cloudguy

"To the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Intel Core i5 and 16GB of RAM which has a dedicated Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 card"

Huh? Intel Iris Plus is an integrated GPU. Intel didn't start making discrete GPUs again until this year with the Iris Xe Max.

Also - and I have mentioned this in the past - the Intel Core i5 in the MBP is a quad core chip. Comparing it to the octacore Apple M1 chip is apples versus oranges (pun not intended). Comparisons between the octacore Intel Core i9 and especially the hexacore Intel Core i7 is what I wish to see. Sadly, all the Core i7 and Core i9 MBP devices have actual dedicated graphics cards.

What needs to be done: 
1. Get a Dell XPS 13 7390. It contains the latest hexacore Intel chip but does not have a GPU (it has "Intel UHD graphics")
2. Dump the Windows 10 OS.
3. Replace Windows 10 with Ubuntu 20.04 desktop. (Yes, I know that macOS isn't Unix or Linux ... but it isn't as if we can get macOS on that hardware.)
4. Take one of the 8 GB RAM sticks out. 
5. Crank the 4K laptop screen down to 1080p or 720p.
6. Run this same machine learning test. 6 x86 core chip with integrated graphics and 8 GB of RAM versus 8 core ARM chip with the same.

Now of course any tie would go to the runner - Apple - in this case. The Intel chip is on a 14nm process so it runs very hot and uses a ton of power. (Latest word on the street is that Intel's 10nm process is suffering from very low yields and TSMC doesn't have the capacity to help them out, so they are considering going to Samsung.) Also, that Intel chip costs about $400. The Apple M1 costs $100 to make tops. 

But anything to get actual useful benchmarks here instead of having 8 core chips beat up on the dual core Intel i3 chip that was in the $999 MBA and $799 Mac Mini. Also, for the record, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx also has similar benchmarks to the Intel Core i5 in the entry level MacBook Pro. (Its problems are with Windows 10, not the CPU. Put ChromeOS or ARM Ubuntu on a Surface Pro X and it would run fine.) Of course, the M1 runs circles around the 8CX while tap dancing on its head. But that just shows that beating the Intel "mobile" i3 and i5 chips that have 2 or 4 cores and run at 1.1 and 1.8 GHz really isn't that big a deal.

"The announcement comes after Apple Music was added to Google's smart speaker lineup. This shows Apple is not shy to include its media services on alternate platforms."

Yeah ... Apple Music was added to Google's smart speaker lineup years after it was added to Amazon's and 2.5 years after the release of the original HomePod. Apple TV+ will also come to the Android ecosystem over a year after having been launched on massive ecosystems like lgOS, Tizen and Roku OS. So replace "not shy" with "kicking and screaming as a last resort." Apple Music was added to Google Assistant speakers only after/because Apple had to finally accept that the platform wasn't going to fail. Which to be fair Google Home speakers did but Nest branding as well as getting third party manufacturers on board - the Lenovo "smart alarm clock" Google Assistant devices have been a popular stocking stuffer, especially the $25 one that is essentially a Nest Mini with the same sort of display that you see on cheap fitness trackers which displays time and weather - revived it. And getting it on Android TV - Chromecast with Google TV first followed by Android TV in general a few months thereafter which will be inclusive of set top boxes and smart TVs - is a clear reflection on subscriber numbers, which aren't that large even after over a year of giving it away to everyone who buys so much as a $329 iPad or $160 Apple TV, and soon the promo period (which was extended) and Apple will need to see how many people renew. 

Had HomePods, Apple TV sales and Apple TV+ subscriptions met internal expectations, Apple Music and Apple TV+ would be no more likely to be on Google Assistant and Android than iCloud is. While Apple could certainly make money off an iCloud app on Android - it would be useful for the many people who own an Android phone but an iPad and/or MacBook - so many iPhone, iPad and macOS users pay for cloud storage that they don't need to. 

Some added context: normally TSMC is manufacturing flagship chips for both Apple and Qualcomm right now. However TSMC attempted to use the A14 and M1 business from Apple, Zen 4 business from AMD (all 5nm) as well as potential 7nm server CPU business from Intel to try to charge Qualcomm more money for delivering the Snapdragon 888 LATER. Samsung promptly stepped in and pitched Qualcomm on charging less for delivering them earlier. Qualcomm agreed to shift the 888 to Samsung's 5nm node and a midrange chip to their 7nm node. Now that it turns out that Intel may not have TSMC make their first batch of 7nm chips after all as their customers appear to be pleased with their new 10nm chips, TSMC may have overplayed their hand with Qualcomm, while in the process helping restore the reputation of their only real competitor in Samsung.

Also, pointing out that Apple demand is higher than Android demand is trivial. The latest batch of Android phones launched weeks ago in 3Q. The only major Android brand that has end of the year launches is Huawei, and they have been hammered by the trade war. 

danox said:

Never heard of Docker until some Geek types said that the Apple M1 cpu is worthless because it (Apple) doesn’t support it. And they wouldn’t be buying it.

It was less a "geek type" than someone who actually needs it for their job. However, that person was just making excuses because he had to know that Docker support was on the way. A legit issue is the 16 GB RAM limit. I recently had to solve RAM issues on one of my machines by upgrading it to 32 GB. For a person doing practically anything with Docker 16 GB is the absolute minimum, and they would almost certainly prefer a device that has - or can be upgraded to - 24 or 32 GB and M1 Macs don't offer that ability right now.

However, that being said, Docker getting this out on the entry level Macs now means that when the Pro Macs that offer more memory come out next year, devs will alrready have tools like this and Python - which just released an M1 Mac version earlier this week - ready to go.

avon b7 said:

Better late than never.

It was a very necessary move, seeing as networking on a cellular level is becoming ever more important as more (and more varied) devices become available.

The current situation will go down as a huge misstep in strategic planning. Personally, I'm convinced the QC deal was something they had to do just to stay viable in the 5G cellular space in the short ter. It meant not only ceasing legal hostilities with QC but falling behind competitors and now needing a new 'homegrown' solution which will take a lot of time to get up and running. All that on top of having to kiss the toad (QC).

Plus, getting the necessary expertise may prove difficult but they are going to have to hire most of that in. They been hiring talent (mainly from QC) for a couple of years now. 

Then their patent portfolio, while bigger than early last year due to the intel deal, is still not very big. 

But, just like everyone else, you have to start somewhere and they have started. That's important. 

Apple didn't "kiss the toad". They merely agreed to fulfill the terms of the contract that they willingly signed with Qualcomm that they tried to unilaterally break during the life of the contract. I can't believe that so many Apple fans are furious at Qualcomm for demanding that Apple live up to their contract. Is it OK too, then, for everyone else to break their contracts with Apple? Or should only Apple have that privilege?

Also, Apple's hands were tied here. Qualcomm has the best 4G/LTE and 5G tech because it is a product that they created based on standards that they innovated with some of the best wireless/RF design engineers in the world. While Intel, Samsung, MediaTek and others make cellular radios, they are decidedly inferior. As Apple uses a premium pricing strategy that is based on (the idea that) their products having the best components, they had no choice. Just as they have no choice going with Samsung for components.

As far as this "homegrown solution", in addition to hiring talent from Qualcomm, they are getting design assistance as part of the deal too. Qualcomm gets Apple's billions today and get to be free of dealing with Apple's supply chain pressure tactics tomorrow. That is a win-win. As far as their being "behind" ... without paying for their help, Apple would have done no better in catching up to Qualcomm than Samsung and Intel did, especially since they would have had to avoid violating Qualcomm's IP. Also, how far behind are they anyway? Apple probably will sell more 5G phones this quarter than in the two years previous. Ironically, this is Qualcomm's fault because they took as long as they possibly could before releasing SOCs with integrated 5G radios. They still haven't released an 800 or 400 chip with integrated 5G, and won't until 2021. Meanwhile MediaTek released SOCs with integrated 5G radios in 2019 with Samsung following suit not long after. As far as laptops go, Lenovo, HP, Dell and the rest never made mobile connectivity a priority in their Windows laptops, even though it could have been done easily and cheaply, but most of them are using the same basic motherboard designs from 20 years ago. Google could have actually been a leader here had they pushed ARM-based Chromebooks from Qualcomm and especially MediaTek, but instead they are a major Intel partner and don't even bring up the topic of LTE or 5G Chromebooks even though they have an incentive to with Google Fi! Instead they came up with this useless "instant tethering to your smartphone" feature. Samsung would love to market Chromebooks with their own integrated 5G SOCs as a differentiator, but Google screwed them by arbitrarily refusing to permit Linux Beta - an absolute requirement for any Chromebook that costs over $300 - on anything but x86 and MediaTek CPUs. (MediaTek will offer SOCs with integrated 5G directly targeting Chromebooks starting next year, but so far only a couple of companies have committed to using them. They really should just manufacture their own.)

My guess is that when 2022 or 2023 rolls around this won't change much, and Apple will be the clear, crushing leader in 5G laptops overnight thanks to the combined stupidity of Google, HP, Dell and Lenovo.