MplsP

maximara said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

The only sad thing here is the removal of the internal power supply. 

The rest is gold.

The removal of the earphone jack is weird.  Like why?

didn't you listen to Tim Cook? It takes courage to remove it and it was completely obsolete 5 years ago (which totally explains why they've kept it in every other device they make for the last 5 years.)

Edit: remember, these are not actual product images, they're renderings based on people's interpretations/guesses. They may or may not be accurate.

The Ride sharing and car sharing concepts have been around for years and have  never taken off. What makes an electric car with auto pilot suddenly different? 

YP101 said:

2022, why new Mac mini need USB-A port for? I rather it has all USB-C ports instead.
If I need USB-A port then I will use hub.

Ummm… because the majority of peripherals in use still use USB A?

it wasn’t that long ago that Apple was still shipping USB A cables with all its devices and unless you need USB 4 there’s no functional advantage to USB C.  I purchased a wireless mouse a few months ago that had a USB A dongle. Not sure what world you’re living in but USB A devices are still ubiquitous. 

lkrupp said:

darkvader said:

Hopefully they keep the internal power supply.  An external brick is a step backward.

Also, how do you open this one?  Back to the putty knife?  Annoying.  (And yes, I will be opening whatever Apple releases, it's part of what I do.)

Why? An internal power supply takes up space and by far generates the most heat of any component. External power supply means additional hardware can be added. I respectfully disagree with your take on this.

As for opening it up, that’s a non-issue. With the advent of the M1 SOC you can’t add RAM, you can’t install a bigger SSD, it’s all on the M1,so why would you need to open it up? You do know that RAM and Storage are fixed and not upgradeable, period, right?

And an external power supply doesn’t take up space? It takes up space except now you have a separate box blocking other outlets, dangling from the wall, sitting on the floor of sitting on your desk. 

longpath said:

genovelle said:

sdw2001 said:

genovelle said:

Please note that the 5G profile in France and similar countries in the EU are different because they use a fraction of the power US companies implementation ascribes to. 

But there is also no evidence that it’s actually going to disrupt anything. Taking precautions is good, though. This seems reasonable.

Think about it. Airplane mode on the iPhone was created because the cell phone signal could effect the equipment in the cockpit durning take offs and landings. The airlines know that this would not end well. 

Can you site even a single instance of a military helicopter taking down an airliner with its millimeter wave radar? Such radar pushes substantially more power than any mobile phone on the market, and substantially more than a cell site; but you would have us believe that such measures are prudent without any evidence from existing systems in the same band, with substantially higher outputs are causing the kinds of problems that less powerful US telcos hope to implement. Please, show an example of a military helicopter with millimeter wave radar causing a problem on a commercial aircraft. I’m not even asking for an example of a crash. A simple documented case of interference is all I request. Just one.

mmWave is a different area of the frequency spectrum and doesn't apply here.

 I did some more research and here's what I found:

• Aircraft altimeters use 4.2-4.4 GHz
• 5G mmWave: 24-54 GHz
• 5G cBand: 3.3-4.2 GHz
• 5G low band: <1GHz

mmWave is only useful for close range, line of sight transmission. From what I understand, the low band was already allocated and being used. The c band is new spectrum that was auctioned off by the FCC in 2020-21 and is the source of the concern. The higher c band frequencies are immediately adjacent to the frequencies used by aircraft altimeters that are relied upon in inclement weather. If signal is strong enough it's possible to cause interference in adjacent bandwidth and the altimeters in older aircraft have less robust filters to filter out noise meaning they may be susceptible to interference from towers near the airport.

The nature of radio frequencies is such that it's impossible to predict with certainty whether this will be an actual issue or not without doing extensive testing. For those that say "go ahead and see if it works," you need to consider the potential scenarios and consequences. The altimeters are used in inclement weather when the pilots can't clearly see the ground. The potential is a large commercial jet will be on final approach without clear visual of the ground and suddenly lose altimeter data at the most critical time period. 

I don't know the distribution of the frequencies between the carriers, but since they were all rolling out 5G prior to acquiring the new bandwidth in 2021 I have to assume that the c band is not critical for 5G. Even if it is, ensuring a plane can land safely trumps someone's ability to stream Desperate Housewives, IMO. It's not like 4G hasn't worked at airports until now.