seanj

mazda 3s said:

Eric_WVGG said:

WTH said:

If authentic, these documents show something very important - a return to function over form in the MacBook line.

Sort of. Three IO ports instead of four sounds less functional to me.

Uhhh, three Thunderbolt, HDMI, SD and a dedicated power plug. How the hell is that LESS functional? 

kkqd1337 said:

sounds like it wont be useful for tracking thefts as i think they said it alerts an iphone carrier of an unknown tag

shame i wanted to put one in my car

digitol said:

YES! Thank you. THIS IS THE TRUTH. The irony here, is that many folks from Micro$oft work at Apple.  That micro$oft like culture, is what the mac consumer/user now experiences with Apple products. Frustration, bugs, hard to use, non-direct, smoke and mirrors, bloated, overly complicated software. "It just works" is long dead. The amount of careless or *HateProgramming that is in the mac environment is quite high. Sad. 

*hateprogramming: programming done by individuals that hate their job. Often leads to code that is buggy, and in some cases purposely put forth to frustrate the end user. See example: windows 95, 2000, 10. etc, M$ office, and now parts of mac os/ios.  :P  

melgross said:

cloudguy said:

rob53 said:

Is Apple required to push their Apple developed ARM designs back to the main ARM design architecture? It appears v9 will include many of the ideas Apple has developed. 

As for Nvidia buying Arm Ltd there better be a whole lot more investigation into how Nvidia will be allowed to control the architecture and its users before they’re allowed to buy them. 

You are wrong on both counts.

1. The v9 contains things that ARM developed independently that are inferior to Apple's tech.
2. Apple WILL NOT be required to push their ARM designs back. First off, as a co-founder with a permanent architectural license, Apple is for all intents and purposes an independent entity here. Second, even if they weren't, the other ARM licensees like MediaTek, Huawei, Qualcomm and Samsung don't either. This is a real issue because for awhile both Samsung and Qualcomm were able to develop custom CPU cores that were significantly better tham ARM's generic CPU cores. (Samsung fell behind and gave up; Qualcomm's are only slightly better.) And Qualcomm's Adreno GPU design is MUCH BETTER than ARM Holdings' Mali. (The bad ARM GPUs are a major reason why Google uses Intel for Chromebooks. Samsung ditched Mali for an AMD GPU design. Nvidia's mobile GPU design - hardware and software - is much better also.) So if generic licensees like Qualcomm, Samsung and Nvidia aren't required to give up their IP to ARM Holdings there is no way that Apple - whose license is on far better terms - won't.

Basically Nvidia buying ARM has nothing to do with Apple. Nvidia doesn't even want in on the CPU game anyway. They tried that already: they made CPUs for the original batch of Android devices. When companies abandoned them for the Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek trio they tried to manufacture and sell their own devices - the Nvidia Shield tablet and the Nvidia Shield set top box - but that failed also. Even the Nintendo Switch uses Nvidia CPU designs that are like 4 years old because Nvidia exited that market and never updated them. The Nintendo Switch Pro will have a slightly updated Tegra CPU, but it still won't use the latest ARM cores or the latest process. Nvidia buying ARM is all about cloud, edge and IoT stuff plus ML/AI stuff, and those are areas that an end user consumer hardware company like Apple only dabbles in.

I wouldn’t say that vi is inferior to Apple’s work. This isn’t what Apple is doing. Apple will very likely upgrade their own work to v9, as they did with v8.