Herbivore2

This one can go either way. I believe that TSMC is ahead of Intel in fabrication technology at this point. However, Intel is able to offer a solution where the modem is integrated into the SoC.

The integrated modem may be important in a product like the watch and Apple may use Intel instead of Samsung to fab the S series of watch SoCs as a result. I see that one happening. However, the phone and the iPad have much larger power supplies and not nearly as power constrained as the watch. Separate modems in these devices are much less problematic. I don't see TSMC being displaced in these products. 

How it plays out over the long term is anyone's guess. If Apple puts out a watch that can make calls independently of the phone and allows tethering of the iPad for data, such would be an ideal use situation for me and I would move from the iPhone to the watch. It should be straightforward and Apple could build an interface to allow the large battery in the iPad to feed power to the watch SoC when the devices are tethered for data, using the LTE modem in the SoC. 

Such a scenario could lead to displacement of the iPhone for the watch and Intel could win big. However, if the iPhone remains dominant, TSMC will remain the dominant supplier of chips to Apple. 

The watch seems to be the key. And if integrating the Intel modem into the S series SoC provides the better overall performance to power ratio to the combination of a separate Intel modem with a more advanced SoC from TSMC on a smaller node with InFO, Intel stands to benefit greatly. But if the TSMC chip is superior, Intel will have to rely on income from their modems primarily. 

One thing is certain. Intel will have to up their game and start delivering based on Apple's schedule. Apple will not have to wait for Intel's ability to deliver the chips. Because TSMC and Samsung are more than happy to get Intel's business. 

Number one. This is a very sophisticated exploit by a company dedicated to the task of breaking into the OS and stealing information. This was not the work of an average hacker. This involved a substantial amount of money. 

Number two. The break in still required that the user intentionally click on the link which exploited three zero day weaknesses in the software. 

Number three. Both of the targets were intended high profile victims. Both were suspicious and neither clicked on the links. The Mexican journalist noted that whoever was sending him the links were getting ever more desperate but he never took the bait or clicked the links. The human rights activist from the UAE was also suspicious and brought the link to the attention of Citizen lab who then researched the link and worked out the exploit. It was brought to Apple's attention and the patch was available in days. 

The link is here:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/government-hackers-iphone-hacking-jailbreak-nso-group

This was not a hack that was ever meant to go public or into the "wild". It was meant to be clandestine and feed the info to the agency/agencies who paid NSO to do this. 

The exploits have been patched and the company will have to start all over. They may find other exploits. But the more ominous question is what are they doing on the Android platform?

Amazon is willing to take losses in order to build a customer base. Spotify has no such option. 

Apple is willing to give away services to sell hardware. 

Spotify is in trouble. 

It's hard to believe that glass would be scratched by an object with a MOHs hardness rating of 3. Perhaps Samsung can figure out a way to diamond coat the screen. 

What did Samsung do to the glass? 

The company is trying very hard to put out a highly polished finished product and a flaw such as this makes the company look incompetent. 

Putting on a screen protector would fix the issue but this is a stunning failure from a company that is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the mobile space. Neither they nor QCOM will have an answer to the A10 or next year's A11. 

TSMC and Apple are keeping the throttle on the pace of CPU development and now clearly pulling away from Samsung and Qualcomm. This type of oversight calls into serious question Samsung's ability to remain competitive even over the near term, not even considering the long term. 

The iPhone 8 stands to rout the Android market. But the CPU in the iPhone 7 will have no competition. And the new iPhone's release is imminent. 

Microsoft has three big issues with the Surface. Battery life, cost of the machine and the machines' unreliability. 

Surface machines have a substantial tendency to break. Even Paul Thurrott the penultimate Windows evangelist is calling Microsoft on the carpet over it. 

https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft-surface/64095/welcome-to-surfacegate

My own company is pushing the surface. It has created huge headaches for them as the machines are always going down at inopportune times. Loss of video, failure to wake from sleep, failure to connect to the network and the list goes on. My iPad Pro just works. I don't worry about it "breaking."  It was also less expensive than the Surface pro. 

Then there is the issue of battery life which is superior on the iPad. 

I am still holding out hope that someone will build full USB support using the smart connector or even using the Lightning port. But even without it, for what I do, the iPad is far superior to the surface. It isn't even close. And syncing the iPad Pro to my iMac using USB-C is very fast. 

If I need a laptop I would purchase the upcoming MacBook Pro. At least the Apple machine will be built with quality. Unlike the Surface.