muthuk_vanalingam

fred1 said:

Not to pick nits, but the correct word is remuneration, not renumeration. 

Wow, I have been making this mistake for quite sometime. Learnt it now, thank you.

tht said:

The 20+ inch folding display product makes a lot more sense to me. It’s going to be expensive, but you are making something that is not portable, say 22” monitor, into something that can be transported in a backpack or by your arm. 

A folding iPad mini? Doesn’t make sense. It’s already quite portable, and you can buy it for about $500. 

Making that a folding form factor is going to double the price at minimum and the benefit is putting it into your pants pocket? OLED is nice and all, but a $1000 folding iPad mini doesn’t sound like a winning product. 

Agreed. And it won't be $1000 foldable iPad mini. It would be $2000 foldable iPad mini in the initial year due to combination of component costs, relatively low volumes, recouping the R&D etc.

foregoneconclusion said:

dewme said: The Netflix CEO is pretty much at the same place that many of us are at with Vision Pro - "we'll see where things go" which means we will wait and see. I'm waiting too. The big difference is we're all waiting because there is about $4K of our hard earned cash on the line and we don't really know for sure how this thing will fit into our lives other than the gee-whiz and oh-wow factor

If you know how an 100" 4K OLED TV would fit into your life then you already know how the AVP would fit. And you would be saving multiple thousands of dollars by getting the AVP instead of the TV. 

By purchasing an AVP for each of your family members. /s

elijahg said:

Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

I have lost respect for Apple over this.

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

gatorguy said:

danox said:

gatorguy said:

danox said:

ursues_1 said:

danox said:

jacob_rad said:

Though I praise the ethical stand point that Apple has taken, doing so will ensure their loss. The data that these companies will provide will be infinitely smaller than the huge mountains of data that companies such as OpenAI and Google have.

Also, having to rely on third parties will only slow them down. There are claims that regulations will be passed which may hinder companies such as Google which is scraping the internet for data, I assure you nothing like that will happen in the states. Currently, the world is in a race and no country can afford to be behind, no government (barring EU, duh) is foolish enough to hinder this fledgling field.

Also, Apple is a hardware company unlike Google which is a true software company, they have more areas to integrate and monetise AI.

So in short Apple should steal it? Apple can't win either way they go? By the way the quality of the data is more important than the quantity of data. Building anything in AI is going to require brains, focus, iteration and discipline.

What good is artificially handicapping yourself, when at this point we can't even say if it's legal or not. Apple is only hurting itself.

Google has decades worth of data and their deepmind division is the leader in AI research. The only reason they were behind OpenAI is because they were caught by surprise and are quickly catching up.

Is that why everything on the Pixel 8 Pro has to phone home to elicit a response because of the deep mind? Phoning home to a tensor (me too) processor that is weaker than the 11 Pro iPhone with a bad modem to boot isn't progress...

Some things do, most things don't. Smartphones aren't yet prepared to host the most resource-hogging features fully, and even then many of the Pixel 8 Pro features can't be done by Apple's iPhone at all, cloud servers or not. 

Magic Eraser is done right on the Pixel handset. Best Take works on device, no internet connection is required. Audio Magic Eraser is handled on the device too. Gboard Smart Replies happen directly on the Pixel 8, as will AI summaries in the Google Recorder app, and Zoom Enhance (better than expected!). Call screening is also on-device. The latest Google Nano Generative AI also runs on-device. 

Three features require the cloud: AI Wallpaper, Magic Editor, and Video Boost.

The Tensor just sucks in comparison to Apple and Qualcomm SOC'S 

Two companies with long histories of chip development, one far longer than the other of course, are better at it than a company who first released their own design Tensor chip less than three years ago? What a shock, right? Well of course it "sucks in comparison".

Going back to Qualcomm would be a huge mistake since it would put them back at Qualcomm's mercy for supporting firmware updates longer than three years.

Apple had to start someplace with their own chip designs, and it wasn't at the top. Give 'em time to walk first.

My opinion is that Google has handicapped itself in the last 3 years with the Tensor SoCs in their Pixel 6/7/8 lineups. Tensor SoCs made the Pixel phones significantly worser compared to the other phones in their price range. And the issue is NOT with the design of the SoC per se. Because the Tensor's CPU utilizes ARM's generic cores - X1/X2/X3 for high performance, A78/A710/A715 for mid level performance and A55/A510 for low performance, with very little tweaking done for the additional features that Google wanted to include in the SoC.

The actual issue is with the foundry (Samsung's foundry) where the SoCs are manufactured. Qualcomm had the exact same issue for SD 888/888+ SoCs in 2021 and SD Gen 1 in first half of 2022. But then they ditched Samsung's foundry and switched to TSMC's foundry for fabbing their recent flagship SoCs SD 8+ Gen 1, SD 8 Gen 2 and SD 8 Gen 3. Why Google didn't switch the fab to TSMC at least this year (after 2 years of missteps with Samsung's foundry) is a million dollar question that only Google's management can answer. But, it is hindering them big-time in terms of peak performance, efficiency AND most importantly reputation. With Samsung struggling with their foundry, switching to TSMC made SoC (their own design or Qualcomm SD 8 Gen 3 or Mediatek's Dimensity 9300) is the only viable option left over for Google to salvage the reputation of Pixel phones worldwide next year.