melgross

From what I read on this organization, it seems to be mostly “regulating” specifics of how this software will work, rather than the more theoretical concepts of how to determine when it becomes dangerous, and how to prevent that. I can see Apple not being interested in that view, at least, at this time. 

robin huber said:

Apple brands itself as responsible and privacy forward. Perhaps they don’t feel the need to participate in fig-leaf events such as this, that they’re going to do the right thing because that’s what they do? Also, I think Apple may end up being a client of AI rather than a purveyor, much like they get screens from Samsung. So it’s up the vendors to assure the safety of their wares. 

Apple is apparently working on their own. There have been several reports on that with some detail, including here. So I don’t think they will be using someone else’s version.

DeWalt introduced stacked batteries for their power tools a bit over two years ago. I have a 1.7 amp hour one and a 5 amp hour one. I don’t know anything about the ones proposed for phones, but the ones for power tools are replacing conventional cylindrical cells. So they’re smaller. But more importantly they have greater power draw. If a tool is designed for it, it can output a fair amount more power. Sometimes more than a third more. I can tell you from my own experience with them that it’s true.

but a phone isn’t an electric motor. And this isn’t replacing a battery of cylinders as it is in power tool batteries. So it’s hard to say what the difference will be. I don’t expect more than a modest improvement from this.

Ok, so the writer gets it wrong, as so many others have when it comes to the M series RAM packaging. One would think that’s this simple thing would be well understood by now. So let me make it very clear - the RAM is NOT on the chip. It is NOT “in the CPU itself”. As we should all know by now, it’s in two packages soldered to the substrate, which is the small board the the SoC is itself soldered to. The lines from Apple’s fabric, which everything on the chip is connected with, extend to that substrate, to the RAM chips. Therefore, the RAM chips are separate from the SoC, and certainly not in the CPU itself. As we also know, Apple offers several different levels of RAM for each M series they sell. That means that there is no limit to their ability to decide how much RAM they can offer, up to the number of memory lines that can be brought out. This is no different from any traditional computer. Every CPU and memory controller has a limit as to how much RAM can be used. So, it seems to me that Apple could, if it wanted to, have sockets for those RAM packages, which add no latency, and would allow exchangeable RAM packages. Apple would just have to extend the maximum number of memory lines out to the socket. How many would get used would depend on the amount of RAM in the package. That’s nothing new. That’s how it’s done. Yes, under that scheme you would have to remove a smaller RAM package when getting a larger one, but that's also normal. The iMac had limited RAM slots and we used to do that all the time. Apple could also add an extra two sockets, in addition to the RAM that comes with the machine. So possibly there would be two packages soldered to the substrate, and two more sockets for RAM expansion. Remember that Apple sometimes does something a specific way, not because that’s the way it has to be done, but because they decided that this was the way they were going to do it. We don’t know where Apple is going with this in the future. It’s possible that the M2, which is really just a bump from the M1, is something to fill in the time while we’re waiting for the M3, which with the 3nm process it’s being built on, is expected to be more than just another bump in performance. Perhaps an extended RAM capability is part of that.

darkvader said:

You know, this thing could actually be useful (if it runs Mac apps) or completely useless and stupid (if it doesn't). 

I wonder which one will happen?

I don’t know. We’re seeing more Mac apps come to iOS anyway. Some of the iOS versions are better and some need more updating to competely get there. I’m not concerned though. We’ll get new apps that can’t be done in iOS or MacOS. But it will take time. This won’t be an instant fully featured thing with every app we want. That figures. Look at the iPhone. The first year it only had the built in apps. Next year, with the App Store, it had 512 more. Now it has 2 million, with a million for the iPad. Who could have predicted that the first year the phone came out?