GG1
About
- Username
- GG1
- Joined
- Visits
- 205
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,159
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 483
Reactions
-
The top 50 features in iOS 16 that will make your iPhone better
This is a nice summary for those, such as myself, that don't play with the betas.Translate looks nice; I can ditch a few apps for this inbuilt feature.I was wanting Apple Watch Mirroring a few years ago. I ended up buying a Garmin bike computer, but I could see that this feature could replace it for basic info (the Garmin computer does track a lot of info that the current "cycle" workout on the Watch app doesn't include). Between this feature and forthcoming Apple Watch Pro, Apple are slowly encroaching on Garmin's territory.
-
Elon Musk says he talked with Apple about satellite communication
dk49 said:Connecting to Starlink requires a big dish. How will the iPhone overcome that?There's another informative AI article on this feature. The consensus from the comments is that Globalstar are providing the satellite connection.From Wikipedia, Globalstar have 24 LEO satellites providing worldwide coverage. So their orbits should be well-known to the iPhone (based on time and GPS location).So why doesn't the iPhone 14 need a big dish? Because the data rate is VERY LOW, probably 10's of kb/s or even lower. This makes the required signal-to-noise ratio to get the signal out very low, so a small (poor performance) antenna on the iPhone would be sufficient IF pointed correctly (directly at one of the 24 satellites).Apple mentioned that a data compression algorithm will greatly minimize the amount of data to be sent, so sending a few hundred bytes at a very slow rate would take less than a minute, or a few minutes with several retries. I would expect some sort of error correction in the data to help with transmission accuracy. See Shannon's limit.What I don't know is if there is an acknowledgement back to the iPhone. I eagerly await AI's promised article on the physics behind this service!Edit: upon second thought, an ack to the iPhone should be possible, as the weak link (no pun intended) is the iPhone-to-satellite connection. The satellite has much higher power than the iPhone, so I suspect you will get an ack on the iPhone.
-
RCS is still half-baked, and Apple has no reason to adopt it
silverwarloc said:Here's a link from ArsTechnica. Provides a little more technical background and history: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/new-google-site-begs-apple-for-mercy-in-messaging-war/I was going to reference that article. The one section that caught my attention was this:"If you want to implement RCS, you'll need to run the messages through some kind of service, and who provides that server? It will probably be Google. Google bought Jibe, the leading RCS server provider, in 2015."Furthermore, Google's RCS API implements end-to-end encryption, but that API is proprietary and not available to third parties, according to the Ars article. The AI article mentions that end-to-end encryption is not part of the RCS protocol (per carrier implementation).
-
Apple had a M1 Mac Pro, but decided to wait for M2 Extreme
9secondkox2 said:
Start with Apple Maps…crowley said:
Apple planned to launch the Mac Pro at WWDC.9secondkox2 said:
Of course those items needed to be laid out and built but it’s a known quantity. Apple was developing the Mac pro and testing likely indicated the m1 ultra or adoubled up version of that wasn’t what they wanted to share a awe as the best they could do. Somewhere in the testing process, the decision was made to not launch at wwdc. And since wwdc I planned far in advance, this gave more than enough time - in a relatively short period of time - to build a stretch Mac mini and have it ready shortly thereafter. It’s not some new avant-garde industrial design and the motherboard isn’t some feat of engineering.crowley said:
It's a completely different logic board, completely different cooling, completely different port construction. There's no reason to think it went through any less of a design process than any other new Apple product, which would not be "a very short period of time". No way.9secondkox2 said:
I’m skeptical of this.Fidonet127 said:Due to the timeline of how long Apple said they will replace Macs with ASi versions, I don’t think M1 Pro version was really designed. The mini will stay as the consumer computer, the Studio will stay as the prosumer low to medium pro computer, and the Pro will be the high end. The Studio will not cut it for someone who needs 1.5tb of memory and lots of processing power. Yes the Sudio beats some configurations of the Mac Pro. The Studio wasn’t designed in a short time. The Studio took awhile to design and announced when they were ready.The Studio is basically a stretch Mini. They just had to take the Mini CAD files, edit the vertical dimensions, add perforations and port cutouts, and attach a simple tapered and perforated cylinder to the bottom.The whole thing could have been designed, tested, and machined in a very short period of time, including the big honking fan assembly - which probably explains the numerous fan issues in the first run.As Gurkan noted, apple planned to launch the Mac Pro at wwdc but then decided against it.There is no way they would have launched the studio and the pro at the same time. They just needed to buy time with a product that doesn’t have a legacy to live up to and can perform for those who need/want the power.It’s not bad that it’s a bit of a bridge. It’s just that apple needed to get some serious performance clout but it’s lauded machine is not ready.
Apple decided against it.
WWDC is planned so far in advance so they were able to design the Mac Studio in the intermission.
No chance. What in Apple's track record has ever suggested a rush released panic product? Absolutely no chance.
and seriously, as I’ve said before about the Mac studio and another just mentioned about the studio display, there is smoke to the fire of a bit of a rush. Apples version of rushing isn’t the same as others, but it definitely didn’t have the full bake.Add to that the reporting that the max pro was originally to launch at that time and there would be no room for a Studio Mac mini nipping at its heels.The Studio is a relatively quickly developed product to fill a hole left by a Mac Pro delay. It fits the iMac reporting also where we were told we’d be getting a 32 inch iMac, but then months later we’re told it was going to be 27” and then it was just a monitor. This all fits with the idea that the Mac Pro had to be pushed back and the iMac wasn’t quite ready either so the studio was put together to put something worthwhile out there. Apple needs to sell the now, so then we hear the 27” iMac is end of life and Mac Pro is still coming someday. Would be difficult to sell studios if people knew a new alpha iMac was coming. Next thing we know, we hear of a 32” iMac coming next year. Then we hear the m2 high end is going to 3nm.It all fits. The breadcrumbs are there. That’s not yo disparage the studio. It’s s great machine. It has the performance chops, the smooth Mac mini design, proper I/O. It is an outlier and a perfect product to fill in the gap left by a dearth of Mac Pro and iMac hardware.The studio display shortcomings, the m1 ultra performance being held back a bit, and the Mac Studio initial fan issues all continue to point to products that were developed in a relatively short period of time. It’s a testament to Apples quality that they can build such killer products even when they need to do so in something of a pinch.Your idea is plausible given the COVID situation for a hardware company that probably didn't have not enough people present on site to develop and test the hardware per the original schedule. You cannot test and optimise hardware as well remotely as you can in person. So I suspect only a skeleton crew were present during the development & testing of all the M1-based products, and some decisions were not optimal or were rushed or changed. -
Rumored Apple Watch Pro could cost $900
From the article:"That smartwatch will be designed to appeal to extreme sports athletes and anyone who might otherwise buy a high-end Garmin sports watch for intense workouts," Gurman writes.A high-end Garmin Fenix watch is already at this price point (or more for the $1K Epix), so the AW Pro is comparable in price. The article makes it clear that it's not a boutique Edition version or to be cross-shopped with a Rolex or Omega.My big question is: can this AW Pro match the battery life of the (much larger) Garmin?
