Last Active
  • There are more iPhones in use in the USA than Android phones

    Feels impossible to believe. Apple's iPhone ASP is something like $750 to $800. Android phones are something like $300. Seems that no interest payments from carriers, and they are across like 30 months, has truly made moving to Apple phone a marginal transaction. $15 extra per month is the cost of getting one lunch these days. And the brand, devices, and services made it viable decision for buyers. I do pay a ridiculous amount of money per month to ATT for fiber, 6 lines, and some payment plan phones that go with them.

    Hopefully Apple doubles down, triples down on services, including broadening repair services. If they had a competitive gaming ecosystem on Macs and more, better business/enterprise/work software, they potentially double their PC unit share and revenues.
  • Benks Grand Pro Headphone Stand review: show off AirPods Max with a minimal stand

    Hoping I can hold out. I want Apple to make an AirPods Max with interchangeable headbands. They have designed this into the headphones, but haven't put it into production just yet, like adding a button instead of a pin-hole to remove the earcups from the band, and offering different headbands, like different wristbands for the Watch.

    One band I think they should make is a MagSafe induction charger headband. Place it on a stand with MagSafe charge, it will start charging.
  • Xcode Cloud subscriptions now available for developers

    blastdoor said:
    How does the work completed in a “compute hour” compare to, say, an hour of M1?
    It would depend on the CPUs Xcode cloud is using, which could just be servers services from Amazon, Google or Microsoft. Could be Xeons, could racks of Mac mini's, could be Epyc. Maybe they are buying from MacStadium or set it up with their own hardware. Hopefully someone will spill the beans.

    25 hrs goes buy really really fast. It's basically a number to try out the service.
  • TSMC's 3nm chips won't be ready in time for 2022 MacBook Pros, Kuo says

    Marvin said:
    eriamjh said:
    Hmmm.  For the Mac Pro?
    If they use N5P and not N3, we can probably assume 40% improvement over N5 in the GPU, N3 would be 70% or more. Current Ultra is 21TFLOPs. If the Mac Pro is double the Ultra and then 40% higher, that's nearly 60TFLOPs.

    This is around the same as the highest 2019 Mac Pro. The highest performance Mac Studio is $5k. Doubling the chip would be under $10k, likely somewhere around $8-9k and would match a $24k 2019 Mac Pro for standard tasks and outperform it for video encoding.

    NVidia will be launching the 4090 GPUs in September and this is rumored to be as high as 80TFLOPs. People will be able to fit two in a standard PC so 160TFLOPs of computer power.

    I think 60TFLOPs would be enough for a Mac Pro launch and would sit between a 3090 and 4090 and it would be a small form factor chassis.

    If the manufacturing cycle takes 3-4 months and starts in September, it makes more sense to use N5P because they can do an N3 refresh in October 2023.
    The fab process isn't what is holding Apple back from shipping a Mac Pro. They know what Mac Pro customers want or what the least worst option is: a 2019 Mac Pro with Apple Silicon. I think a lot of 2019 Mac Pro customers would have upgraded if a Mac Pro had an M1 Ultra, 8 PCIe slots, and however they do it, MPX modules with Apple Silicon that could expand the CPU, GPU and ML performance. If it was just an M1 Ultra in a MPX module, they could put 3 to 4 M1 Ultras into a Mac Pro for 50 to 80 TFLOPS of GPU compute.

    I don't think there is much trust in the Mac Pro customer base for Apple. It's been 9 years since the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple's commitment to this set of customers is weird. I really don't get it as it can't be really that hard. It's basically to the point that whoever or whatever process that drives these decisions needs to be demolished, and they need to start over, again. It is likely a function of money as the Mac Pro seems more of a branding project, than a product line that tries to meet the needs of its market, so they leave it untouched for years-on-end.

    I would hazard a guess that not many people will be putting 2 4090 GPUs in a box. The power consumption is rumored to be 400 to 500 Watts, and the Ti card could by 800. There is basically a "limit" at 1800 W. With next gen x86 desktop CPUs hitting 300 W, putting a high end CPU and 2 GPUs sounds pretty close to needing a dedicated circuit for one computer in your house. It's only the server GPU compute workflows that can drive sales of such a card. With crypto crashing and driving down the need for useless computations, perhaps the power usage in GPU cards will finally fall back to levels that aren't the equivalent of running a hair dryer in your room for a few hours. Hmm... have to think about selling my NVDA stock, but server-grade GPU compute is an increasing market.
  • iPhone 12 and up might get satellite communication in 2023

    Hmm... there are moments where I feel having no cell service is great. Going to a national park and not having cell service is nice.