tht

I'm guessing Apple is waiting on the GlobalStar constellation replenishment of old satellites and expansion with new satellites before announcing two-way text services. They need a way to subsidize the cost of emergency services. So paid tiers for two-way text messaging, rich messaging, and voice is surely coming. 

discountopinion said:

32 CPU cores and 80 GPU cores and a blazing fast neural engine. If i had the money i would buy it. A computer like this makes me loose all rational thinking, ability to use consonants in speech, mutter 1.21 gigawatts and pine for the fjords.

My workload use cases do not demand as much horsepower, but i can imagine that it must be an amazing time to work with heavy lifting workloads. Apple Studio with M?Ultra is very reasonably priced, seems cheap to me actually. I remember back in the day when people used to pony up a small fortune to get a Sparc station 5 on their desk.

Life as a computer enthusiast has never been this good and Apple leads the way. 

Does anyone feel there is any merit to the rumours of a further interconnect between 2 M?Ultras into something even more extreme? 
 
Would there even be an idea to package up many M3 Ultras into compute nodes like Nvidia is doing with their chips? The power draw from the M3 Ultra is nothing compared to their chips. Maybe this is something for Apple’s iCloud.

The last rumor on this was they pushed it out to 2027, 2028 type timeframe. The multi-core scaling is already poor going from Max to Ultra configs. It'll be even worse for an Extreme version. They have a lot of work to do to get it those GPU cores to scale.

Doubtful that Apple enters any server hardware market. They basically stick to products and service for consumers. They barely even try to serve the education market as at it. Network servers? Requires even more commitment than the gaming market.

Yup. Looks like iPad Pro OLED models will move up by $200. 

Draco said:

tht said:

Draco said:

This woman's mere existence on the payroll proves that Apple is wasting money on these efforts which are nothing more than virtue signaling. "Carbon emissions" go hand-in-hand with a productive, developed economy; those who obsess over carbon emissions would have us living in the stone age. No thanks. 

You have to remember that this notion of carbon emissions going hand-in-hand with economic development is flat out false. Carbon neutral means that method of production of energy comes from carbon neutral energy sources, rather than fossil fuels. 

If carbon-neutral sources were more economical than "renewables" like wind and solar, we'd be using them already, and China wouldn't be building 7 new coal plants every week. The only way renewables can compete is if carbon taxes or other government "thumb on the scale" schemes are put in place to shift the economics of fossil fuels. "Climate change" is a false externality created by those who've been trying to get rid of fossil fuels for as long as I can remember--which is almost 60 years. 

We are using renewables, but it takes decades for market penetration to go from near zero to greater than 90%. The majority of power generation being added to grids in most places are renewables. The USA is currently at about 20% to 25% renewables and the vast majority of new power generation is renewables. Similar story elsewhere in the world. This is how Apple can have achieve their Apple 2030 "carbon neutral" goal.

It's not a homogenous world and there are many who prefer it not to happen. Texas citizens just voted to "approve" subsidizing the building of natural gas plants. The language for the proposition was basically a lie, and my bet is 90% of the voters did not know what they were voting for. With its approval, Texas will provide natural gas plant companies low interest loans - that they don't have to pay back - and grants, to build more gas plants. It's just a subsidy the Texas gov't is giving to natural gas company owners. Whether more will be built, who knows. Even with that, renewable power capacity additions in Texas will be 3x that of natural gas. There will probably be more grid battery capacity additions than new natural gas plants capacity in ERCOT.

China and India having milquetoast unambitious transition plans is a problem, but they know more than most that they have to switch if they care about their future at all. Why aren't they moving faster? Well, there are some entities that don't care, some that are beholden to fossil fuel companies, some that it is manageable, hence they continue to build coal plants, even when it costs them more. They will turn the corner soon.

Even Germany, who are as pro-renewable as possible, made a worst possible decision by shutting down nuclear power plants and restarting coal plants. Who knows what is wrong with Japan.

So, fits and starts. Lots of fighting, but the economics for renewable power is now inevitable. Solar+battery will be pretty much it after a while. They have an economies of scale advantage that they can ride, driving down prices further. Another 10x drop in costs may even be possible.

Draco said:

This woman's mere existence on the payroll proves that Apple is wasting money on these efforts which are nothing more than virtue signaling. "Carbon emissions" go hand-in-hand with a productive, developed economy; those who obsess over carbon emissions would have us living in the stone age. No thanks. 

Like with everything else, there is always some small niche of people who promulgate some unsavory ideas, like living without A/C or not traveling/flying or moving out to an Amish like commune. Though I've heard some Amish are using solar and wind to provide electricity.

You have to remember that this notion of carbon emissions going hand-in-hand with economic development is flat out false. Carbon neutral means that method of production of energy comes from carbon neutral energy sources, rather than fossil fuels. So, there really isn't a change in how you live. A few plus and minuses here and there, but really no change on personal level. Society and world wide, there will be huge benefits, and that would spread across everyone in small ways.

There will be a big change in who gets the money. Fossil fuel companies lose and renewable energy companies win. Like when the iPhone was announced in 2007, everyone could see that the smartphone incumbents at the time (Nokia, RIM, Palm, Sony, LG, MS) needed to change, and change immediately as development times were about 3 years minimum. Virtually all these companies didn't want to believe and continued apace. They didn't want to change.

It is the same with fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything in there power, and they have a lot given that "petrol state" is in our vocabulary, to prevent the change. So, this notion that we need fossil fuels to industrialize or develop an economy just plays into that, but it is definitely wrong. We will continue apace with technological and economic development with renewables.