Last Active
  • Nintendo killing 'Dr. Mario World' iOS game in November

    mr lizard said:
    crowley said:
    It stinks that an app can be made non-functional by the developer, even though network connectivity is not actually used in the app, and especially when users have put money into the app.  I love Nintendo, but their entire approach to mobile is garbage.
    On the contrary, the app refuses to function unless it has a constant network connection. Even a minor blip in connection (e.g. if you're travelling and your train goes into a tunnel) causes the app to lock up until connection is restored. 
    That's what I mean, it's not actually used for any app functionality, just to police usage and provide the developer a kill switch.  It's shitty dev behaviour.

    Sorry if unclear.
  • Nintendo killing 'Dr. Mario World' iOS game in November

    It stinks that an app can be made non-functional by the developer, even though network connectivity is not actually used in the app, and especially when users have put money into the app.  I love Nintendo, but their entire approach to mobile is garbage.
  • Apple ceases iOS 14.6 code signing, blocks downgrades from iOS 14.7 and above

    I'll give it a couple more weeks before I upgrade then.  Don't trust Apple's software quality control that much.
  • 2022 Mac Pro said to use Intel Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 CPU

    Marvin said:
    avon b7 said:
    One of my doubts here is if we will finally see a move to cloud 'computing' in these next few years and away from needing local power both in terms of pure compute performance and the energy required to achieve it.

    I've seen white papers pointing in that direction but I always remember the 'netbooting' scenarios that were the 'future' years ago and never really materialised. 
    For things like video processing and real-time feedback, cloud computing isn't practical. Video footage is TBs of data, uploading data to the cloud for processing is the biggest hurdle. For things like rendering, cloud computing works better as the processing load is much higher than the data size.
    crowley said:
    Marvin said:

    Intel and AMD vastly overprice their workstation and server chips because it's such a low volume market and high cost investment. Apple can make these chips at a fraction of the price and they don't need to overprice them because selling chips isn't a line of business they are in, their profit comes from the sale of the whole unit. Apple Silicon allows Apple to undercut Intel/AMD in price by as much as $12k.
    Seems like a whole load of assumption going on there.  How can Apple make low-volume, high-cost investment chips at a fraction of the price?  You say it as if it's a given, but there's no certainty there.

    And if their profit comes from the sale of the whole of the unit then how can they undercut Intel/AMD by as much as $12k?  That's only $1k less than the price of a Mac Pro equipped with the best processor Apple will BTO!  That top of the line Mac Pro comes with an Intel 3275M which is around $3000 retail, so your numbers don't make sense to me at all.  

    Apple might be able to achieve some economies of scale by reusing chips that they've developed for other machines, but that will mean the Mac Pro has few advantages over those other machines apart from expansion slots (at a hefty premium).  I doubt they will do that.  And if they have to invest in a higher grade of performance chips for the Mac Pro then they may be able to do better and/or cheaper than Intel and AMD, but that's yet to be seen.
    Apple can make more cost-effective high-end chips because they are only building them for their own use and only have to produce a single unit. Intel/AMD make dozens of chip models and each one has to have a separate design and manufacturing process. They have to charge customers thousands to make that process profitable.

    Apple only has to manufacture around 50k chips per year for high-end use. Even if it cost them $500 per chip to manufacture, that's $25m.

    The current high-end spec of the Mac Pro is $24k for both CPU and GPU. Apple can match that spec on Apple Silicon for over $12k less. There are PCs that are in this price range too:

    Apple can make something competitive with this performance-wise for a much lower price on 3nm chips. They have complete freedom to make whatever they want. They've said in the past, the Mac Pro is a passion project for them, it doesn't make a lot of money and now they don't have to pass any revenue on to Intel or AMD.

    Like I say though, the tower form factor hasn't made much sense for Apple to keep making it for at least a decade and it makes less sense now than ever with such efficient hardware. Apple has stated repeatedly their goal was always to make the hardware disappear, that's why the new iMacs are so compact. The Mac Pro has stuck around as an ugly wart on that goal for far longer than necessary and this was only due to the failings of Intel, Nvidia and AMD over the years. Now they can go it alone and build exactly the hardware they want.
    Again, this is just a total bunch of guesswork, seems to have some massive gaps, and seems weirdly hostile to the Mac Pro as a concept.  You're completely overlooking Apple's R&D costs, licensing costs, the fact that they can't profit on any chip volume sales and that 3nm is as of now an unknown quantity that Apple have not used in the CPU of any shipping product.   

    The assertion that "Apple can match that spec on Apple Silicon for over $12k less" (previously "as much as $12k" now "over $12k"?) is completely baseless as of now.  Apple have no Apple Silicon product that can match that spec, and the products that they do have are not so much cheaper to justify anywhere near that kind of optimism.
  • 2022 Mac Pro said to use Intel Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 CPU

    Xed said:
    crowley said:
    Xed said:
    crowley said:
    Xed said:
    crowley said:
    Xed said:
    Makes sense. Professionals don’t like experiments and like to wait for a well established matured technology before they shift horses. 
    You think Apple designing and using their chips is an “experiment”? We’ll that’s one fucking  long abd established experiment.
    Professionals tend to view their workstations a bit more sensitively than your average consumer electronics.
    Because someone wants Intel in their workstation it means that Apple designing their own chips for well over a decade is just an immature experiment. Got it!
    Apple hasn't shipped a single workstation with their own silicon.  They've only been shipping Macs with their own CPUs for 6 months.  I'm sure it'll probably be fine, but it'll definitely be an experiment.  The trash can Mac Pro was also an experiment, because that form factor hadn't been done before, so I imagine there's a few people still feeling a little sore from that.
    By that measure than any change becomes an experiement. Are you saying that professionals never buy new Macs? Are you saying that no one who uses their Mac for work bought a trashcan Mac Pro? How about professionals who focus on video and photos? Did no one buy the Pro Display XDR because it was an "experiment," as you put it, despite being superior in its abilities?

    The simple fact is that Apple is transitioning from Intel to ARM, and when they have all the parts ready and in place to make the transition for a Mac type they're going to fucking do it despite your foolish, anti-Apple, "professionals want real processors", derp derp argument.
    That's not my "argument" at all, calm down.  Are you a first adopter?  I'm not, and many people don't want to be first adopters, because any big shift is liable to see problems that need to be worked out.  Some people also wait to update iOS and macOS until they hear if there are bug issues.  The M1 shift has gone pretty well so far, but if my livelihood depended on my machine then I think I'd be even more reticent to buy into a branch new system until I knew that it was established and stable.  Especially since Apple's history with the pro workstations has been spotty at best.

    So no, I'm not being anti-Apple, and nor am I saying "professionals want real processors".  I'm saying that when it comes to businesses and making money, many people are risk averse, so Mac Pro customers in this area may appreciate seeing a bit more bedding in time with the M-series before they make the move.  I have no idea how prevalent that thought is, but I'm sure it exists.

    Note that Apple refreshed the PowerMac G5 in later 2005, after the Intel transition had started, and it was the final Mac to be updated, probably precisely to give a similar kind of assurance that the platform was good.
    Sure it is. You didn't initiate it, but you supported it. Again, Apple designing their own chips is neither immature nor an experiment in the way the OP stated and the way you have backed it up.
    Well fine.  I can't have a conversation with you if you're just going to make shit up.  Have a nice day.