twolf2919

I love T-Mobile, but their coverage outside of urban settings is spotty - and doesn't seem to be getting any better.  3 years ago, I had to move from T-Mobile to Verizon because I moved 10 minutes outside of town (Research Triangle in NC) and there wasn't even a single bar :-(  Three years later, I tried T-Mobile's test drive - which is actually pretty neat as it uses an eSIM so it shows you exactly what you'd experience on your phone - to see if it had gotten any better....not one iota better :-(

We love to travel internationally and T-Mobile is, by far, the best carrier to do that with since they don't charge extra, unlike greedy Verizon and AT&T.  But if I can't use the service at my home, what can I do?

I don't know whether the Wallstreet article covers it, but this article definitely doesn't: what are the timelines of the technology being developed within Apple and whatever the smaller business.  For example, did Apple already have its own plans & research into blood oxygen measurements prior to approaching Massimo or did it only begin its efforts in this area after hearing details with their 'deep dives' with Massimo?  If it's the former, I think poaching talent is a perfectly kosher/legal way of augmenting its own talent pool to accelerate its development of the technology.  If it's the latter, I think it's pretty despicable.   Without proper journalistic research, who knows which was the case here?  Apple is known to be a very secretive company and they may have had years of research into blood oxygen measurement - that was certainly the case with the Apple Watch in general.  They were supposedly 'late' to the game because Samsung (and Pebble) had one first - but they've simply been developing the product/tech in secret for longer - until the product was polished enough to sell.  So I choose to give Apple the benefit of the doubt.

danox said:

twolf2919 said:

"Apple's M-series of chips are primarily based on chip architecture from ARM" - is there any basis for this claim?  Apple has an architecture license from ARM and has been adding to the basic ARM blueprints for more than 10 years.  So, at this point, is the word "primarily" still valid?  For instance, Apple has been including a neural engine in its processor for the last 6 years - this is a huge part of the chip and, as far as I know, has nothing to do with ARM (although I believe ARM's newest architecture specs may also include neural engine specs?  But, if so, Apple's work predates ARMs offering by years).  Similarly, I'm not sure the GPU - another big component of the Ax and Mx chips - falls under the ARM spec.  Apple bought a whole company to include its graphics designs into its chips.  The Secure Enclave is another part of the chip unrelated to ARM, AFAIK.  And in the near future, Apple will be including 5G hardware (maybe not initially on-chip, but surely at a future point in time).

Apple’s arm chips are heavily customized. They are not the same chip that Microsoft, Samsung, or Qualcomm or anyone else currently uses, they are Apples own custom designed and engineered chips. (A fork in the road)

That's what I suggested, including giving specific examples where they differed, so a 'like' would have sufficed.  My question was simply whether the author had any basis for his use of the word "primarily [ARM architecture]" - which implies > 50% of what's in the chip is ARM-designed.  I was doubtful.

mobird said:

Will we see a "desktop" version of Apple Silicon eventually, or is Apple of the school that it is not necessary? If the M series (especially the M3) achieves the lofty rumors of its potential, would Apple be inclined to develop and release a real "desktop" version? What would the first iteration of Apple Silicon "desktop" bring to the table?

Uh - https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/
(even has the word 'desktop' in its product description ;-)

"Apple's M-series of chips are primarily based on chip architecture from ARM" - is there any basis for this claim?  Apple has an architecture license from ARM and has been adding to the basic ARM blueprints for more than 10 years.  So, at this point, is the word "primarily" still valid?  For instance, Apple has been including a neural engine in its processor for the last 6 years - this is a huge part of the chip and, as far as I know, has nothing to do with ARM (although I believe ARM's newest architecture specs may also include neural engine specs?  But, if so, Apple's work predates ARMs offering by years).  Similarly, I'm not sure the GPU - another big component of the Ax and Mx chips - falls under the ARM spec.  Apple bought a whole company to include its graphics designs into its chips.  The Secure Enclave is another part of the chip unrelated to ARM, AFAIK.  And in the near future, Apple will be including 5G hardware (maybe not initially on-chip, but surely at a future point in time).