mpantone

cloudguy said:

h4y3s said:

Don’t overlook the unified memory architecture that Apple can deploy, (as they own the whole stack) this will save 2x on a lot of common functions! 

Unified Memory Architecture is not a new idea. It was created by Nvidia years ago and several companies use it for their own products. It has its own set of advantages and tradeoffs. On some of the more technical blogs, folks are already debating the virtues of UMA versus segregated CPU/GPU memory as the thinking - and experience for those who have it - is that you can run into problems if the GPU exhausts memory resources that the CPU needs and vice versa. One of the reasons why Nvidia created UMA in the first place was that they are promoting the idea to data centers that you get more performance per dollar by shifting as many computations from the CPU to the GPU as possible for workloads that don't require a CPU's general purpose flexibility..

Sorry, SGI implemented UMA with their O2 workstation (circa 1996), years before Nvidia’s founding. 

The CFO (Chief Financial Officer) and the CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) are NOT the same person.

They are completely different roles. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is in charge of the company's finances and is a fiduciary responsible for accurate representation of the company's financials. This includes SEC filings.

The Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) in a company like Facebook is in charge of sales, essentially the sales director. Since most of Facebook's revenue is selling ads, this guy is basically the head ad salesman.

Per Facebook's investor relations site:

David Wehner is the CFO. His department is mostly accountants, financial analysts, etc.

David Fischer is the CRO. His department is mostly ad sales people, ad sales directors, account executives, etc.

Two completely different people in two completely different roles.

CFOs of Fortune 10 companies don't swagger and make bombastic and sweeping accusatory statements. They generally talk about numbers in the past tense, usually the same numbers published in an SEC filing. They aren't trash talkers. That should have been the glaring hint that this Fischer guy is NOT the CFO.

AppleInsider needs to rewrite large parts of this article and the headline to correctly represent who these two senior Facebook managers are.

The Keychron keyboards have a selection of lighting patterns including (but not limited to):

• all backlighting off
• white backlight always on
• white backlight on individual key press with a quick fade to black (keyboard is normally backlit)
• backlit keyboard: individual key press causes that particular key to fade temporarily to black but quickly return to default brightness

Naturally the latter two modes are helpful in providing visual feedback of a key press.

There are also several brightness levels in addition to the lighting pattern.

If you don't plan on using backlighting you might be better off buying someone else's keyboard.

I have the Keychron K1 with the white backlight. It also has a variety of lighting patterns although they are all white. As mentioned earlier, you have the option of turning everything off.

These are nice keyboards. I might eventually buy a K8 model.

cg27 said:

Breathtaking.  At this rate maybe they should do a 5 for 1 split instead of 4 for 1 to keep it more inline with Dow 30 stocks.

The Dow is a stupid and completely archaic market index. The constituent stocks are picked by one person: the editor of the Wall Street Journal. The index is price weighted not market cap weighted. After Apple's 4-to-1 stock split, it will drop them down to #18 on the DJI. The Dow Jones Index has been obsolete for 50+ years.

Real investors look at the S&P 500 index as a far more accurate barometer of corporate America. There's a committee that selects the constituent companies and it is market cap weighted so #1 contributes more to S&P 500 than #500.

Note that the S&P 500 has some rules of its own. One reason why Berkshire-Hathaway issued cheaper-priced Class B shares was to gain appropriate representation on the S&P 500 as well as greater adoption from fund managers, retirement pension plans, etc.

That said, I'm pretty sure Cook, Apple's BOD, CFO Maestri are all pretty aware of the impacts of the stock split since they did 7-to-1 back in 2004. They could have picked any multiple yet settled on four.

A hundred bucks doesn't buy as much today as it did twenty years ago.

I'm skeptical about the mention of Saudi Aramco which IPO-ed 1.5% of its value. With so few publicly traded shares I rather doubt that that market capitalization is a good indicator of Saudi Aramco's true value.

canukstorm said:

StrangeDays said:

canukstorm said:

viclauyyc said:

canukstorm said:

JinTech said:

And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 

Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.

Not true. Apple ditched Motorola for the very similar result. 

Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.

At the same time, look how much improvement in Apple A series and AMD cpu?

Nobody is denying that and that's besides the point.  Apple's goal is control all the key technologies of their ecosystem and they were going to switch to their own custom processors regardless of how well, or poorly, Intel was going to do.

Largely because of crap like this...Intel has been a problem for Apple for many years, and that’s certainly a major part of why they looked into eliminating them. Had Intel been able to keep them happy of course they’d have stayed.

Disagree. The day the 64-bit A7 SoC launched is the day Apple decided they were going to do their own silicon for Macs. It was a matter of when, not if.  People working in the silicon industry have known this for years.  Apple was moving away from Intel no matter what.  You and the rest can believe what you want.

My guess is that Apple has been running ARM macOS since their first custom silicon, the A4 (circa 2010). Going 64-bit was a major milestone that confirmed their decision but Apple had already charted this direction years earlier.

When the 64-bit iPhone SoC debuted, Apple's competitors were shocked into silence. The semiconductor industry knew the writing was on the wall. 

Apple's lab prototypes have probably outperformed Intel's production hardware for a couple of years. Intel has missed all of their roadmap targets for years and Apple would be very aware of this. They would also be receiving and reviewing various engineering samples of the next generation Intel silicon and it would have been frightfully clear that Intel just couldn't deliver on their commitments.

Intel made this happen. But it certainly wasn't overnight. This is basically years of Intel ineptitude. Meanwhile AMD emerges as a credible competitor and Nvidia moves past Intel in market capitalization.