prismatics

dysamoria said:

prismatics said:

It remains to be seen how this program will become useful in the future. Currently it serves no purpose/it makes no difference whether it exists or not, maybe it could be the start of more consumer-friendly repair options sometime in the future. I can see Apple locking up their products with security as an inappropriate excuse (it's not even more secure than 5 years ago) to justify reducing the useful lifespan of a product.

The most important points of independent repair shops (e.g. access to original spare parts at reasonable prices and various chips, flash storage and expansibility options to extend a products useful lifespan and thus not waste resources) remain to be addressed.

Isn’t this exactly what they’re addressing? What’s the issue? Access to purchase, the pricing, what?

Concluding the experience from independent repair shops (like Rossmann Group) it does not make the parts needed to do basic repairs more accessible.  Still only replacing entire part groups for hundreds of dollars even if a simple 2$ component stopped working.

It remains to be seen how this program will become useful in the future. Currently it serves no purpose/it makes no difference whether it exists or not, maybe it could be the start of more consumer-friendly repair options sometime in the future. I can see Apple locking up their products with security as an inappropriate excuse (it's not even more secure than 5 years ago) to justify reducing the useful lifespan of a product.

The most important points of independent repair shops (e.g. access to original spare parts at reasonable prices and various chips, flash storage and expansibility options to extend a products useful lifespan and thus not waste resources) remain to be addressed.

omasou said:

entropys said:

People would be less upset about the soldering if the upgrades to storage was competitively priced with market SSDs. As it is I feel ripped off. 

If you compare the internal SSD to similar quality SSDs, I think you will not feel so ripped off.

If you run Blackmagic on the on the internal SSD and compare it to what is a relatively good external SSD like the BarraCuda Fast SSD that I referenced previously, you will see the SSD internal trounces the external SSD. To get faster you need to step up to a Thunderbolt enclosure and matching SSD, which is what you would need to install internally or better. That level of SSD is not inexpensive.

A quick price search yields around 500$ for a high-quality 3500MB/s read 1900 MB/s write ~250kIOPS 4 TB NVMe SSD. With the correct adapter from aliexpress for 2 bucks, maybe add an SSD cooling assembly for 10 bucks extra so the SSD keeps performing at maximum speed in sustained workloads. It is considerably cheaper, so yes it seems like a ripoff.

dedgecko said:

rob53 said:

The A12Z Bionic is up to 8 GPU cores. The Most powerful and expensive GPUs have cores in the thousands. What would it take for Apple to create its own separate 500 core GPU SoC or maybe only a 100 core GPU with the ability to use several of them in a blade setup. There's nothing stopping Apple, other than patents, from making whatever they want to any way they want to. Look at the Mac Pro. It's a fantastic workstation. 

Exactly. Look at their Afterburner Card. That’s a freaking monster, right there!

Afterburner is not a GPU. It is an off-the-shelf FPGA with different strengths of which vertex calculations is none.
Well if Apple wants to reinvent the 3D world, why just they don’t ask the countless game development studios.

Those "Apps" that are made by people in their free time (read open source software like KiCAD, freeCAD, GIMP or even basic stuff like the gnu-arm-none-eabi toolchain or basic embedded development tools) are going to have a really hard time continuing their existance on macOS. I believe IoT tool makers will have to switch to Linux finally (and no, virtualisation is absolutely not an option when you are working with different interfaces that you would have to forward because Apple likes to fuck everyone in this domain by stopping everyone from doing even simple things like modifying IDs in codeless kernel extensions needed for basic stuff like serial ports etc.). You know tools tend to be ancient in this domain, still maintaining compatibility with Windows 95 or even earlier system software. These kinds of Apps are developed by people with PhD where it becomes hard to justify supporting a platform where APIs change every time you take a look at them as if APIs behave like quantum particles.

In the end, many small projects focusing on developing very specialised pro tools with limited resources needed for scientific work will be left behind; I hope this situation will not happen as described above. But welp. iOS Apps on Mac and a system becoming entirely hostile towards modification in a way that is necessary for highly specialised applciations frequently found in research and development (read: where the root of all computer chippery and scientific work lies).

Can we please stop thinking in terms of everything as an "App" being limited in some way by artificial limitations imposed by financial interests? That iPad look on the Mac tells everything.

You may do research, but only as long as it benefits Apple on those Macs coming soon which is absolutely not what general purpose computing means.

macOS != iPad OS as stated last year is obviously becoming a statement which cannot be relied on any longer.