mdriftmeyer

danvm said:

davidw said:

ITGUYINSD said:

Beats said:

ITGUYINSD said:

Beats said:

I carefully read the article for a change.

I gathered,
Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.

It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.

Nope Apple owns the iPhone and iPad.

Same as Netflix owns Netflix and Wal Mart owns Wal Mart. I can't just walk into Wal Mart and demand they paint the walls a different color and demand an organic juice bar and demand they carry my product like a crappy flea market.

"Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so."

Cool. Now go criticize Nintendo, Microsoft, Netflix, Wal Mart, Amazon. I always find it funny how Apple is always shi* on for things 99% of the industry practice.

You're making no sense.  Walmart doesn't own the TV that I purchased from them and walked out the store with.  They can't tell me what I can and cannot watch on MY TV once I purchase it.  Netflix?  I guess if Netflix sold a Netflix device and a service and locked the user of the device into only using Netflix then maybe we could talk similarities, but as it is, Netflix is not similar in this case.

The other companies you listed?  How are they like Apple?  Walmart and Amazon do not force buyer or sellers to have to sell at Amazon or Walmart.  My TV example above proves once I've purchased the TV, I can do whatever I want to do with it, not what Amazon or Walmart tells me I can do with it.

You are truly lost. 

Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  

I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  

anonconformist said:

wizard69 said:

jdb8167 said:

Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?

They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific. 

Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's.    Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way.   The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included.   So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say.  There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's. 

With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming.   The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines.   Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive.     On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working.   AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.

Your assertion that Apple will need 24 cores in the main CPU in 2021 (without SMT, perhaps 12 with) in a laptop to remain competitive in 2021 is laughable.  In a Mac Pro it can make sense to need that many main CPU cores, because they’re going to be expensive non-portable machines used for dedicated server/workstation tasks that can reasonably make use of all those cores, but if and only if it isn’t constrained by running off of low power or a battery.  Very few applications these days come close to using 4 cores in any meaningful sense short of the special types of applications you run on dedicated workstations and servers: most of the time most of the 24 (or even 8 cores now with Intel) will remain idle.  If they weren’t idle most of the time, with that many cores going full-tilt, you’d be lucky to get more than an hour or so of battery life on a 16” MacBook Pro: it’s not rational to expect much different regardless of CPU architecture.

Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time.  After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices.  Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy.  Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.

Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious.  It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above.  The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time.  Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.