techconc

The A15 is a nice upgrade.  Now, if only the Apple TV had a few decent games... 

tenthousandthings said:

I hold out hope that the M2 Pro will find its way into the iMac and the new Mac Mini (6x6") as an option, along with the M2.

I was really hoping for a 27" iMac with an M1 Pro / M1 Max option.  I've given up hope and just put in the order for an M1 Max Studio (4TB, 64GB) and Apple Studio display.  That's probably what I wanted anyway, but I figured the all-in-one would be a better deal. 

danox said:

Apple right now has no real competition right now (it won’t last), Apple appears to sitting around dithering (they appear to be making marketing not tech decisions), overlap releases long term isn’t going to work, Apple didn’t take 13 years to replace Intel, because Intel, or those other sub standard companies like IBM, and Motorola before them did a good job. Apple’s cumulative experience with those chip makers let to the A and M series, and that is leading them to replace the Qualcomm modem in time.

The performance of the M series is too great not to put it into servers (give Qualcomm nothing) and that is no different than expanding the A series into mainstream computers which most people even on this site said they would not do. (Intel forever?).

Apple timing on the releases of the M series should be across the entire range of Mac’s at the same time, the M2 Max? in the next MacBook Pro probably stands a very good chance of out performing the current just released M1 Mac Studio. (Not good) but we shall see.

Apple’s hardware in current times has been all over in and out, Laptop keyboards, HomePods, MagSafe, Curated Monitors, Monitor Web Cam, Mac Pro’s, next up Apple router’s coming back? Pardon if there is some concern….

Again, I don't think you understand how this works.  Apple doesn't just develop the M1 and then magically all of the other variants of the M1 are ready to go.  They do much of this work in parallel.  The core tech goes into the A series chips and then teams of engineers scale it up for the M series of chips.  It takes time to do this.  No amount of wishful thinking or even throwing money at the problem will change that.

Again, Apple is NOT in the server business.  Nobody is denying that Apple Silicon couldn't be well adapted for servers.  However, Apple's SoCs are NOT optimized for servers.  They are optimized for mobile and desktop devices.  Servers are almost exclusively about CPU processing power.  Only a fraction of Apple's SoCs are dedicated to CPU.  There is also the GPU, the NPU, media encoders/decoders, secure enclave, etc, etc. that have nothing to do with servers.  

Finally, there are already other ARM based server providers that offer great performance and efficiency over Intel based chips.  In fact, the most powerful supercomputer today is now ARM based.  Yes, Apple could make a play here if they were actually competing in that market, but they are not.  

9secondkox2 said:

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.  

I’m skeptical of this. 

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. 

Another person that doesn't understand how long it actually takes to go from an idea to an actual shipping product.  Hint: It's at least a 2 year process.  Suggesting that someone just edits their Mini CAD file and just pumps out a new product at the last minute is pretty comical.  I get why you might think that's actually possible, but reality is a bit different than that.

tht said:

The rumor is that the M2 Pro/Max will be TSMC 3nm products. That will buy about +15% clock speed increase or about a -15% decrease in power consumption. So, net-net, it's going to be pretty darn good. We will know in about 2 months when the iPhones come out. If the A16 is fabbed on 3nm, odds are pretty good that the M2 Pro and Max SoCs will be 3nm.

I'd be surprised if the M2 Pro/Max are tabbed on the 3nm process, even if the A16 is.  This is a new node and the yields would likely be low initially.  In fact, the rumor suggests only the Pro models will get the A16 chip.  I suspect part of that decision (if true) is due to yield issues based on when the 3nm process goes live.  I'd also expect all M2 related products to be on the same node.  We'll see how this plays out.

freediverx said:

rob53 said:

So, Samsung owns patents on a camera system and our stupid USPTO and corrupt courts in Texas will keep other companies from creating a similar camera system, something that was designed a couple centuries ago. I wouldn't call it a periscope lens module, I'd simply call it a miniature telephoto lens, something that every camera maker has built. 

“There are varying ways to construct a periscope lens especially when it comes to how a company moves the lens’s barrel. Apple wants to use a ball actuator to move the lens barrel, which is in contrast to the spring actuator that it currently uses on its iPhones. Unfortunately for Apple, Samsung — who has a technical lead on the technology over Apple — holds that patent.”

“Faced with this issue, Apple will either have to change its entire design to avoid using the patented technology or will have to pay Samsung a fee to license the rights to the patent. Both are of course options for the tech giant, but it is likely not a choice the company was expecting to have to make.”

https://petapixel.com/2021/09/03/apples-periscope-lens-plans-stymied-by-samsung-patent-report/

I wouldn't believe every story you read on this topic.  Apple has their own patents on a periscope lens design.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/07/13/iphone-periscope-lens-patent/

I find the responses in this thread far more amusing than anything the story has to offer.  

That said, I'd like to respond to a few points.

1. Those who suggest this isn't a loss for Apple are wrong.  Full stop.  It's not a big deal in the scheme of things and Apple will find others to do the work.  However, if you're well known in the industry and even have a wikipedia page based on your accomplishments, you probably have something valuable to offer.  The point being, taking a hard nosed approach to such working arrangements will result in a loss of very talented people that have choices to work elsewhere.  What you end up with are less talented people who have fewer employment choices that accept such terms. 

2. This is a complex problem.  All jobs are not the same.  Apple is trying to push a "1 size fits all" solution to something that really needs to be addressed at a department level, not a company-wide level.  The job of any manager is to get the maximum work done by your team.  If that is effectively accomplished from home and makes for happier employees, then that's the model companies should adopt.  

3. A hybrid solution seems to work the best.  Let's face it, life, especially work life, is not the same after COVID.  Unless you're working in retail, you've had a taste of working from home.  For most people in most jobs, that's preferable.  OTOH, there is value in face to face meetings and collaborations.  A hybrid solution really satisfies both.  I'm going in once per week now.  That's a nice balance.  Our workgroup all agrees to be in on the same day and we schedule meetings for that purpose on that day.  

4.  WFH doesn't imply a work-life imbalance as some suggest.  I occasionally get an e-mail later in the evening.  I feel no obligation to answer it just because someone sent it after hours.  If that's what works for them, great.  As long as people are responsive during core business hours, that's all that should be required or expected.  Similarly, if I choose to send an e-mail after hours, I don't expect anyone to respond to it until the next day.