kellie
About
- Username
- kellie
- Joined
- Visits
- 17
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 229
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 75
Reactions
-
Apple's iPhone modem design is three years behind Qualcomm
Apple has wasted billions of dollars and will need to spend billions more before they are able to produce a workable cellular modem. A combination of bad management , Apple arrogance and a total lack of understanding of the technology led to this poor outcome. For what purpose? To save $20 per phone? Apple could be in predicament in 3 years. Whatever solution they are able to create internally had better be up to the performance of Qualcomm and others. Can you imagine people choosing not to purchase an iPhone with an Apple cellular modem because its performance is inferior to Qualcomm and others? That would be devastating. -
Apple's iPhone 15 & Apple Watch event -- what we loved, and didn't
AppleZulu said:I still don't get the fuss over the Mother Nature skit. I thought it was an amusing gag, and it emphasized the message about their multiple approaches to better corporate environmental stewardship.
This is certainly something to use for marketing. More people will consider this positively when making choices about purchasing electronics gear than will get cranky about Apple being "woke."
I think it's also something they should emphasize to cause other companies to follow in their footsteps. Apple is actually planning the entire life cycle of their products, reducing unneeded waste in production and distribution, creating a market for recycled materials from their own products, and planning not just how to put their products together, but how to efficiently take them back apart in order to recover those materials for re-use. This is the opposite of what most other corporations have been doing for decades.
Even as environmental regulations have forced companies to stop dumping many manufacturing and production chemicals directly into the environment, corporations have continually found other ways to externalize their costs by handing their waste over to consumers, leaving it to them to dump into the environment. Overuse of plastics, single-use items, unnecessary packaging and more are all examples of corporations reducing their own costs, while shifting them to consumers to deal with the waste. They stamp some of it with a recycle symbol and then let consumers and taxpayers assume the cost of collecting, processing and attempting to re-sell recycled materials.
For example, once upon a time, Coke, Pepsi and others bottled their drinks in glass, and consumers could return those to the store for credit, the bottlers took them back, washed them and reused them again. Then they switched to plastic, initially without even pretending to care about recycling or reuse. Recycling came later, but it's up to municipalities to pay for collection and recycling (or consumers outside city limits to pay for this directly), and Coke and Pepsi are extremely limited in how much recycled plastic they buy and turn back into bottles. So in essence they dump huge quantities of plastic on consumers and leave it to us to figure out what to do with it all. It's obscene, when you spend two minutes thinking about it.So why again should anyone be irritated about a five minute sketch about Apple actually taking responsibility for what they put out into the world?2. One line in the skit was, not an exact quote, “we won’t be happy until all carbon is removed from the atmosphere.” Better not do that or all the plants will perish.3. At least in NY, soda bottles have deposits, which results in the majority of soda bottles being returned and recycled. The government isn’t paying to collect them. Even if Coke was paying to collect bottles they would increase the price of the product to cover the expense. There’s no free lunch. Corporations don’t pay taxes. People do. So any costs are ultimately borne by the consumer or taxpayer.4. The bottles in my recent Coke purchase were made from 100% recycled plastic. Going back to glass is not necessarily any better for the environment. Glass is heavy which increases transport costs. The washing process would also be energy expensive.5. Apple may not be as altruistic as some may think with recycling. It may be necessary in order to insure adequate supplies of metals, especially rare earth metals, in order to manufacture new products. -
iPhone 15 Pro models could cost at least $100 more
-
Mac Pro M2 review - Maybe a true modular Mac will come in a few more years
The tech world seems to forget Apple is a business. They are watched by Wall Street like no other company. The vast majority of their financial success and sales volume comes from iPhone sales at 50%. Mac sales are 10% of revenue. Mac sales are down 40% in the first quarter of 2023. Therefore the Mac Pro is a super niche product. The business incentive to create a killer Mac Pro don’t really exist. Apple maybe decided to leave the super high performance market to Intel and AMD, unable to cost justify the creation of a truly high end Mac Pro. I also think they are running into technical/scaling issues. Creating the M2 Ultra by joining two M1 Max dies together is challenging. some have suggested creating an M2 Extreme with four dies joined together - the ability to coordinate processing across four systems joined together may be too challenging or you may run into a law of diminishing returns scaling problem. The M3 will use 3 nm lithography and will therefore get a performance and energy efficiency increase which will allow Apple to create more powerful single die systems. But the technical challenges and costs of creating super high end systems may not be justified purely from a business perspective. -
New Mac Studio rumor rides again thanks to Find My file leak