blastdoor

About

Username
blastdoor
Joined
Visits
338
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
6,913
Badges
1
Posts
3,878

Reactions

5.2KLike168Dislike414Informative

  • Apple Silicon's success helped AMD make Ryzen AI Max chips

    blastdoorblastdoor
    Xed said:
    eriamjh said:
    Is AMD saying they copied Apple’s strategy?  

    It sure sounds like it.  
    They copied Apple’s strategy. Also, they did it first.
    Ha, yeah, it kind of reads that way. 

    Maybe the more 'honest' description is that AMD came up with the APU idea first but botched the implementation and nearly went bankrupt because of it. Apple ended up implementing the idea far better than AMD had, and AMD is now copying the superior implementation. 

    The funny part is that Apple never had to waste $5 billion buying a video card maker in order to do this. 
    watto_cobrakillroydanoxForumPostjas99

  • Apple Silicon's success helped AMD make Ryzen AI Max chips

    blastdoorblastdoor
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1130315/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-laptop-market-share/

    AMD rose from about 8% to 20% from 2017 to 2020 and they've been floating around 20% since then. It's kind of amazing how well Intel has held onto the laptop market, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with technical merit (although Lunar Lake is competitive in the thin and light segment). 
    watto_cobra

  • Apple Silicon's success helped AMD make Ryzen AI Max chips

    blastdoorblastdoor
    It’s definitely true that AMD has been focused on ‘APUs’ for a long time. It’s the reason they bought ATI. 

    But it’s also true (imho) that buying ATI was a huge waste of $5 billion that they should have spent updating the athlon to better compete with Core 2 duo and they should have built a new fab. That decision nearly bankrupted the company. 

    The idea for the APU wasn’t wrong, it was just way too premature and diverted resources from more important priorities. Kind of like apple introducing Newton way too early.
    watto_cobra

  • Start your photocopiers: Dell rebrand shamelessly rips off Pro iPhone marketing

    blastdoorblastdoor
    Apple’s branding is fine, but I don’t think it’s brilliant or obviously the best. I doubt Apple would even choose their current iPhone branding if they could start from a clean slate. 

    Dell’s XPS brand was strong. Inspiron was stupid. I think they could have kept the good and dumped the bad. But whatevs. 

    I wish Apple would return to the Macintosh rather than the abbreviated Mac. I also think ‘MacBook’ sounds dumb. 
    marklark

  • Ending Google search partnership would hamstring Apple, says Eddy Cue

    blastdoorblastdoor
    longfang said:
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    Apple has gone a step further than the article mentions. It now wants to participate in Google's legal defense, concerned that Google cannot adequately protect both themselves and Apple's interests against the government's demands for a break-up. 

    https://www.thurrott.com/apple/314883/apple-files-to-represent-itself-in-google-antitrust-remedy-proceedings
    Reading this Cue quote:

    The development of a search engine would require diverting both capital investment and employees because creating a search engine would cost billions of dollars and take many years. Search is rapidly evolving due to recent and ongoing developments in Artificial Intelligence, making it economically risky to devote the huge resources that would be required to create a search engine. 

    makes it sound like not only should Google not be paying apple, but that apple should be paying Google. 

    If Cue truly means this then it implies (1) Google is dumb for paying apple and (2) apple is dumb for pointing out that Google is dumb. 

    But I think neither apple nor Google are dumb, which makes me think Cue doesn’t believe what he’s saying but does believe (or hopes) that the audience for his message is dumb. 
    Wow, quite the leap in logic. 

    Google is paying Apple for default placement, but not so that Apple doesn't create their own search engine. Both companies knew Apple wasn't planning one, something frenemies would understand. Google wanted a guaranteed fast track to Apple users and their shopping plans, worth about $40B/year in profit as of 2021 after paying Apple their cut. That's minimally $160B into Google coffers over the past four years and probably north of $200Billion. AS for Apple they got at least $80B for doing essentially nothing and at zero cost. Pure profit. Surely you understood why the two made a deal?
    If there is no way that Apple would make their own search engine and regards googles search engine as best, why would Google pay apple $20 billion for default placement ? Love?
    The didn't "pay Apple $20B for placement". They paid Apple $20B in 2021 because it worked out to be the contractually agreed on 1/3rd cut, perhaps a percentage or two higher, of search revenue Google collected from Safari searches. Default settings are rarely changed, which Google understands, an so id Microsoft who also wanted that default. More profit with less work, a LOT more and essentially guaranteed.

    With Apple and Google it was not set at a flat $20B. It is percentage-based and could have been more or less based on how much profit Google realized. 

    There's no other search provider who would have delivered better results for Apple, and there still isn't. Apple likes profit, and profit without effort is even better. 
    You’re missing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees. 

    If Google is clearly the best search engine that Apple really wants to use and Apple would never ever want to build their own, why does there need to be a contract? Why does there need to be any payments? 
    Because if Google is willing to pay what works out to be $20B/yr then Apple would be nuts to say nah keep the money. 
    So you’re going with “Google is dumb”
    watto_cobra