osmartormenajr

Is it me or there were a couple of paragraphs that didn’t quite developed an idea inside the full text? Although the information is there, the reading felt like a first draft!

I also had that, on my second watch (yesterday) I realized it was out of sync. Not sure if I just missed it, or it wasn’t an issue in my first watch, at Friday.

Then again AppleTV+ has been very quirky on my aging AppleTV 3rd gen, from the very start.

At first, video would roll-back by about a minute, as audio would go on, killing the whole experience—then I had to plug my Mac to the TV to watch everything. The latest software update was able to fix it, earlier this year, but with it came along new bugs: I am Brazilian, I always watch content on original audio (whichever it may be), but with English, if I feel like a more relaxed experience, I turn on subtitles. The language settings won’t stick (even using global preferences), every time I watch anything, more often than not, I have to specifically set audio/subtitles; all available subtitles are SDH, which is not what I occasionally need! All non-SDH subtitles are gone since the software update.

I'm really on the verge of buying a new AppleTV. Just holding out in case a updated model comes out in the next 2–3 months.

Just finished watching! It was riveting! I remember watching The Hunt for Red October in my childhood—and reading the book, once I’ve learned English, in my teens. All brought back by this short and exciting movie.

I dare say that Hanks is not completely wrong in his original assessment. It WOULD BE a shame not enjoying this movie on a proper movie theater, but for the pandemic!

Now, I’m with the feeling that other studios should have done something like this these past four months!

darkvader said:

michelb76 said:

SkylightActive said:

Decoy tactics. Cause Intel / AMD / Nvidia / Qualcomm are laser focused on what Apple will do next. Why would Apple handedly let the cat out of the bag before prime time? If I’m gonna launch my own chips, why would I let the competition know? I’m gonna trick them into thinking that our chips are weak. Then, launch a surprise. Shake up the market. Take the crown for my self. 

What Craig said, pretty much answered most of the worries. It supports what I just described. You guys should watch it. 

I doubt they will take a crown, maybe in the watt/perf portion of the market. Both Intel and AMD suffer from the same architectural problems, although AMD is actually trying something. For the foreseeable future (several years) Apple will not have a chip that rivals the higher-end consumer Intel/AMD chips. So it obviously first targets MacBook and iMac users who don't care about performance. A great testcase though. Keeping the beefy Intel CPU's for the Mac Pro, and iMac 'pro', although that will be even worse value for money in a year from now. 

Windows exists on ARM, but many Windows software does not support it. So like most scientific software that has moved away from the Mac, there will be more software unavailable for Mac users, even with VM capability available. This will mean a lot of students will now have to buy a Windows laptop. Games will not be playable under Windows on the Mac since they are not playable on Windows ARM either.

It will be interesting to see if they will make a CPU that will be relevant for use in the MacBook Pro. And I'm very interested in developer tests with regards to build times.

They don't stand a chance of taking any crown.

ARM/Awhatever is "good enough" in mobile devices.  It's not good enough for a real computer.

Apple has made a MASSIVE mistake, and they're about to lose a lot of customers.  Virtually everyone who moved to the Mac after the Intel switch because they could still run a few critical Windoze apps WILL be leaving.  Thousands of IT departments that allowed the Mac will be banning it again.  Developers will abandon the platform.  The already mediocre Mac game scene will evaporate, virtually the only games on the platform will be iOS games.

Apple just killed the Mac.  The death throes will last years, but they're already beginning.

It's funny how people have so many definitions of "real computer". To me (I'm a professor/researcher at academia) it's a HPC platform (dozens to hundreds of Tflops/s), which has never been a Mac (Intel based or otherwise), although there are more than a few developments with Swift+Metal on that regard, particularly with the new Mac Pro.

To some, who would like to appear knowledgeable about imagined future IT policies, a real computer is all about games... don't get me wrong, I enjoy games as much as the next guy, but that has never been a tie breaker on which piece of hardware I've ever bought. My Mac, iPad and iPhone were bought with work considerations in mind.

If a developer house, particularly for games, choses to eschew macOS, iPadOS, iOS, and tvOS (I'll leave watchOS out of this) platforms... that's their choice. I'll never be so bold as to declare their death in a few years time with such an absolute certainty. And I certainly would never say that of such a company as Apple! The only major computer hardware company to have ever succeed in a platform migration (twice!!!).

As form x86(-64) itself, I say good riddance. It's long overdue... Intel itself tried to move the market away from it (remember Itanium???), being quite aware of x86 architectural bottlenecks. Then leading PC manufacturer, HP, among other, betted heavily on it, only to their collective sorrow. Market inertia gave then no room to breathe... luckily (even though luck has nothing to do with it), this does not seems to have ever bothered Apple.

michelb76 said:

SkylightActive said:

Decoy tactics. Cause Intel / AMD / Nvidia / Qualcomm are laser focused on what Apple will do next. Why would Apple handedly let the cat out of the bag before prime time? If I’m gonna launch my own chips, why would I let the competition know? I’m gonna trick them into thinking that our chips are weak. Then, launch a surprise. Shake up the market. Take the crown for my self. 

What Craig said, pretty much answered most of the worries. It supports what I just described. You guys should watch it. 

I doubt they will take a crown, maybe in the watt/perf portion of the market. Both Intel and AMD suffer from the same architectural problems, although AMD is actually trying something. For the foreseeable future (several years) Apple will not have a chip that rivals the higher-end consumer Intel/AMD chips. So it obviously first targets MacBook and iMac users who don't care about performance. A great testcase though. Keeping the beefy Intel CPU's for the Mac Pro, and iMac 'pro', although that will be even worse value for money in a year from now. 

I've seen people saying a lot of things like that about unreleased/just announced Apple products... quite more often than not, they shove their own feet, knee deep, into their mouths.

It would be no surprise, at all, to myself if Apple were to fundamentally redefine capabilities and performance per watt figures for SoC.