techconc

Here are my initial thoughts...

Positives

• On the positive side, I do believe Apple will bring a best in class product to market.  As this type of device goes, this does look pretty cool (for what it is).

Negatives

• Apple continues to completely miss the boat on gaming.  The demo should have feature a AAA game as a reference for what is possible for others.  A vague mention of Apple Arcade doesn't cut it. 
• "Starting price" of $3499 pretty much makes this a non-starter from the majority of people who don't actually need a device like this.  

Maybe at half the price, with some future version maybe based on something like an M5 chip and a large catalog of games, etc. would this be compelling for me.  I'm curious to try it, but doubt I'd get one anytime soon (after it's released).

CarPlay support is simply table stakes at this point for any new car purchase.  Years ago, I've already walked away from a car deal simply because that manufacturer was late to support CarPlay.  I'll likely buy an EV in the future, but I don't think the infrastructure is where I expect it to be yet.  So, my next purchase will be a traditional engine... and a vehicle that supports CarPlay.  

I think GM is being cautious about their decision though.  They're not simply dumping CarPlay from all new models.  Rather just their new EV models.  That's going to be a small percentage of their business.  They'll have time to see if that strategy is working or not.  Likely, it won't in the long run. 

I really hate it when Apple makes features for just the Max sized phone.  I don't care about the price, I just don't want to carry a phone that big. I'm due for an upgrade and I'd love to see this feature in the regular iPhone 15 pro. 

It's good to see AMD trying to be competitive.  When they compare themselves to Apple Silicon they've effectively acknowledging that Apple Silicon is the leader in this space.  As others have mentioned, Apple Silicon does scale well.  Where is the comparison to the M2 Pro or M2 Max for example?  Further, the Cinebench benchmark is very much cherry picking as it's the one example of a commercial application that is actually able to make heavy use of Intel's Hyperthreading (SMT).  Also, the M2 is a SoC, not just a CPU.  Where are the media encoding / decoding tests that anyone doing video editing would benefit from?  Finally, anything just being announced now will very realistically be competing with the M3 (due out in a couple months).  The M3 is expected to have a new CPU and GPU design and also be built on the leading edge 3nm process. 

TeslaDomination said:

No sarcasm. Designing chips is easy. It’s just an economics problem rather than a technical one. Chip design is a commodity skill set with a low skill ceiling compared to developing a bleeding-edge node.

Notice that M2’s performance gain from M1 is exactly the same percent as TSMC’s transistor density increase. It’s all fab process. Design has little to do with it.

Designing simple chips can be considered straight forward.  Optimizing chip performance is not a commodity skill.  As for the M2, yes, that's just a minor iterative bump of the same overall design.  Now try comparing Samsung and Qualcomm's attempts on the same manufacturing process.  Samsung found the hard way that optimizing for performance and efficiency isn't quite so easy.   Also, having worked for a semiconductor, I can say with authority that your attempt to trivialize the skill needed for optimal chip design is simply inaccurate.