tjwolf

AppleInsider said:

The newly-renamed "AirTags" privacy feature (source: Benjamin Mayo)

Anybody else think this message is confusing as he11 - what am I disabling - the owner of the unknown item's ability to see my location or my notification of unknown items?

I think the article incorrectly characterizes Apple’s relationship to ARM: I don’t think Apple is reliant on ARM in any way at this point.  They haven’t used ARM designed chips in a long time - I’m guessing by now only the instruction set is common.  As another poster suggested, Apple doesn’t need ARM.  Certainly not enough to pay a premium for it.  And, as the article suggested, it would probably not pass antitrust muster if the biggest ARM user in the world tries to buy the architecture its competitors depend on.  Since many just buy the stock ARM chips for their devices, imagine how frequently Apple would update those chips - lol 

I don't think Katy Huberty's logic is quite right here: she says that it makes sense for Apple to build a car because the *mobility* industry is a $10T dollars, so Apple only needs a 2% market share to have a business the size of iPhone.  But Apple wouldn't bet building a "mobility" widget, they'd be building a "car" and the car industry isn't anywhere near $10T in size - i.e. Apple would need a significantly larger share of the car market in order to get another iPhone business.

The second problem with her logic is that, by her own reckoning, Apple succeeds because it vertically integrates.  It was particularly successful with the iPhone in that regard, because its competition (Google/Android) did not.  But if it enters the car business, it'll already find a car manufacturer that's very established and very vertically integrated - Tesla.  So Apple's vertical integration, that helped it so much in the iPhone market, will just table-stakes when competing with Tesla.  And, as another poster already commented, we don't even know whether Apple can vertically integrate manufacturing, which Tesla has managed.

My personal feeling is that Apple is several years too late in trying to take on Tesla.  If it wants to overcome that company's head start, it needs to either tightly partner with or purchase outright an existing car manufacturer and then use its massive financial resources to upgrade that partner to a level of efficiency  equal or greater than what Tesla has achieved.

What was the memory utilization during this?  I know nothing of ML, but I'd think reading/analyzing images is an inherently memory-intensive task.   If so, not sure what comparing an 8gb M1 Mac with a 16gb Mac w. separate GPUs reveals.

elijahg said:

Am I the only one who used AR a couple of times, deemed it a gimmick and moved on? None of my friends use it but a couple of them rave about VR.

The definition of a 'gimmick' is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business".  Using that definition, how is AR a "gimmick"?  Apple is adding AR features to its devices to seed the tools AR content developers will need and they are talking about those new tools and AR's potential.  I don't see any of that as being remotely gimmicky.  They're not even creating the AR apps you've tried and written off as gimmicks'.   I'm not even sure those apps could be described as gimmicks - they're merely early attempts to make use of newly provided tools and technology.

AR has huge potential - judging it as a gimmick based on only a couple early attempts isn't wise.