dewme

Sigh... It's starting to feel like the Cold War is making a comeback. Maybe the last 30 years were just a pause. Being part of the generation that fought to end the Cold War makes me shake my head in dismay to see us heading back to a time where the world was so divided and as a country you had to pick one side or the other, align with the East or align with the West. Why do we want to go back to that time? We are all very fortunate that we survived in spite of the massive paranoia, anxiety, and distrust that put the human species on the brink for more than 40 years. Why blow it now?

Totally unsurprising. We can only hope to be able to do the same thing.

I fully expect that the South Korean military has far more influence over a domestic company like Samsung than it does over Apple. If push comes to shove Samsung is far more likely to comply to "requests" from the South Korean government and military for things that Apple would not even consider doing. From a national security standpoint having domestic suppliers and manufacturers for anything that is vital to national and military security and sustainability makes a hell of a lot of sense.   

Keep in mind that these requests may need not even be controversial. They could be as benign as having Samsung continue to provide parts, components, and support for smartphone models and software versions that are no longer commercially viable for Samsung, but are still vitally important for use by the military. Other countries like the US have experienced serious parts sourcing issues as they've transitioned from mil-spec to commercial off-the-shelf parts, components, sub-systems, and systems. Same thing with a large number of production, transportation, and infrastructure related systems. 

Companies like Apple are constantly advancing the state-of-the-art when it comes to technology and innovation. Faster is always better. On the other hand, governments, the military, large manufacturing operations, transportation systems, and infrastructure operations, e.g., oil refineries, chemical processing, power generation plants, etc., have very long service lives. The pieces and parts and software needed to keep those things going aren't swapped out like we swap out our iPhones. Smartphones have certainly gotten better in terms of service life, way up from 2-year cycles early on, but they are still happening at a very fast pace. A chemical processing plant may last 25-30 years. Some of the parts needed to keep them running are no longer available. If these companies didn't buy a bunch of spares up-front, they are in real trouble.

Maintaining a strong relationship with a supplier of critical parts, etc., is important. Having a trusted supplier that's closer and within your sphere of control and influence really matters. Strategic partnerships and relationships can change very quickly. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. I know this personally from my time in the military. One day a quarter of my training class was Iranian. The next day they they were all gone, as was Iran's ability to utilize the systems and systems they had outsourced to the US. We don't want to put ourselves in that position, neither does South Korea. At a national security level this is so much bigger than Apple-vs-Samsung or iOS-vs-Android.

I hope some version of this comes to fruition. Definitely needs to support HDMI ARC.

Speaking of low hanging fruit, a wireless subwoofer for the HomePod mini would fill a gap in the mini's otherwise stellar performance for its size, especially when configured as part of a stereo pair. The HomePod mini is actually quite impressive when used in stereo pairs. It's just a bit lacking in the bass department. A sub would fix that.

If Apple does a soundbar form factor HomePod and a HomePod wireless subwoofer it world be absolutely great if existing HomePods, mini and maxi, could be used as wireless rear/satellite speakers to form 5.1, 7.1 etc., setups. The HomePod maxi has pretty good bass as is, so perhaps it could serve as a stand-in for part of the sub functionality. It may not be able to totally fill in as a sub because of its frequency response, but it may still be more than suitable for many Apple customers. Bringing all of these HomePod related components together would seemingly allow Apple to bring its spatial audio experience to larger spaces, like a home media room, home theatre, small auditorium, super man cave, etc. 

Apple obviously has the upper hand when it comes to their hardware and software. When it comes to peripherals, accessories, and discretionary attachments and add-ons, Apple seems to provide just enough to allow their customers to put together an Apple-based turnkey solution that is high enough quality. Whether it's intentional or not is debatable, but Apple seems very content to leave the door open for third parties to join in with their own offerings that usually end up straddling what Apple has to offer. Some are better than Apple's offerings and some are worse. I believe that it is entirely intentional and by-design. This is exactly the right thing to do when you want to promote, maintain, and grow your ecosystem. Apple's ecosystem would not exist if their were no third party contributions.

VictorMortimer said:

tenthousandthings said:

blastdoor said:

I recently bought a refurbished m2pro Mac mini because I gave up on an m3 mini being released. I also would not be surprised if the studio skips m3 too. 

With regard to the Mini and the iMac refresh cadences, whatever. It’s fine. But if Apple skips the M3 Ultra, they need to explain what they are doing with the silicon. It raises a lot of questions, not all of which are (how shall I put it?) strategic.

It’s not enough to just say it’s all product-driven, and they only build the silicon their products need. Everyone understands why Apple doesn’t talk about unreleased products. But expectations need to be managed.

Marketing and management needs to wake up and realize the architects and engineers need to be allowed to explain more than what is currently being explained.

My understanding is that the M3 is based on a dead end as far as process tech goes.

Apple's failure to release roadmaps has been a huge problem for years.  It's why we're forced to rely on rumors sites like this one for planning purposes.

Why? Just curious, but do you or your company/employer release product roadmaps to the public? Apple is in a highly competitive market and doesn't want to telegraph what they're working on to their competitors. I'm sure Apple's shareholders are in no mood to have Apple spill the beans on what is in the product pipeline to the competition. Some companies like Microsoft used to play fast & loose with telling too many people, especially developers, what was in the pipeline, only to go on to fail to deliver what they promised. Sometimes they did this to freeze the competition, create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the market, and get developers (and partners and investors) lined up to commit to what was supposedly coming only to have egg on their face for trusting Microsoft when they failed to deliver.  The reality is that roadmaps also have a lot of uncertainty and the further you project the more what seems like concrete turns into jello.

In general, architects and engineers should not be talking to anyone outside of the company unless expressly tasked with doing so under very constrained conditions. When they do talk, it's usually behind closed with NDAs in place. Apple's secrecy is not just to benefit from the wow factor of public announcements, it's also important to preserve the trust relationships with their partners, select customers, channel partners, and investors who have been given insight, i.e., established expectations, into what is coming so they can hit the ground running when the new Apple product drops, e.g., accessory makers, case makers, high profile app developers, etc.

Apple owes absolutely nothing to rumor mongers and speculators who earn a living weaving their rumors and prognostications. Worse yet, when they do gain access to privileged information by forming relationships with unscrupulous Apple employees or channel partners who have neither respect nor loyalty to their benefactors or those who have  trusted them to live up to their obligations, legal and moral. We don't get to decide how or when Apple sets expectations surrounding upcoming product releases. That's something that Apple's senior executives like Tim Cook get to decide on their owns terms, not ours. We have no skin in the game. Apple has its entire hide in the game and Tim Cook is responsible for ensuring that Apple doesn't get skinned alive.