tenthousandthings

tenthousandthings said:

mattinoz said:

tenthousandthings said:

Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,

iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max

iMac : iMac Pro : iMac Pro Max

iPad : iPad Air : iPad Pro (2)
MacBook : MacBook Air : MacBook Pro (2)

Mac Mini : Mac Mini Pro : Mac Pro

Wouldn't that suggest a 24 iMac with and M1 Pro or M2 Pro then a larger screen model that is $200 more. 
Hey not knocking it sounds like a winner to me. 

I was thinking more 24 : 27 XDR : 32 XDR

I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs. 

If they keep case sizing and expanded the screen to 29.5inch would a 32 inch model still have the market?
Still 24 :28 :32 is neat set of option.

Yes, 28 would make for a neat symmetry with the MBP, as 14x2=28 and 16x2=32, but alas the rumors have consistently said 27 for a while now.

mattinoz said:

tenthousandthings said:

Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,

iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max

iMac : iMac Pro : iMac Pro Max

iPad : iPad Air : iPad Pro (2)
MacBook : MacBook Air : MacBook Pro (2)

Mac Mini : Mac Mini Pro : Mac Pro

Wouldn't that suggest a 24 iMac with and M1 Pro or M2 Pro then a larger screen model that is $200 more. 
Hey not knocking it sounds like a winner to me. 

I was thinking more 24 : 27 XDR : 32 XDR

I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs. 

Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,

iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max

blastdoor said:

I think the MacWorld article is pretty reasonable and if it's wrong, the most likely way to be wrong is for the M2 to be based on the A16 rather than the A15. 

Yes, the author sidestepped that by saying the M2 will be on the N4P process and telling us how much of an improvement that is expected to be over the (N5) process of the A14 & M1, but he does it without mentioning that the A15 is on the N5P process, not the N4P, so his comparison between A14 and A15, while useful, only goes so far.

The other thing that I’d quibble with is the assumptions he makes about Apple’s ability to compete with high-end desktop GPUs — I mean, that remains to be seen. I don’t think it’s coincidental that Apple announced a ray-tracing Metal API at WWDC 2020, with development active and ongoing. You might want to wait until Apple releases an actual Pro desktop M1 graphics configuration before you start making assumptions about how far behind the competition they are… 

This is an interesting case, not because the lawsuit had any merit, but because of the story it tells about access to Apple and Google. Washington Post did an article on it, here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/10/katrina-parrott-skin-tone-emoji-apple-lawsuit/

But even that article fails to state the obvious, which is the fact Apple didn’t introduce skin-tone modifiers for emoji in 2015. It was Unicode who did that. Apple was just implementing a new feature of Unicode. Parrott first made contact with Apple and showed them her work AT A UNICODE MEETING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM.

If she had been a silicon-valley startup funded by venture capital, she would have been bought out by Apple or (more likely) Google by the time of that Unicode meeting. There’s a quote in the article to that effect. But she wasn’t, so they hadn’t heard of her until that meeting. Even though she had an app on the App Store. So it’s really a story about access.