mjtomlin

lorca2770 said:

Please, correct me.
I have been following Apple since 1984 (Mac 128 ߘꩦlt;/p>

Was it not S Jobs who at some point, during the tough times, sold ARM (since it was Apple’s company)? I think I understood it was Apple Reduced Memory. It was one of those developments that were undermined by Microsoft with the permanent: “stop the presses we are coming with something better”. So many Apple developments were drowned by, at the time, all powerful MS.
Please advise.

Originally ARM stood for the Acorn RISC Machine. In the late 80's when Apple started the development of the Newton, they needed an extremely low power, but powerful CPU design. They partnered with Acorn Computers and VLSI Logic to form ARM Holdings, Ltd. The CPU produced from this partnership became known as Advanced RISC Machine. And it was this design that went on to become the basis of the modern design used today.

Steve Jobs sold off Apple's share in ARM Holdings after he axed the Newton project, along with many other products and projects to get Apple back on track and focus on their core competencies. (Although it was rumored that, out of spite, Steve Jobs basically tore down everything John Scully built.)

I believe what you're talking about with Microsoft, is their infamous use of spreading F.U.D. throughout the industry to keep clients from buying a competitors product. They would promise that they were working on something similar to a competitors product and it would be released "soon". Hell, even Windows 95 was advertised as "More Mac Like". Most of MS's competition basically floundered or went out of business from these business "practices". They were also infamous for their "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" practices to co-op competing standards and technologies.

CheeseFreeze said:

Siri was always incredibly bad but suddenly feels infantile, now that I’m working witch ChatGPT a lot.

Apple has a problem. They say they’ve been investing a lot in AI, but I don’t believe for a word they’ve worked on the tech like OpenAI is delivering today; that’s just damage control by Tim Cook to keep shareholders at ease.

Chat-GPT3 is based on the transformer machine learning model.

Apple's new predictive text engine is based on the same model. This is Apple not showing their entire hand, but showing just a single card.

So yeah, I'd say Apple has been working on these types of models for a while now. What may keep them "behind" is not wanting to scrape the entirety of the Internet for text and instead feed it curated data, to help filter out misinformation and bias, which is the problem with these current models; force fed everything, regardless of how crappy it tastes.

9secondkox2 said:

mjtomlin said:

apple4thewin said:

I think there is a chance that they decide to choose an A17 chip design for M3. Seems like using A16 is too small of a performance jump unless Apple decides to make an A16.5 which would be like A16 but in 3nm who knows besides Apple

The M1 debuted alongside the A14 and they both used the same cores and process node. The M2 used the "older" A15 cores (and same process node) because it was being fab'ed mid cycle.

So if the M3 is being held up by the 3nm node and will debut after the A17, then more than likely they will both use the same generation cores. If that's the case, then that's a generational skip for the M-series and we should see fairly huge gains in Mac performance and efficiency.

The m2 was held back for multiple reasons. It was held back as much as possible to try to fit new GPU features, but in the end, it didn’t work out. So apple made up for lost time with using already fully baked tech and clocking it up. Just another reason why m3 is more likely to be based on the latest design. The holdup this time around has to do with tsmc msnufacturing, not apple design and validation. 

I believe they licensed Imagination's Photon Architecture, but were having trouble integrating it, i.e., getting it to run efficiently. But I thought those GPUs were destined for the A16 generation...

prototypes had much higher power draw than the simulated estimates expected. This meant the GPU would have impacted battery life too much to be usable, and incurred thermal issues. As a result, it couldn’t be used for the iPhone 14 Pro line.

That was a quote from Dec. 2022, 6 months after the M2 debuted. Of course, Apple may have planned to have it done in time to stick in the M2, but gave up after they knew it wouldn't make it in time and just went with A15 gen. blocks to get it out by WWDC.

apple4thewin said:

I think there is a chance that they decide to choose an A17 chip design for M3. Seems like using A16 is too small of a performance jump unless Apple decides to make an A16.5 which would be like A16 but in 3nm who knows besides Apple

The M1 debuted alongside the A14 and they both used the same cores and process node. The M2 used the "older" A15 cores (and same process node) because it was being fab'ed mid cycle.

So if the M3 is being held up by the 3nm node and will debut after the A17, then more than likely they will both use the same generation cores. If that's the case, then that's a generational skip for the M-series and we should see fairly huge gains in Mac performance and efficiency.

BiCC said:

Xed said:

You know you're doomed when you have to play catch up to a product that isn't even out yet from a company that has never had a product in that category.

Meta may be able to carve out a decent low-end option like Android has for tablets, but they'll have to have some really special HW and SW working perfectly together to be the company people look to over Apple.

I think you are going easy on Meta.  But that is just me.  This is a real Question - Why does a company change their entire Name.  Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, DeWalt, Ford, Kraft, Walmart, Costco,  Appleinsider, the list is endless, they never changed. Facebook and Google changed names.  I still don't know a friend that changed names, marriage doesn't count. I'm throwing it out there - Deep State.

To change the narrative. Usually from something that's nefarious to something that's benign. It allows these companies to distance "projects" away from a their "core." Both Google and Facebook have monopoly-related issues that affect their core business. And Facebook in particular has a real issue with public perception.