391–400 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can run X11 with a non-compositing window manager on very low performance hardware.
But will it run modern web pages and youtube?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first ARM chips were blazingly fast and made their competitors performance look anaemic - they have been around since the mid-1980s. The real difference is they went the low-power route while retaining as much performance as possible, rather than depending on desktop power supplies and industrial cooling. One of the reasons this new chip is so performant is the "headroom" that this approach has given them.
I wish I understood better why Acorn Archimedes did not do better in the market. It looked like they had many great computer models.
Apple are the survivors of the vertical integrated home computers, and they only managed to survive by reverse acquisition of NeXT, and diversifying outside of the desktop market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever, keep inside your happy bubble if it makes you happy. Personal attacks are a sign of lack of proper arguments.
Those were not personal attacks, they were explaining that apple stuff is desired around the world and even in countries with lower incomes, people will save up to buy apple hardware, buy it used, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But will it run modern web pages and youtube?
To be fair, YouTube doesn't run on Linux anyway, it crawls, unless you happen the have the magical combination of proper drivers.
Unless the hardware powers datacenters or mobile/IoT devices, HW manufacturers don't even bother supporting linux with drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, but android without play services is also barely usable and most apps will not run. It's also an effective way of building the walls around the garden.
I'm relatively ambivalent to a walled garden if and only if there's a (reliable) way to opt out of it. In Android's case, it's not only quite possible to opt out of Google's garden, but arguably rather commonplace (Amazon's "Fire" devices, most custom ROMs by default, etc.). In iOS' case, it's outright impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The strategic disadvantage is that as windows users move to M1 based macs, sales of PC hardware will drop, since the PC ecosystem is hobbled by a lack of deep integration, lower performance CPU's, lower profit margins, less R&D, etc. If volumes of sales drop too, it could trigger a cascade effect (fewer sales causes less R&D causes less desirable products causes fewer sales). That could kill consumer PC's entirely,…
I expect them to have an iPad that can fill this niche for $400 when you include a keyboard. Perhaps they already do.
At that point who knows if tablets as a form factor survived.
To be clear, I think that a tablet (not specifically iPads which are expensive in their segment as any other Apple device, there is no cheap option) could replace most PC nowadays, but to reiterate what's already been said: Apple is not present in too many places, for a reason.
To make an example: I work for a company in Italy with 14 thousands employees.
The laptops they give us software developers today are gonna be the accountants PCs of the future. Unless they break before. In that case they are replaced by the supplier with something with similar specs but new. Probably it will be a different brand, depending on what's available at the moment.
It's not imaginable that a company like this, which is relatively small if we look at the real giants of the World (including many in Italy as well), will replace every PC with tablets, not only for monetary reasons, but because they had to re-train thousands of employees. Being in Italy I'm sure that only talking about it would end up in a strike. No kidding.
But even assuming that it would happen, they would buy cheap Asus tablets.
But even assuming it would be iPads, does this software the company has been using for 15 years runs on it?
The answer is most certainly "no, it doesn't".
Battery life and power efficiency is not a factor in such environments, they prefer to plant trees, be part of a renewable energy consortium or power the offices with solar panels, that they can also spin in PR, than buy Apple devices because they have an incredibly power efficient CPU. It doesn't really matter to them.
And I tell you this knowing that I work there because I know that ethically speaking they are vastly better than the average. They really do care of many small things that many others don't, but Apple ARM CPUs aren't one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see. I know they are playing the long game, but you're grossly underestimating how big the market for cheap stuff is. Even if it's subsidized by spyware. I doubt Apple wants to be in that market, it's a gross market (low margins, tons of support costs, etc.). Just to give you an example, French PC site, laptop section for €400 to €600 (they also have 10 or so under €400): https://www.fnac.com/PC-de-400-a-600-Eu…
Every time I see the selection of cheap laptops/tablets/phones I wonder "why even try to combat climate change?". You've got these bottom of the barrel machines that fail very soon, and barely have enough performance as it is. It makes more sense to save up, buy something twice the price and use it for much longer. It's like the boots theory of wealth. You buy cheap shit over and over again, instead of buying somethi…
I've never encountered an iPhone owner that didn't bring a charger in their backpacks.
Do you see old people like my father charging their sub 100 € smartphones at Starbucks or young people with shiny high end smartphones?
My father use his smartphone so rarely that the battery lasts exactly as advertised: 2+ days on standby (I believe it's ~60 hours).
He uses no app, except WhatsApp twice a year and Maps, has no background service running, takes a few pictures of his niece and that's it. How much power can he consume? How much is he contributing to the climate change compared to me, his son, that starts the day at 9 am and at 18 is on 20% battery?
An I don't even use the smartphone that much, but hey, WFH, slack and teams are constantly checking for new messages, that friend sent you a message in IG, of course I'm gonna check my timeline. Look, a new notification, Amazon is delivering the package, let me check on the news if the streets are still closed today because they are shooting that Tom Cruise movie (it really happened few days ago!)
Etc. etc. How much of this could be saved?
On the opposite side, the construction workers who renewed my house all used old phones like Nokia 3330 because they need something though and durable that won't die on them after a few hours, in environments where electrical power is not granted, so they go for the thing with the longest battery life on the market which is also the cheapest option and, in the end, the most power efficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment didn't suggest if this future is good or bad, or if I am pleased or dismayed by the state of affairs. I stuck to the facts and my own predictions about future facts and left my emotional opinions out of it. Perhaps these sort of closed systems are crushing to you, as you have correctly assumed that they are to me. They aren't to most people: the iPhone is wildly popular. Many people will be very happy to g…
> Most people prefer the conveniences of central management To be fair, it's a pretty broad stretch to compare buying an xbox to "terrifying and violent failure modes of ubiquitous surveillance and censorship". The console experience is easy to understand for non-technical folk, is vertically integrated (you buy a headset with the correct label and you can voice chat with your friends, you know you have the prerequis…
When all systems available follow only these cryptographically enforced rules, your tools will make it impossible for you to do basic human life tasks without being censored and surveilled.
I encourage you to study what happens to societies that go through that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tim Cook on an earnings call, explaining that reducing the price of battery refurbishment to $29, lead to fewer sales as people held on to devices for longer: >According to Cook, while analysts suggested Apple shouldn't do it, the company "strongly believes it was the right thing to do for [its] customers." https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/29/apple-lower-upgrades-ex... >“We also make sure to design durable products,…
Greenwashing, pure and simple.
Maybe you have good reasons for disliking Apple. Maybe you have fair criticisms of the company, that's fine. However on environmentalism Greenpeace are the real deal. They put in the hard work of checking the details, and they absolutely know the difference between companies doing low effort environmental PR and those putting in the hard work to actually make a difference. Out of all the mainstream tech companies they rate Apple number one. If environmental concerns are a significant factor in your tech purchases, there is one clear best option and it's not even close. Now if there are other factors that matter to you more, that's fine. Your choice.