tmay
About
- Username
- tmay
- Joined
- Visits
- 616
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 10,725
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 6,470
Reactions
-
Apple transition to own ARM chips in Macs rumored to start at WWDC
My speculation is that Apple will engineer much more thermal headroom, and a larger die, into an ARM Book than there is in an iPad, so I would expect a notable performance differential between the two.GeorgeBMac said:scatz said:I'm going with low end laptops for Arm processors. Bring back the "Affordable" iBook name. Price around the same as iPads.
You prefer a tablet, iPad is for you. Prefer a laptop, then pick an iBook, maybe have a bunch of colour choices.....6 months ago that was true. But now, with the Magic Keyboard, the iPad makes a pretty fair laptop too.Since both will have variations of the same processor, excellent screens and audio, this will be interesting!
From a marketing standpoint, Apple would want to do that to set themselves up as superior to Qualcomm's notebook SOC's that have been released, or are planned.
-
Apple transition to own ARM chips in Macs rumored to start at WWDC
By the time the ARM Mac's appear, Thunderbolt 3 will be integral with USB 4.0, and that's what I would expect. Curious if we will see either PCIe 5 or 6 incorporated into the architecture.longpath said:
If it gains thunderbolt 3, I’d be all for it.kpom said:Nice. Hopefully they bring back the 12” MacBook.
-
Apple researching audio system that uses speaker airflow for cooling
There was some research on using aerodynamic "flutter" in horizontal vanes/surfaces to generate electricity from the wind, presumably from piezoelectric materials incorporated in the surfaces.dewme said:Sound is a physical force, so yeah, this makes sense. I recall a college professor of mine showing me a tiny piezoelectric based cooling device with little flaps that could provide totally quiet cooling in a very confined space. It looked promising. GE eventually patented a piezoelectric cooling jet technique in 2004 and sold it off to a Japanese company. Not sure whether it ever gained widespread application, but the whole notion of using vibration, whether induced by speaker voice coils or piezoelectric crystals, to move air is fully reasonable. As with most technology that involves secondary or opportunistic “harvesting” of energy that would otherwise be ignored or wasted, it all comes down to efficiency and whether the intended benefit is worth the added complexity and cost. Inventions only become innovations if they can be put to practical use for the benefit of mankind. Otherwise, they’re just cool ideas, no pun intended.
-
Apple reportedly trying to fill Apple TV+ with content back catalog
Just some perspectiveGeorgeBMac said:Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc. But then, for the most part, that's all that was available. And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.Apple can't roll back that clock.Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.Studio Entertainment
Disney's Studio Entertainment segment is engaged in motion picture production and distribution through the Walt Disney Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, and other companies. The segment also produces and distributes live entertainment and music, among other activities. Revenue comes from licensing motion pictures to theaters; sale of motion pictures in DVD, Blu-ray, and other formats; and licensing fees, stage play ticket sales, and post-production services.
Studio Entertainment's revenue grew 10.6% during FY 2019 to $11.1 billion, comprising about 16% of both Disney's total revenue and operating income. The segment's operating income fell 10.6% to $2.7 billion in FY 2019.
Geven how profitable Apple is, you can forgive them for not running out and blowing "excess cash" on a business that doesn't earn anywhere near the margins that they currently enjoy for services and devices. Current leaders in streaming aren't actually generating piles of cash.
Compared to Netflix;
Netflix's Financials
Netflix has posted negative cash flow since 2011 due largely to the company's strategy of spending heavily to finance growth, including the production of original entertainment. Despite that negative cash flow, Netflix has seen significant gains to its net income and revenue in recent years. For the fiscal year 2019, annual net income was $1.9 billion, up 54.1% year-over-year (YOY).
In 2019, Netflix reported revenue of $20.2 billion, up 27.6% YOY. Like net income, Netflix's revenue has grown at an impressive clip. Since 2015, for instance, revenue has nearly tripled and net income has grown by more than 14 times.
Apple's revenues from 2019; $260 B and net profit, $55.3 B
It suggests that Apple doesn't need to rush into any large M&A, but can grow its studio and media assets organically, while licensing content.
-
Chip maker TSMC confirms plan to open $12 billion factory in Arizona
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/30/huawei-5g-europe-united-states-china/avon b7 said:
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.tmay said:
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.GeorgeBMac said:dewme said:
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.SpamSandwich said:
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.dewme said:
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.avon b7 said:I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
Thanks so much.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.
Forbes has an interesting story that leads to TSMC;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyshih/2020/05/15/tsmcs-announcement-of-a-us-fab-is-big-news/#7163a7b62340"TSMC has a remarkable history
TSMC’s roots go back to the Science and Technology Advisory Group (STAG) established by the Government of Taiwan in 1979. That group included Frederick Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. and a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, Bob Evans, a key figure in the development of IBM IBM’s System/360, and Kenneth G. Mackay, executive vice president of Bell Labs and a pioneer in communications engineering. The STAG played a key role in pushing Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) to investigate semiconductors. ITRI’s Electronics Research and Service Organization (ERSO) eventually licensed RCA’s CMOS semiconductor process, and sent a team of 35 engineers from Taiwan and five overseas Chinese living in the U.S. to New Jersey in 1976 to learn the technology and transfer it back to Taiwan, where a demonstration production facility was setup. That project was spun off as United Microelectronics UMC in 1982, though the demonstration facility continued to churn out 15,000 wafers a month"
"In the early 1980s, Carver Mead at the California Institute of Technology began advocating a new approach for dealing with the complexity of very-large-scale integration (VLSI) design, in which the manufacturing of ICs would be separated from the design process. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated projects to develop electronic design tools that enabled the separation of the design process from the manufacturing. This was the birth of the concept of having a separate “foundry” that would contract manufacture chips for multiple customers. "
Those design tools, todays versions, are exactly those tools that the U.S. has or will intend to block from China, which would include HiSilicon. No tools, would mean huge difficulties in designing new silicon.
