mjtomlin

seanj said:

“the ARM architecture which was originally designed for mobile devices”

Err no. The ARM architecture, or using its original name the “Acorn RISC Machine” architecture was developed in the very later ‘80’s for desktop machines - the Acorn Archimedes was the most advanced desktop in the world when it launched. 

True, the original ARM (Acorn RISC Machine) was a desktop CPU, but the ARM architecture as we know it today, was in fact designed specifically for mobile, more specifically for use in the Newton; co-developed by Acorn, Apple, and VLSI.

Apple then did the exact same thing for their Macs... worked with IBM (and Motorola) to scale down IBM's POWER architecture for desktops, resulting in the PowerPC CPU.

Interesting that they just didn't partner again with Acorn for a new Mac CPU?

maestro64 said:

Does anyone know where these will be made, I am assuming it will be stateside. This will also explain why the internet world did not have insight into the spec of the machine prior to the announcement. US manufacturers know how to keep their mouths shut.

Has nothing to with "US manufacturer's", has more to do with it being Apple making these systems themselves and being able to keep there own employees quiet. At least I would assume so. Probably another reason why it took so long to get this "out the door" - they had to build the factory to make them.

This is Apple's answer to professionals who need that much power. This amount of power was unavailable in a Mac... Anyone who needed what Apple didn't offer, moved to another system. The whining and complaining is par for the course as far as a new Apple computer being introduced. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Even a 27" iMac is more power than most people will need.

The most expensive part in this system is of course going to be the Intel Xeon processor. Not sure what 28-core model is used in this system, but Amazon is currently selling an Intel Xeon Platinum 28-core CPU for $15k !!!

ravnorodom said:

ericthehalfbee said:

genovelle said:

Spotify sucks

Spotify is all right. It’s their CEO that sucks. 

It sounds like CEO needs a bigger yacht for the summer.

No. Artists want more money. Spotify has to pass that cost onto someone else, so they’re desperately trying to get a free ride on Apple’s back. Which probably means a majority of their paid users are coming from Apple’s platform.

charles1 said:

Does anyone know what Apple would have owed Qualcom by now, under the old license for cellular chips? I doubt Apple would have settled unless it was heavily in their favor. So I figure Apple would have owed something like $12 Billion and settled for about 4.5B.

Probably exactly what they paid. The point of taking them to court was to get future licensing fees down to more reasonable levels. I doubt the settlement favored either company... I would hazard to guess that Apple is still paying a percentage of total cost, but with some kind of cap.