sflocal
About
- Username
- sflocal
- Joined
- Visits
- 316
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 12,184
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 6,181
Reactions
-
Apple planning to ditch Intel chips in Macs for its own custom silicon in 2020
I bought my first Mac in 2008 mainly because of its ability to run Windows at native speeds as a virtual machine. I do 99% of my work on a Mac, but that 1% is crucial.I think it's great news that Apple is ditching Intel. I truly do. Once again, Intel shot themselves in the foot one too many times. The first blunder was being late to the game as an ARM-competior and losing out to ARM for mobile chips. Then, screwing Apple multiple times on late-as-ever CPU introductions, and CPU limitations such as the 16GB RAM limit on mobile CPU's. Add the back-door CPU flaw, Thunderbolt licensing, etc., and I'm happy to see that Intel's stock price is falling like a rock. They deserve it.Apple has proven that it is not only a competent CPU designer, but for mobile chips, it is the best in class. I believe Apple can be as efficient and advanced as a desktop/laptop CPU competitor and put Intel to shame.I can only hope that Apple has a path for us that love Apple not just for MacOS, but also Windows as well. Like it or not, It's still the most widely used desktop OS in the world.
-
Michigan Avenue, Chicago Apple Store retail parcel now up for sale by landlord
I'm a landlord in SF (apartment building) for +20 years and while rent laws differ from state to state, and even city to city, one thing that changes little is a lease agreement. The new landlord generally has to honor any prior lease agreement and the only way to kick Apple out from there is to essentially buy out their lease, and that of course can only happen if Apple agrees to it.randominternetperson said:
I'm pretty sure your summary of real estate law is completely wrong. Otherwise, from the tenant's perspective no lease would be worth the paper it's printed on.mpantone said:While I am not a real estate attorney, my guess is that Apple's contract may need to be renegotiated with the new landlord.
Contracts are agreements between two parties, in this case Renter A (Apple) and Owner W (Walton Street Capital). At least here in California, if the ownership changes, the contract between the two parties is voided. Whether it be in residential real estate or commercial real estate, typically the leases need to be renegotiated. There's probably a law that states that the previous contract is in effect on a month-to-month basis.
Let's say Renter X is renting space ($3000 month) for a bar in Owner A's Building A. Owner A sells Building A to Owner B. The lease agreement between Renter X and Owner A is now voided and a new contract must be negotiated with Owner B.
Let's say Owner B decides he wants to raze the existing property and build new condominiums; this happens all the time. Owner B gives 60-day notice to Renter X that the building is set for demolition and they have 60 days to move out.
In a different scenario, let's say Owner B wants to increase the rent to $10,000/month. The old agreement is void so either Renter X needs to negotiate new terms or move out. Again, this is very commonplace here in California.
I am not sure how real estate contracts are interpreted in Illinois.
In this case, the new owner of the property might tell Apple that rent is going up to $600/sq. ft. Apple can choose to move elsewhere. They are paying less than the average commercial retail rental rates for the area ($400-500), let's say Apple is paying $300. Perhaps a different landlord down the street would be happy to have a prestigious tenant such as Apple. Or maybe the new owner of the existing property says, "Yeah, let's keep the terms the same rather than let the property go empty and hope we can find a new long-term tenant who will pay more."
The article over at MacRumors about the same topic provides a little more detail.
Saying that Apple pays significantly less rent is not misleading. They are paying "well below" average commercial rent in the same neighborhood.
The AppleInsider article states that Walton Street Capital intends on keeping the office space property in the nearby tower; it has nothing to do with retiring and moving to an island. Walton Street Capital are just selling the retail spaces. It is likely that this owner simply want to get out of the commercial retail rental market. Retail is shrinking so it is becoming more challenging to make sure commercial retail spaces are occupied. Splitting the office real estate from the commercial retail real estate might have been in Walton Street Capital's original plans.
mPantone's reasoning is wrong. If OwnerA sells to OwnerB, OwnerB would be unable to remove RenterX until the lease expires - at the earliest. At that point, RenterX and OwnerB would renegotiate a new lease, or RenterX moves out. If the (residential) property falls under rent control like here in San Franciso, New York, Berkeley, etc.. then a TenantX can stay as long as they want, regardless of the length of the lease. All a fixed-length lease does in residential situation is that it guarantees (up to a point) that rent will be paid during the lease time, meaning if a renterX signs a one-year lease and wants to leave in 3 months, renterX is on the hook for all 12 months until OwnerB can re-rent the unit.
Commercial properties don't usually fall under those kind of restrictions. OwnerB can raise the rent on Apple as much as they want, but only AFTER the lease term expires. The ball is in Apple's court until then.
-
Michigan Avenue, Chicago Apple Store retail parcel now up for sale by landlord
How would Apple's rent be affected with a new landlord? They signed a lease, which is most likely for several years, (if not 10 years), and probably has a clause in there somewhere regarding renewal terms too, and any future landlord must honor it.AppleInsider said:Due to its clout, Apple is currently paying a rent "well below" the average $400 to $500 per square feet of other businesses in the Michigan Avenue area, the Journal's sources claimed. A change in landlords could affect rates,
My understanding is that prior to Apple, there was no structure there except a plaza. The landlord just blew it up to make way for Apple to build their building. So to say that Apple is paying rent "well below the average" is misleading because the owner was getting zero rent for that section anyways.
Either way, I wonder what the reason for the sale was. My guess whoever owned it wanted to simply cash out and live on an island somewhere. That's some prime real estate for sure.
-
California to introduce 'right to repair' bill, joins 17 other states in consumer initiati...
I saw an interesting show a few days ago that discussed the original intent of the "Right to Repair" act. Coming from Nebraska, it's intent was to allow farmers access to diagnostic software/equipment in order to diagnose and perform crucial repairs and maintenance on gigantic John Deere farm equipment. As it stood, if a giant harvester breaks down, a farmer has to load the harvester on a flatbed and deliver it to a John Deere repair facility which could be hundreds of miles away, and take days if not weeks to perform the repairs, denying them the ability to farm during what can be a very short window of time in the season for a particular crop.The Nebraska meeting ended up being attended my Apple and Microsoft which fought the bill, since it could technically apply to them as well.It's interesting and complicated. For farm equipment, I can totally understand the farmer's desire for right to repair. It's stupid to deliver a 10-ton tractor possibly out of state on the farmer's dime in order to get something fixed. For highly-specialized and at times, dangerous products like iPhones, I can see Apple's point of view.
-
Cellebrite executive insists iPhone unlocking has a 'public safety imperative'
I think you and I are in agreement Gator. This hack requires physical access to one's phone, and it sounds from prior (rumor) stories that it requires some serious engineering skills on top of that. Be it that the price of admission is not cheap, if someone did something that warrants Cellebrite getting involved, I'm not going to necessarily have any issues with it. That doesn't mean Apple should rest on their laurels. I'm sure someone's mission at Apple is to figure out what Cellebrite is doing and patch that security hole, it it can indeed be patched. Some rumors are that Cellebrite removes the NAND chips, clones them, and begins the brute-force attacks. Serious stuff for serious criminals.gatorguy said:
About what? I can't think of one single thing I have of my phone or that I've ever done with my phone that Cellebrite would have the slightest interest in, and I'll wager not anything on yours either. The impact of whatever hack they have discovered to ANYONE here is non-existent IMHO. If tthe day ever comes that you, or even some local policing agency, can access my phone unassisted then perhaps there's reason to sit up and take notice. In truth most of our current phones whether Android iOS are capable of being secured against all but the most talented professional hackers.sflocal said:
So what? If you got skills, and doing it legally I have zero problem with it. Apple has some of the strongest phone security around, but these guys apparently can pinch through it. Good for them. It’ll just mean Apple will be even more determined to increase security.rob53 said:They’re hackers, plain and simple. Talk about double standards. If they were hacking government systems they’d be arrested but since they’re hacking private citizen’s phones, governments won’t touch them. Time for hackers to hack Cellibrite.
Ever notice that Android is never brought up in these kind of discussions? Android users should be extremely concerned.
If a company like Cellebrite is tasked with breaking into your phone there's a heckuva good and valid reason behind it IMO and I say best of luck.
I have yet to read ONE article anywhere about some agency - any agency - raising a stink about breaking into an Android phone. So while I supposed it can be "secured" - whatever the marketing folks at Google like to call it - I seriously doubt any real security is even being used.
