godofbiscuitssf

chasm said:

Wow, did this go off-track in the comments!

Here’s a suggestion for Hey: Apple really hates it when obscure developers run to the press with their complaints instead of procedurally moving their concerns up the chain.

To me it does sound like some kind of misunderstanding, or maybe I don’t know how Hey’s pricing model works because I have zero interest in Hey’s products (or indeed, all third-party email and calendar products).

Try going through developer relations and maybe the matter will get resolved faster.

WWDR owns the App Store approval process.  What misunderstanding?  It's not up to Apple to decide something like this for a developer, separate apps vs one integrated one.   That's a design decision for the vendor.  This is Apple overstepping and trying to get away with it.

jayweiss said:

The US Patent system is totally screwed up and needs to be reformed. The ITC should have waited on the decisions by the courts and not gotten involved in this dispute. 

Yeah, but not in the way you’re saying. The exact opposite way, in fact. The US Patent System was created to protect SMALL businesses from the predatory actions of large companies, but it’s been perverted by the enormous resourcing of those large companies to steamroll over the small ones. 

ffs, just rewrite this article.  Redo the testing.  Remeasure everything.  You should be doing total energy usage for the task.  Stop citing "peak" energy usage.   It's meaningless in this context.

chasm said:

So if I understand this correctly: If I have a bunch of audio transcriptions to do on my laptop, I can either use my PC laptop with a 4090 and feed it my ENTIRE battery, and get that done very quickly indeed, making it as warm as a small sun —or I can use my Mac laptop, get it done a little bit less quickly, and still have plenty of battery life and an unscorched genital area.

Hmmm. Tough call.  

No.  You're not understanding it correctly.  The author didn't do the math right.   He has the total times. He has the power draw, but he only measured instantaneous power draw.  He could have measured TOTAL power draw.  

Using numbers from anantech, the M1 (not m2) Ultra Mac Studio drew 87 watts peak (if the the author of this article did the tests properly, we'd have better numbers), that's 87 watts * 95 secs = 8265 watts total.
for the 4090:
242 watts * 8 secs = 1936 watts total

meaning that even at that "inefficiency", the 4090 is using FOUR TIMES LESS ENERGY.

And if you insist on comparing your laptop to a desktop 4090, let's go back to the M1Pro chip, with MLX library, and why not? because the author does!  his "38 wats" to the 4090's peak numbers:
38 watts * 216 secs = 8208 watts total.  

Whoops.  the 4090 still uses FOUR TIMES LESS ENERGY even than the M1Pro.

Hreb said:

For $120 you could also get an entire PC motherboard with *two* m.2 slots (directly on the PCIE bus).

With a heatsink and thunderbolt 4 that you can carry around with you in a backpack?  Sweet!