
    The US healthcare system is pretty good for employeed healthy people making over $50k, but that's not representitive of the overall population. If you lose your job or run into a temporary financial situaion, just gettting treatment for COVID can easily return a $70,000 bill, and most Americans don't even have $400 saved up for such events. What we are finding out is that the healthcare available to the poorest can impact the affluent. There is no "public health" system in the US, as millions of its citizens have no insurance at all. That includes many people who work full time. Public health is a system that covers the public, not just people who have employeers paying $300-500/month to cover their medical expenses.
  • Lisa Jackson touts Apple's environmental initiatives in Earth Day talk

    buckkalu said:
    Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.

    But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments. 

    “Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore toldReuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.” 

    The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone,” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. “I learned that the solar panels don’t last.” 

    Like many environmental documentaries, “Planet of Humans” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy. “We have to have our ability to consume reigned in,” says a well-coiffed environmental leader. “Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back,” says a scientist. 

    In truth, humankind has never been at risk of running out of energy. There has always been enough fossil fuels to power human civilization for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, and nuclear energy is effectively infinite. 


    Moore is a storyteller, not a scientist, but he raises some interesting ideas as a form of mostly thoughtful entertainment. However, finding some flaws in how "green technology" has been historically rolled out does not mean at all that we shouldn't be pursuing better alternatives to burning oil and coal, which are massively more destructive to our environment and ecology.

    The projects Apple has rolled out are not deforesting the planet. There is no "dead zone" above Apple's biogas or geothermal projects. This entire bit you copied and pasted here is a string of logical fallacies, particularly the idea that green energy is based on "Malthusian ideas," and that the primary intent of moving to renewable energy is that we are running out of oil.

    Malthus was a religious philosopher writing in the late 1700s, not a scientist. He postulated that societal problems he witnessed centuries ago could only be solved by a huge die-off in population. It's absurd to say that's the basis of moving to green energy today.

    And while there was once the fear that we would run out of good sources of oil back in the 1970s, we've since developed technology to extract oil from shale and frack it out of sources formerly considered worthless. There's lots of oil left, that's not even the issue.

    The issue is that fracking blows new toxins into the ground that end up in our water, and cause all sorts of unexpected things like earthquakes in places that are unusual because we are changing the composition under our feet. These issues are just as bad if not far worse than "what do we do with old solar panels" and "hey lets not deforest the earth just to set up solar arrays."

    Moore's film is raising an issue and blowing it out of proportion, and it's being promoted by interests who want to vilify the people raising awareness of renewable tech. He's the same filmmaker who visited Cuba and wondered aloud why it has a better healthcare system than the US, mixing some reality into a large bit of fiction uninformed to the point of being misleading.

    We need to follow science and a constant re-evaluation of what's working best, not just more fallacious scaremongering so that we are paralyzed by outrage. And unfortunately, everyone in the media appears to be motivated by nothing other than outrage inducement, portraying everything as bad and the "somebody famous" behind it as being maliciously evil as part of a greater conspiracy. That only acts to protect the moneyed interests that depend on the status quo being maintained: a massive military-industrial complex that has to defend the oil underneath a religious battleground and maintain its price to keep the frack-destruction of our own nation in place, so we can continue to build a car-centric wasteland to support massively excessive vehicles making unnecessary trips. We need to rethink the whole thing.