canukstorm

kruegdude said:

Soli said:

1) I think bridgeOS is also what Apple calls the OS on their T1 chip for the Touch Bar, Touch ID, and Apple Pay in their MacBook Pros.

• http://newosxbook.com/articles/BridgeOS.html

2) I'm curious why the 'B' is being capitalized when all other Apple OSes have the first letter lowercase.

3) A10 seems like overkill for the stated functionality, and with FaceTime mentioned I hope that this means the iMac Pro will also include Face ID.

4) Is this still launching next month?

Since the A10 will also be used in the HomePod I’m guessing it’s easier to use that fabrication already in place rather than have two different lines. Too bad it’s not the A11 with its new Apple GPU and the new Neural Engine. 

SpamSandwich said:

78Bandit said:

flaneur said:

78Bandit said:

Wow, kiss Apple good-bye if it does turn out to be true.  Apple has already lost a lot of its innovative spirit with the death of Steve Jobs.  Tim Cook is a great supply chain guy but is having difficulty doing much more than polishing the iPhone line as much as possible.  To even suggest that a marketing executive whose experience is primarily in fashion goods would be an appropriate leader for one of the greatest technological companies in the world is ludicrous.

Apple would do well to take a note from Microsoft.  Steve Balmer did his best to ruin it because he simply didn't have the technical ability to see where the company needed to be in five-to-ten years.  Now they've finally got someone back in the big chair who has degrees in electrical engineering and computer science as well as an MBA.  You need to be a high-level user of your company's products to be able to predict where the future lies.  Nadella is doing a lot to turn Microsoft around.

Apple needs to be grooming a talented engineer with great design skills to be the next CEO.

Cook's various remarks on Augmented Reality alone refute your simplistic view. You are thinking like a typical left-brained Microsoftie.

Jobs left behind a design and vision PROCESS, an entire system of innovation that's basically centered on Ive-and-company's labs. (Even Ive's innovation and design strategies are distributed across the process/system.)

You can't see this working for another reason besides your hemispheric blindness to the big picture — the coming AR revolution depends on wearable screen technologies that aren't up to Apple's standards yet. Pay attention to micro LED development, along with the usual chip miniaturization from Apple. Cook knows exactly he's doing, and he has many visionary hardware people in his retinue.

Personal attacks aside, I stick by my belief that a company like Apple needs a visionary at the top, not a manager of processes implemented by a person who has been dead for years, and certainly not a fashion marketing expert.  Apple needs a leader who is passionate about technology advancements and has a strong desire to make great, innovative products for as many people as possible.  If Tim Cook is that person he hides it well.  His focus seems to be on revenue growth, manufacturing efficiency, and social issues while he lets others in the company focus on product development.  There certainly are "many visionary hardware people in his retinue" and it is one of them that needs to be groomed to be the next CEO.

Whatever happens, I see Cook moving further into politics and handing his post off to the next person... possibly in the next 4-5 years.

kevin kee said:

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

cpsro said:

"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.

*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*

What's yours remains yours.... 

It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all  of your data

Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?

Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers.
In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that.
Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.

Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk. 

Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further. 

"while not up to Google levels".
EXACTLY.  So it is not bunk, then?

"not up to Google levels"
This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?

No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here.
No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.

It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....

Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?

Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.

“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.

That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.

boltsfan17 said:

randominternetperson said:

No mention of what OS this runs?

I assume this is running ChromeOS. 

tmay said:

ericthehalfbee said:

I'm not buying the idea there's 4 high performance cores. Maybe it's:

2 High performance cores
2 High efficiency cores
2 Nueral processing cores

Yeah, I'm in agreement, albeit the Neural processing cores will be fairly small in this generation; just enough to power Siri in standalone mode in the future.

Apple is building increased specializing onto the die, simply because they have the architectural team. the OS and the development system, to create the best tradeoff between performance and efficiency.

Remember a few weeks ago around here, when there were a couple of folks touting the Snapdragon 835 and 845, and the Kirin 970? I'm guessing that they will have to move the goal posts yet again.

Edit;

Okay, so "Longhorn" states that he has the details on the cpu's, and it's 4 big and 2 little, in which case, the Neural processing cores would have to be on the SOC if they exist. That would also imply that the interconnections among the 4 large CPU's would have to be of an improved, evolved, design, and I'm guessing at a new level of bandwidth; maybe we are seeing the first processor suitable for an ARM analog to the Mac Book, less x86 of course. Where would Apple go for an 11X version but to beef up the number of GPGPU's?