radarthekat
About
- Username
- radarthekat
- Joined
- Visits
- 342
- Last Active
- Roles
- moderator
- Points
- 8,966
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 3,944
Reactions
-
How Tim Cook gets Trump to help Apple
Harris had four months to mount a campaign, raise money and introduce herself and her excellent running mate to the American people. She had a huge uphill battle against a sea of lies told so often that people believed them and the media became exhausted debunking them.bloggerblog said:
He was voted in because dems had useless candidates, again. He won by default.quakerotis said:I am tired of the capitulation to T**** (the loser). He’s a criminal. That half of America voted for a criminal makes no difference3 in his criminal state.
When a corporation bows to a politician, it is called fascism, or state-capitalism.
when a political leader determines the winner of an economic sector, it’s fascism.
-
Apple's in-house chip design is the 'secret weapon' behind industry-beating performance
I think most folks these days recognize terms like ‘secret sauce’ and ‘secret weapon’ as figures of speech rather than literal descriptors. I give the article author a pass.mpantone said:It's not a "secret weapon." It was crystal clear to the entire semiconductor industry back in 2013 when Apple debuted the A7 SoC, the first 64-bit chip widely distributed in a smartphone.
It was a mic-drop moment for Apple. The rest of the industry was speechless because 64-bit wasn't expected for a couple more years. Insightful observers theorized that Apple could be on the path to a desktop processor.
So seven years later when Apple announced Apple Silicon, it wasn't that much of a surprise to the rest of the industry or people who paid attention to such things.
It has been very clear that control over the hardware, software, and service stack gives Apple an advantage that none of their competitors in various markets has. This is not "secret" or hidden. It has been in plain daylight for well over a decade.
It's amazing that even in 2024 there are journalists and technologists who still do not get this.
And remember that consumer technology innovation is driven by smartphones, the primary computing modality of consumers in the present day. It doesn't come from PCs. The A-series SoCs begat the M-series SoCs, not the other way around. And all of the major technology innovations we take for granted today -- wireless communications (including WiFi, Bluetooth, 5G+), NFC contactless payments, biometric identification, location services, digital cameras, computational photography/videography, display panel technology, battery technology, performance+efficiency cores, cloud services, etc. -- all have been driven by smartphones.
-
Judge awards Apple a token $250 in its latest lawsuit against Masimo
My series 7, purchased here in The Philippines has the blood oxygen app functional.zeus423 said:
So if I take a road trip to Canada one day, I could buy a Series 10 with the blood oxygen feature fully functioning?Anilu_777 said:For your readers outside the United States, the ban and disabling of the blood oxygen feature is US only. In Canada I’m very happily using it with my Series 10. Please include that US only fact in your reporting. -
Apple cancels California DMV permit for self-driving car testing
Building and selling cars is no where near as profitable as Apple’s existing businesses. Why dilute your business with a much lower margin division, especially one in a highly competitive arena that will necessitate a ton of focus from your best talent?And a business that will subvert your CarPlay initiative as one other commenter here pointed out; other car companies are far less likely to want to incorporate CarPlay if Apple is a competitor.Nope, better to leverage future CarPlay editions to maybe build out a universal ride sharing dispatch service. Any car manufacturer with CarPlay, whether ICE with human driver or EV with human driver or full autonomy could, via some future CarPlay system, opt into Apple’s ride sharing dispatch system to allow consumers with Apple devices to request rides.The future CarPlay system needs only a few bits of info from each car to make this work.. Current location, current availability to serve a ride, extent of availability to serve a ride (is the car scheduled to be a taxi for the next, say, hour required to serve the requested ride?), current fuel or charge status (does the car have fuel or charge sufficient to serve a requested ride), and will the vehicle have remaining fuel or charge after the ride to at least make it to a fueling or charging station. Apple could take a tiny percentage of the fare and have a great business. It might also interject itself into some in-car advertisements or otherwise interact with the rider during each ride, either via CarPlay or directly via the ride-haling app. Nice little business that has zero liability in the event of a crash or injury; those risks are assumed and born by the individual vehicle owners and/or the car manufacturers who make autonomous systems used to pilot the cars.
-
Apple cancels California DMV permit for self-driving car testing
Spinning off means potentially losing needed talent to the spun off division. I bet Apple said a quick ‘no thanks’ to that.13485 said:
By your logic, you don't allow for the idea that Apple would have spun off Project Titan into a separate corporation when the development was finished? Titan would simply license the patents from Apple. This is not a complex undertaking, nor is it unheard of in the industrial age. GE, for instance, has spun off into three companies involved in aerospace, healthcare, and appliances. Bosch has divisions in pharmaceuticals, automotive, and appliances. Corporate diversity protects a company in case of downturns in any one industry or product line.jdw said:
Friend, what in THE world are you talking about? Seriously.Xed said:
1) That's the same argument I heard when Apple started making MP3 players, and then again when it was rumored they were making a cellphone.jdw said:Finally! And I hope I never hear about that ridiculous "Apple Car" again. It never made any sense for a computer and mobile phone maker to get into the car space. It's a completely different sort of thing altogether, and that would have made the company "too diverse." I think it would have harmed Apple in the end, so good riddance. No doubt they'll glean money off all the patents they filed in the years to come. That's enough.
2) You really don't see how a tech company could make a vehicle like a Tesla or Rivian?
Apple actually MADE a music player. That was REALITY. Doing research or prepping for something that never comes to be a real product is not reality. It's a gamble, if anything. But here's the biggest rebuttal to what you wrote. The iPod was more than a concept brought to reality. It was a perfect fit for Apple, being a small electronic device that attached as a PERIPHERAL to... Drum roll please... A Mac computer. Yes, indeed. The iPod was originally a Mac-only music player! But I realize some people are too young to remember that or so old they may have forgotten. So that takes a strong strike at your Point #1.
As to your Point #2, you didn't comprehend what I wrote. It's not about who could use their billions to make a car. Friend, it's about what product is a GOOD FIT for your company and its existing products. And no, it's not like Apple was going to jettison the Mac, iPad, iPhone and everything else in order to invest everything in becoming the next big American car company. As I said, it would have been too much diversification for Apple. It's not a problem for Tesla as that company is 100% dedicated to making cars. That's why Tesla doesn't make rockets. SpaceX, a totally different company, does that. The same holds true for traditional car makers. But by your logic, Marlboro should give car making a try because, well, if you've got the money, go for it! No, friend. It's a matter of what is a good fit for your company in light of what you're all about. So that's the rebuttal to your Point #2.
Apple patented a lot of create automotive tech, and maybe they can reap financial rewards from that in the future. But they aren't a dedicated car company, and to be that, you would need to focus so much of your company on it that the other untreated products you sell (like the Mac) would suffer. And do you really want that? I'm guessing the answer is no as per the fact you are posting passionately in this forum and have 2,824 points to your name here too.
